he led the nixon camp in the judiciary committee. he led the republican resistance to the impeachment. but even he when faced with this new incontrovertible evidence he decided he too must go. it actually made the front page of the "new york times" the next day. wiggins wasn't like in leadership or something. he wasn't speaker of the house or something. but i mean talk about a day in which you want to buy the paper, right? this was august 6, 1974, you see the banner headline there. nixon admits order to halt inquiry on watergate 6 days after break in. expects impeachment, support ebbs. see the upper right-hand column there, tapes released. there's two big fat columns there in the middle of the front page, the verbatim copy of nixon's statement about the disclosure of the tapes. but then also there above the fold, i mean next to the picture of the democratic leader tip o'neil, there's this back bench california congressman charles wiggins with his incredible head of hair, right? and he gets his own headline on the front page of "the n

he led the nixon camp in the judiciary committee. he led the republican resistance to the impeachment. but even he when faced with this new incontrovertible evidence he decided he too must go. wiggins wasn't like in leadership or something. he wasn't speaker of the house or something. but i mean talk about a day in which you want to buy the paper, right? this was august 6, 1974, you see the banner headline there. nixon admits order to halt inquiry on watergate 6 days after break in. expects impeachment, support ebbs. and the verbatim copy of nixon's statement about the disclosure of the tapes. but then also there above the fold, i mean next to the picture of the democratic leader tip o'neil, there's this back bench california congressman charles wiggins with his incredible head of hair, right? and he gets his own headline on the front page of "the new york times" that day specifically because he's the epitome of the staunch republican defender of nixon. he gets his own headline on the front page. wiggins for impeachment, others in go

he led the nixon camp in the judiciary committee. he led the republican resistance to the impeachment, but even he when faced with this new incon tree veritable evidence about what nixon had done, he too decided that nixon had to go. it actually made the front page of the "new york times" the next day. wiggins wasn't in leadership or anything. it wasn't like a -- you know, it wasn't speaker of the house or something. but i mean, talk about a day in which you want to buy the paper, right? this was august 6th, 1974. you see the banner headline there, nixon admits order to halt inquiry on watergate six days after break-in, expects impeachment. support ebbs. the upper right-hand column there, tapes released, and then there's two big fat columns in the middle of the front page, the verbatim copy of nixon's statement about the disclosure of the tapes. then also there above the fold, i mean, you know, next to the picture of the democratic leader tip o'neill, there's this back bench california congressman charles wiggins with his incredible

the house judiciary committee can do real work at this point. there's an opportunity to clarify the nature of this process. yes, the house impeachment committee -- sorry, the house intelligence committee did do an investigation, but the impeachment inquiry is continuing under the judiciary committee, as has been the case historically. they can call more witnesses. this is an opportunity for the president to get more witnesses. if he's really concerned about an allegation of abuse of power he should be defending himself. i don't think it makes sense to say it's foreclosed. not that ross said that. but there is a feeling out there that somehow this is all done and that once the intelligence committee's report comes in that's all that the judiciary committee will need, just as the starr report was the basis for the house judiciary committee's work in the clinton era. i don't think it has to be the case. i think there's an opportunity, there are people that need to be heard from like mr. bolton and others. so i would say that the house judiciary com

that is the first one under the house judiciary committee. let's get straight to the white house and cnn's sarah westwood. sarah, any word now from officials on what will happen on wednesday? >> reporter: well, alex, white house officials are being tight-lipped about whether a response went to the house judiciary committee on whether the white house plans to send a lawyer to this hearing on wednesday, the first in the judiciary committee as the impeachment proceedings move into a new phase. but white house officials speaking to cnn did say that they were not happy that chairman nadler had scheduled this hearing for wednesday when the president will be in london for the nato summit. but of course this offer from nadler to allow a counsel from the white house to be present put the white house in a bit of a tough position. because on the one hand we have heard complaints from trump official and trump allies all throughout this process about the lack of legal representation, about the fact president trump didn't feel he'd been given due process i

we also had staff for the house judiciary committee. but the impeachment staff, the person i interacted with was john doerr, and also his deputy, who was renard nussbaum, later counsel to president clinton. who also is a good friend of mine. i knew him. we talked from time to time. but i didn't interact with other members of the impeachment staff. timothy: did you see sort of evolution in the thinking of your colleagues? what were the high -- i mean, people who were on the fence. there must have been people on the fence in the beginning, on the democratic side certainly. rep. holtzman: well, i think in a way everybody was on the fence. none of us i believe had ever studied what impeachment meant in law school. and by the way, i think when i was on the house judiciary committee, all the members of the committee were lawyers. we didn't study the impeachment clause. nobody knew what a high crime and misdemeanor was. nobody had studied the standards. so while we might disagree with certain policies of the president, disagreeing with policie

it on to the judiciary committee. kicking off a new phase in the investigation. democrats say they are just following the constitution. >> they want to get at this president before everybody completely sees through the process sham of the elections for next year. >> every single member of the house of representatives will have to decide whether they want to put principle over party or the constitution ahead of corruption. jon: holly henneberg has the latest from washington. reporter: wednesday the house judiciary committee takes over and that's the committee that could draft articles of impeachment. the ask democrats efforts are working to bring the republicans over to their side on impeachment. >> i have been extremely troubled and disappointed by the behavior of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. their refusal to hold this president accountable and clearly go into their partisan corner and protect this president at any and all costs is troubling to me, and i believe it's troubling to the american people.

tonight, the judiciary committee will hear amendment. the committee will vote, with democrats sending it to the full house. congressional correspondent phil mattingly with more. >> reporter: amara and dave. it was a long straight and a late night, but an important night, for a couple reasons. first off, this was the next step for what is clearly going to lead to the impeachment of president trump. one more step forward for house democrats and their effort. one more step of trying to block the democrats by all of the republicans on the house judiciary committee. there's also the idea of framing, through the 41 members, republicans and democrats on the committee, giving the personal statements why they were for or against impeachment. listen to how one democrat and one republican put it. >> i believe that three questions should frame our debate. first, does the evidence show clearly that the president committed these acts. second, do they rise to the level of impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors. third, what are the consequences for ou

committee before the judiciary committee considered the articles of impeachment? >> well, i don't remember exactly when all of the deposition statements were released publicly, and some of them had been released publicly before that time, and we can go back to check the exact chronology. there are members of the judiciary committee who are also in other investigations. >> yes, i understand. certainly. it is my understanding that chairman schiff did not transmit all of the material collected be i the intelligence committee to the judiciary committee, and is that the case? >> it is still true to this day. >> and so you do not agree, and i would ask both of you that the house judiciary committee would have had the time and opportunity to review all of that information? >> we did not have that time and information and it is a violation of the house rules 660. >> all i can tell you is that the vast amount of what was produced publicly along the way, and i know that the intelligence committee made the commitment to release those depositions, and those deposition stateme

we also had staff for the house judiciary committee. but the impeachment staff, the person i interacted with was john doerr, and also his deputy, who was renard nussbaum, later counsel to president nix -- president clinton. who also is a good friend of mine. i knew him. we talked from time to time. but i didn't interact with other members of the impeachment staff. timothy: did you see sort of evolution in the thinking of your colleagues? what were the high -- i mean, people who were on the fence. there must have been people on the fence in the beginning, on the democratic side certainly. rep. holtzman: well, i think in a way everybody was on the fence. none of us i believe had ever studied what impeachment meant in law school. and by the way, i think when i was on the house judiciary committee, all the members of the committee were lawyers. we didn't study the impeachment clause. nobody knew what a high crime and misdemeanor was. nobody had studied the standards. so while we might disagree with certain policies of the president, disagre

the president of the united states has just lost hot house judiciary committee. two articles of impeachment have been passed. it now goes to a full vote on the floor of the house of representatives next week. much more of our special coverage right after this. skin sin #17... too many after-parties. new neutrogena® bright boost with dullness-fighting neoglucosamine. boosts cell turnover by 10 times for instantly brighter skin. bright boost neutrogena®. apps except work.rywhere... why is that? is it because people love filling out forms? maybe they like checking with their supervisor to see how much vacation time they have. or sending corporate their expense reports. i'll let you in on a little secret. they don't. by empowering employees to manage their own tasks, paycom frees you to focus on the business of business. ♪ music ♪ finduring the kayat friends and family event. come in and get 25-50% off everything. like this diamond necklace, now under six-hundred dollars. every best. gift. ever. begins with kay. that's ensure max protein, with high protein and

trump to the house judiciary committee. then on wednesday, live at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the house judiciary committee, led by chair jerrold nadler, will hold a public inquirly hearing on the constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment and will hear testimony from law professors. law feldman of yale chool, michael gearhart, and michael turley of georgetown university law school. follow the impeachment inquiry, on tv on c-span3, online at c-span.org or listen on the free c spand rail yode -- radio app. >> next we again show you house intelligence committee chair adam schiff's comments on the committee's inquiry report. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] mr. schiff: good afternoon. today we transmit the report of the work of three committees, the intelligence committee, the oversight committee, as well as the foreign affairs committee, into the

but that's what the judiciary committee final meeting actually means. it means it's on to the house floor and president trump is on his way to being impeached and in short order, the senate, not the house, will take up the mantle. the senate trial for president trump, to see if they have the votes to remove him from office. guys? >> thanks, phil. >>> impeachment light. witch hunt. president trump has used a lot of slogans for his imminent impeachment, downplaying it as a stunt by the democrats. the prospect of becoming the third u.s. president ever to be impeached is weighing heavily on mr. trump. more, now, from chief white house correspondent jim acosta. >> reporter: dave and amara, we are hearing that president trump is growing increasingly aggravated over the likelihood that he will be impeached. a trump adviser told me the coverage bugs him. a separate adviser says the president has been preparing for this moment for some time, suspecting for the better part of last year that democrats would try to impeach him after taking control of the house. thi

our judiciary committee became a rubber-stamp. i hope we recover because that's all we are doing right now, rubber-stamping what adam schiff does under his own time in his own way. a man who has also been after this president since day one and would not come and testify. that's the most amazing shocking thing to me in this whole process but i can understand why we have an impeachment, this is cutting to the fact, you don't like the guy. you don't like how he does business because when you start talking about the pressure on a foreign power to do something to even get to that remotely, you are having that in the transcript instead of giving us a favor or our country do us, you have to change to me. you have to change the facts. last time i checked, this country is not kind to those who are accused of having those in power to fit the game, that is not due process. here is why we are here, they never change. for facts that will never change. goes straight to the heart of anything outside of abuse, there is no pressure. the transcript

intelligence, not the judiciary committee. but that committee, too, followed a primarily closed process. republicans were denied the right to call witnesses or subpoena documents and the president was denied the right to representation in the committee's hearings. without respecting minority rights and without respecting due process rights of the president, how can anyone consider this a fair process? madam speaker, it gets worse. the articles of impeachment we are considering today are based on the schiff report. the final document produced by the intelligence committee and transmitted to the judiciary committee. but the schiff report includes unsubstantiated allegations, it includes in some cases news reports as the only evidence supporting so-called factual assertions, and it includes at least 54 different hearsay statements as assertions of evidence without any firsthand information from witnesses to corroborate those statements. the author of the author, chairman schiff, was never questioned by the judiciary committee, an

house of representatives the house judiciary committee weighing up evidence gathered by democrats who accuse president trump of abuse of power and obstruction and the democrats right now are questioning 4 constitutional experts at this impeachment hearing the scholars have been testifying to establish the gravity of president alleged crimes they include 3 witnesses 3 constitutional experts called by the democrats and one by the republicans who have been questioned by the democrats right now they will be questioned by republicans later as speak to melanie sloan who is a former federal prosecutor she is live with us from washington d.c. melanie thank you so much for your patience and for being with us what do you make of what we've heard so far in the past 2 hours. i think what we've heard norm aizen do is try and go through each and every element that the democrats want to use in the articles of impeachment and also have him go through all of the republican arguments for example we've heard repeatedly the republicans say because the ukraine is did not come out and make the announcement

our judiciary committee became a rubber stamp. i hope we recover because that's all we're doing right now is just rubber stamping what adam schiff did, under his own rules, again, a man who has also been out for this president since day one and would not come and testify. that's the most amazing, shocking thing to me in this whole process. i can understand why mr. raskin, who is eloquent in his discussion of the constitution and why we have an impeachment. let's just cut to the fact. you don't like the guy. you don't like the conversation. you don't like how he does business because at the end of the day when you start talking about pressure on a foreign power, again, to even get to that remotely you're having to change words in the transcript, instead of do us a favor for our country, do us, you have to change it to me. you have to change the facts. and the last time i checked, this country is not real kind to those who are accused, having those who are in power change the rules to fit their game. that's not due process. but i'm

committee before the judiciary committee considered the articles of impeachment? >> well, i don't remember exactly when all of the deposition statements were released publicly, and some of them had been released publicly before that time, and we can go back to check the exact chronology. there are members of the judiciary committee who are also in other investigations. >> yes, i understand. certainly. it is my understanding that chairman schiff did not transmit all of the material collected be i the intelligence committee to the judiciary committee, and is that the case? >> it is still true to this day. >> and so you do not agree, and i would ask both of you that the house judiciary committee would have had the time and opportunity to review all of that information? >> we did not have that time and information and it is a violation of the house rules 660. >> all i can tell you is that the vast amount of what was produced publicly along the way, and i know that the intelligence committee made the commitment to release those depositions, and those deposition stateme

our judiciary committee became a rubber stamp. i hope we recover, because that's all we're doing now is rubber stamping adam schiff. he would not come and testify. that's the most amazing thing to me in this whole process. i can understand why mr. ras ki is eloquent about why we have impeachment, let's cut to the chase. you don't like the guy. when you talk about pressure on a foreign power to do something for you personally or to even get to that remotely, wryou're having to change words in the transcript. you have to change the facts. the last time i checked, this country is not real kind to those who are a kupsd, having those who are empowered change the rules to fit the game. that's not due process. i'm going to go back over it because the chairman said, there are four facts that will never change. it goes straight to the heart of anything said outside abuse of power. there is no president trump or president zelensky. mr. sondland, after he got past his perfect opening statement when questioned said, that's what i presumed it

judiciary committee may still be working. we have one member of the committee on the way to the microphone in washington, we'll see who we have when we come back from this break. en we come back from this break these are r, not actors, who've got their eczema under control. with less eczema, you can show more skin. so roll up those sleeves. and help heal your skin from within with dupixent. dupixent is the first treatment of its kind that continuously treats moderate-to-severe eczema, or atopic dermatitis, even between flare ups. dupixent is a biologic, and not a cream or steroid. many people taking dupixent saw clear or almost clear skin. and, had significantly less itch. that's a difference you can feel. don't use if you're allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, which is severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems, such as eye pain or vision changes, or a parasitic infection. if you take asthma medicines, don't change or stop them without talking to your doctor. s

we tied up the intelligence committee. we tied up the judiciary committee. and by the way the ways and means committee had to give up their room. they couldn't even meet while you were doing all of this. so this impeachment investigation is being painted as a protection against future interference when in reality president trump's request looks back at the 2016 election. russia, russia is the winner in this exchange because they have disrupted the process. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, the gentleman is passionate about records. i should remind him that we have gotten no records from this white house, not a single document. at this time i would like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from florida, a distinguished member of the rules committee, ms. shalala. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. shalala: madam speaker, i come to impeachment with deep sadness. the facts of this case are painful and indisputable. we know that t

tonight that committee, the intelligence committee, voted to convey this report to the judiciary committee. what the judiciary committee will now do is they will review this evidence as part of their own decision-making process as to whether articles of impeachment should be drawn up against president trump. if the judiciary committee does decide to draw up articles of impeachment, they will vote on those as a committee. those articles would then be conveyed to the floor of the united states house and the full house would then vote on those articles of impeachment. if a majority of the house of representatives votes for any one of those articles of impeachment, president trump will be impeached. which is basically the constitutional equivalent of him being criminally charged, him being criminally indicted. if it does get that far, if even one of the articles of impeachment against president trump does pass the house, if he does get impeached in that way, which frankly seems likely at this point, the president will go on trial for those charges in the united states senate. that trial in the

we've seen the republicans on both committees, intelligence and judiciary committee have shown no inclination to grapple with the underlying facts and rather attack the process. i don't think that will change. people will watch the most for are there any of the 31 democrats that trump carried in 2016 who are showing hesitation about going down the road of impeachment. that is the most newsworthy thing. in 1998 republicans had two articles of impeachment were voted down on the floor because they have so many defections from their own members an the two that passed had five republicans vote against so that is a gage or standard by which to measure the degree of unity that the democrats achieve on this? >> one of the things i heard this morning in interview with jill lockhart, the former press secretary saying he thought the big difference between then and now, is that then during clnt impeachment there were minorities who were condemning his behavior. saying it doesn't rise to impeachment but condemning his behavior and even his attorney on the floor of the senate during the trial condemned his

and do you and your staff plan to present this report to the judiciary committee? chairman schiff: the rules provided by the judiciary committee provide that our staff counsel will present the report to the committee, so that's that's what we expect to take place. in terms of ranking member, it won't surprise you, i'm going to reserve comment. it is, i think, deeply concerning that at a time when the president of the united states was using the power of his office to dig up dirt on a political rival, that there may be evidence that there were members of congress complicit in that activity. now, there's a lot more to learn about that, and i don't want to state that that is an unequivocal fact, but the allegations are deeply concerning. our focus is on the president's conduct, first and foremost. it may be the role of others to evaluate the conduct of members of congress. thank you very much. >> house republican leaders also spoke to reporters about the impeachment inquiry report as members of the intelligence committee were voting behind closed doors on whether to a

as you will find out tomorrow, the sideshow of the schiff report is coming to the judiciary committee, where it should have been to start with. it should have been in our committee to start with. the committee failed miserably on so many counts this year. it was actually taken from us. what is more said about tomorrow is we are coming back not with what you have always seen an impeachment, and the history of clinton and next in, the judiciary committee was waiting, it does not anymore. with, going to start it let's talk about when and impeachable offenses. if the democrats already know they need to impeach him, why are we wasting time? i will tell you why, because we have a problem. they just came out of public hearings and private depositions. this will be the first impeachment that they have undisputed facts, but actually contradicting facts. quo, actualid pro pressure, anything actually done when the two participants on the call both said nothing was wrong and mr. zelensky said many times over we felt no pressure? i also want to focus just a moment on what is going on in our commit

members of the house judiciary committee, democratic caucus, will meet. to decide what they want to include in the articles of impeachment. there is impeachment and then there is impeachment light. some people feel they ought to limit the allegations the ukrainian question. there are others in the democratic caucus who believe they ought to expand them and include allegations relating to mother investigation. once that decision is made as to whether -- as to what they -- as to whether or not they are going to do narrow or broad, then they will be drafted i the staff and the judiciary committee will is when markup, which you read the bill for amendment. that is not a pretty process and not a simple process. in the clinton impeachment, the markup took three days. you have to remember, under the house rules, anybody can offer an amendment. then they get five minutes to debate. if you have 41 lawyers in the room times how many articles of impeachment, 1, 2, 3, or four, this could go on for a long time. anchor: in terms of the process, how could today's hearin

and reports to our committee that we need to actually proceed in our committee of the judiciary committee which is the committee of impeachment. i have a question, why are they hiding this stuff from us? they think they have such a case, give us a all the materials and don't let jerry nadler write a crazy letter on the 6th, we need to know who your witnesses are. this is why this is problematic exercise and made-for-tv event coming on wednesday. chris: chairman nadler has also written to the white house asking if they want to have a lawyer represent them at wednesday's hearing which will be with constitutional scholars, to actually mount a defense of the president the next week a week from monday. do you know whether the white house is going to participate? >> i think we're still looking at that, but i have a question for you, chris, why would they want to participate in just another rerun? we're back in rerun season here in the judiciary committee he. we had constitutional scholars from the mueller report whether this is impeachable offense this is waste of time. they have already this i

and reports to our committee that we need to actually proceed in our committee of judiciary committee, which is the committee of impeachment. i have a question, why are they hiding the stuff from us? if they think they have such a case, give us all the materials and don't let jerry nadler write a crazy letter that says on the sixth let us know who your witnesses are. we don't even have the information from the intelcommi. this is why this is a problematic exercise and simply a made-for-tv event coming on wednesday. >> chris: okay, chairman nadler has also written to the white house asking if they want ,o have lawyer to represent which is going to be with constitutional scholars, and to actually mount a defense of the president next week, a week from monday. do you know whether the white house is going to participate? >> representative collins: i think we are still looking at that, but but i have a question for you, chris. why would they want to print as of right and just another rerun -- we are back, by the way, in rerun here in the judiciary committee. we had constitutional scholars

house judiciary the judiciary committee is due to hold its 1st hearings and we'll be covering that for you live as soon as it begins. let's now bring in our diplomatic senior political analyst marwan bashara who joins us for more on the nato summit marwan if there was one word to sum up what's happened in london yesterday and today what would it be in your view well if you allow me i'm going to borrow from a hollywood title it seems to me for for the time being it's politics lies and videotape. certainly the videotape stalling the scene at the words the end of the summit with present from the ready cooled by his partners. a clear there's a lot of politics we know that the main leaders there at nato they're all facing challenges at home whether it's president trump with his impeachment voters jumps in with elections. chancellor merkel leaving the sea and of course mccrone has his own troubles at home with the strikes and so on so forth there's been lots of politics going on. and certainly there's been a good a good a good amount of lies by the lead there's you know the fact checkers i'm

committee will continue this open it up for debate more debate and then potentially the judiciary committee will take a vote that would then send it to a vote of the full house of representatives that could come as early as next week. our rights are gabriel is on the thank you for that update from washington. leader has rejected i.q. stations of genocide by her government against ring of minorities as misleading to cheat all the international court of justice the military has been conducting a legitimate operation against armed groups in rakhine states when he reports from the. state council and head of government arrived at the international court of justice she was welcomed by supporters chanting we stand with you. but anyone hoping that aung san suu kyi a nobel peace prize winner would take this opportunity to at last stand with the reading would be disappointed in opening me a mass defense against genocide charges she said the picture the gambia presented to the court was misleading and incomplete the situation in rakhine is complex and not easy to fathom but one thing surely touches on

the judiciary committee today has 24 members. hold those members today law degrees. 15 republicans, 4 of those members sit on the intelligence committee, which held its own series of hearings on impeachment. eric swalwell, val demings, jim ratcliffe. john there are 12 freshman members on the judiciary committee, 8 of republicans.s, 4 the oldest member, jim sensenbrenner. the oldest member, jonah goose -- committee counsel will once again take center stage at today's impeachment hearings. republican steve castor will anve double duty, providing opening argument and presenting the case against impeachment. steve castor also working with the judiciary committee serves the minority counsel and is the former chief investigative counsel for house oversight, so he made the rounds in several committees for republicans on the house side. he practiced commercial litigation in philadelphia and washington, d.c., degrees from george washington university law school. daniel goldman will present the case for impeachment, viewers will remember h

i want to thank the chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. chair of the intelligence committee, mr. ways and air of the chairman richie neal of massachusetts, the chair affairs reign committee, eliot engel of new financialchair of the services committee, maxine chair of california, the of the committee on government eform and oversight, congresswoman carolyn maloney. the o want to acknowledge important work that was done by our dear and departed, may he peace, elijah cummings as chair of the oversight committee. now please to yield to the distinguished chair of the judiciary committee, mr. nadler. mr. nadler: thank you, madam speaker. months, last several the investigative committees of the house have been engaged in inquiry into president donald trump's efforts to solicit foreign interference 2020 elections. efforts that compromised our and threatenedty the integrity of our elections. inquiry, he's attempted to conceal the evidence from congress and from american people. our president holds the ultimate public trust. when he betrays that tru

we have all of that here. >> you are the vice chair of the judiciary committee. how do you and jerry nadler expect to maintain order during what's sure to be a rather fiery debate? >> our side of the aisle, we take this extremely seriously. we're here out of duty to country. we don't take it kindly and i don't think the american people will take it kindly if people try to turn this into a circus. >> what do you expect for tomorrow's hearing when all 44 members of the judiciary committee will be attempting to introduce amendments. >> we have been discussing articles of impeachment and i think we are very comfortable where they are. i can't speak to what the republicans are going to do because they made it very clear they have no interest in the facts. they only want to raise a ruckus in order to distract. >> your committee is taking up these two articles of impeachment. we understand chairman, jerry nadler, actually pushed for a third article as well. where do you stand on that overall debate? >> people push for a lot of things and you govern by consensus and that

there are certain members of the judiciary committee also members of other investigative committees. >>> i understand. it's my understanding chairman schiff did not translate all to the judiciary committee, is that the case? >> it is still true to this day. >> would you not agree, i ask this of both of you, the house judiciary committee should have had the time and opportunity to review the material collected. did you vote to have that time and opportunity? >> we did not. a direct violation house resolution 660. >> all i can tell you is that the vast amount of what we ended up getting was elised publicly along the way. the intelligence committee made the commitment to release the deposition statements publicly. i've considered it a fair and transparent process. i don't think i got to see a single thing through the judiciary committee i was not just seeing come out and being released by the intelligence committee. all of it is in the final report. it's there for all of america to see. i don't want us to lose sight of the big picture. >> we really don't know if it's all in the final re

sits on the senate judiciary committee who will be a juror. good to have you with us tonight. a democrat says this is why we have arrived at this moment. >> when the sign says in case of emergency break glass there better be one heck of an emergency. i did not call for impeachment before but i call for impeachment today because this is one heck of an emergency. shannon: the president left them no choice. >> they say the president left them no choice, are they suggesting the republic is going to tip over as representative johnson might suggest? i think not. what we see from the hearings yesterday, the overwhelming force of the federal government has been artist in such a way as to harm the president of the united states. it failed, they are not going to tolerate this anymore. what we saw through this hearing was a series of events that showed that the fbi was weapon eyes. waging a political war against a presidential candidate they despise or alternatively they were so incompetent that they allow the 2 bit foreign political operative to wage wa

to lobby washington know to be on the judiciary committee. in those days, freshmen members of congress -- i remember coming down, and i remember the ways and means committee made the decision. the democrats, the republican members of the committee for the newly elected members of congress. i went down to the ways and means committee and it did not to me any good. he vacated the seat. the seat was empty. i was a lawyer. they were putting me on it no matter what. in myquite crestfallen first venture down to washington. i thought, this is not an auspicious beginning and i was very disappointed. who suffer --s you served with my predecessor, i thought would be hostile to me. that conduct not to be true. >> you thought it was going to be a backwater? certainly did i not think it was going of biafra water, put it that way. and they never would have me on the house judiciary committee if -- thed any inkling members were very important, very senior. they never would have put me on the house judiciary committee if they had any idea that impeachment wo

thank you very much as you look alive at the house floor, the house judiciary committee. we will be tossing here to martha in new york. but thank you for inviting us into your home tonight. that is it for "special report," fair, balanced, and unafraid. we have you covered on all stories. and here is martha maccallum with "the story" from new york. >> with the committee staff to observe 11 cpb facilities, 13 i.c.e. detention facilities, and in six facilities that contract with hhs. >> martha: there has not been a presidency without actions that were considered wrong or scandalous, controversies that plagued them throughout the presidencies to varying degrees. everybody will judge for themselves whether these situations are egregious or if they are even impeachment worthy. but we are advised today from letting it become a political havoc. here's a moment from today's markup from congressman kelly armstrong of north dakota. >> ronald reagan was accused of abuse of power. clinton excluding the impeachment was accused of abusive accusations. george w. bush was accused of abuse

you recall throughout the process, wolf, in the intelligence committee and now in the judiciary committee that the white house is essentially said all along this process not fair and you've not allowed us to have our lawyers in the room for some of the proceedings and we've not been able to cross-examine witnesses and so on and that is what the judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler was inviting the white house to do through the rest of the process, to have lawyers in the room and participate in the process and the white house is now saying all of this is a sham. all of it is a hoax. we're not going to be involved in what they describe as a baseless process and a baseless inquiry. the other thing we should point out, wolf, and this is happening over the last 48 hours, ever since the house speaker nancy pelosi came out and said they're moving forward with articles of impeachment moving toward articles of impeachment in the house. over here at the white house, a spokesperson hogan gidley and tony segue, a communications adviser to the president on the impeachment process have been warnin

judiciary committee may still be working. we have at least one member of the committee on the way to the microphone in washington, we'll see who we have when we come back from this break. (speaking japanese) where am i? (woman speaking french) are you crazy/nuts? cyclist: pip! pip! (woman speaking french) i'm here, look at me. it's completely your fault. (man speaking french) ok? it's me. it's my fault? no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. (pterodactyl screech) believe it. geico could save you 15% or more on car insurance. (children playing) (dog barking) ♪ (music building) experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. o♪ ozempic®! ♪ oh! oh! (announcer) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached

we're waiting for the start of the judiciary committee. the gavel will go down momentarily, but let's get a likely preview of what to expect today. last night there were many, many statements. listen to how republican congressman kelly armstrong of north dakota framed his defense of president trump. listen to this. >> so here we are tonight on an ambiguous abuse of power charge. this began the day president trump was elected, and it's culminated here. but this never-ending march towards impeachment and overturning the results of the 2016 election has consequences. because you are telling 63 million voters that you don't respect or honor their vote. >> joining us now, congressman kelly armstrong of north dakota. congressman, thanks so much for joining us. and very briefly, give us your strategy. what is likely to happen over the next several hours? >> we are going to continue to make our case why these articles of impeachment are ill-advised, streamlined and moving forward on an artificial data but clock and a calendar. this has gone incred

eastern, the house judiciary committee led by chair jerrold nadler, will hold a public inquiry hearing on the constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment, and will hear testimony from law professors. nora feldman of harvard law school, pamela feldman, michael turley. and jonathan follow the impeachment inquiry. watch live on c-span3, online at www.c-span.org, or listen free on the c-span radio app. on tuesday, the house intelligence committee released its impeachment inquiry report on president trump and ukraine based on evidence collected during closed-door depositions and two weeks of public hearings. committee chair adam schiff discussed the report in a news conference that took place a few hours before the committee went on to adopt the findings by a partyline vote of 13-9. rep. schiff: good afternoon. today, we transmit the report of the work of three committees, the intelligence committee, the oversight committee, as well as the foreign affairs committee, into the president's misconduct with respect to ukraine. and at the outset, i want to just thank the incredible member

judiciary committee. on wednesday, live at 10 a.m. eastern, the house judiciary committee will hold a public inquiry hearing on the constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment and will hear testimony from law professors. , michael gerhart, and jonathan turley from the george washington university law school. faulty impeachment inquiry, watch live online ses beto o'rourke or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> we are back and will you be talking about the impeachment process going on in the u.s. capitol with two men who know the subject very well. we will start with daniel freeman, first and could have them tell about themselves. alan. tell us little bit about yourself. what your background with impeachment. guest: my background with impeachment starts with the impeachment of chairman of the judiciary committee who hired me to do that. while i was doing that one another one came up of walter nixon. so i did those two and then there was a gap of quite a few years and then i did two more. kent,po

all that will have to be voted out of the house judiciary committee. and then, the week after, they vote on the house floor whether or not to impeach president donald trump. if that's the move the democrats want to move, it would make donald trump the third in history be to be impeached. >>> speaker nancy pelosi had this scathele answer to a reporting. a reporter from the sinclair broadcast group asked if she hates president trump. she came back with a passionate no. >> as a catholic, i resent your using the word hate in a sentence that addresses me. i don't hate anyone. i was raised in a way that is a heart full of love. and always pray for the president. and i still pray for the president. i pray for the president all the time. so, don't mess with me when it comes to words like that. >> president trump reacted with a tweet. he accused pelosi of having a, quote, nervous fit in that moment and lying about praying for him. pelosi was asked about the reporter's question and the president's tweet at cnn's town hall last night. >> the word hate is a terrib

tonight that committee, the intelligence committee voted to convey this report to the judiciary committee. what the judiciary committee will now do, they will review this evidence as part of their own decision making process as to whether articles of impeachment should be drawn up against president trump. if the judiciary committee does decide to draw up articles of impeachment, they would vote on those, and those articles would then be convey today the floor of the united states house and the full house would then vote on those articles of impeachment. if a majority of the house of representatives votes for any one of those articles of impeachment, president trump will be impeached. which is basically the constitutional equivalent of him being criminally charged, him being criminally indicted. if it does get that far, if even one articles of impeachment against president trump does pass the house, if he does get impeached in that way which frankly seems likely at this point, the president will go on trial for those charges in the united states senate. that trial in the senate would be ov

they're leaving that up to the judiciary committee? >> chairman schiff has gone above and beyond so many times. it won't surprise me if he made recommendations because it's nancy pelosi that has been pulling the strings, whether they're chairman schiffs or nadler's, in the entire process. the evidence in here, half of it is allegations. the other half is foot notes to hearing testimony that is primarily hearsay. so you know, as a former prosecutor, i know that if criminal rules of procedure are violated, the case cannot go forward. this case should not be going forward. it's just been partisan hackery from the start and should be abandoned. >> trace: and he relitigated his fact for what he says he believes is fact. the idea that the president gave up the aid by good will is false. he said he gave up the aid because he got caught. the gop response is look, congress was going to give the aid regardless. >> you know, chairman schiff should take this show on the road. he's a good mind reader, he ought to go in the circus. his practice here

they voted in the house judiciary committee to impeach him. he then resigned before a full vote on the house floor. bill clinton, 1998. now donald trump in 2019. all right. so these two articles, jeffrey, of impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction of justice. give us the evidence. what are the democrats saying? why was there abuse of power and why was there obstruction of justice? excuse me, obstruction of congress. >> right. the abuse of power element, article, is based on the preside president's interactions with the president of ukraine. not just his phone call, but the entire relationship leading up to his discovery of what he was doing. basically, the allegation is, by going to the government of ukraine, both directly in his phone call and through his intermediaries, the president abused his power by using the leverage he had through the power to hold a white house meeting with the president of ukraine definitely wanted, and nearly $400 million in military aid, using that leverage to get political dirt on his political -- on his oppon

there are more than 40 members of the judiciary committee. each member will have an opportunity to ask questions. let's get back to our experts and i specifically want to know what you're looking for this morning? >> well, what i'm thinking about why it is that the ukraine facts have resulted in today, have resulted in this hearing and these proceedings and the mueller report didn't. i think there's two reasons for that. one is that it pertains to the sbeg gri of it our elections. the allegations concern what the president did while he was president trying to solicit foreign interference in the election. and the second piece has to do with national security and defense. the fact that the naktsz are put forth are that he was withholding the defense assistance. there was the white house meeting as well. i think the withholding of the defense assistance and using potentially foreign policy and national security authorities for personal political gain is the central issue. what i'm looking for is whether or not the republican counsel ever takes o