, explained that such a resolution from the house has always been passed by the house. it is a necessary step if we are to meet our obligations. so we begin this process with an authorized subpoenas that impose no compulsion on the executive branch to respond with documents or witnesses at are we coming back to that point, that threshold foundational point when we get to the obstruction charge. the second fundamental due process error is that the house democrats denied the president basic due process required by the constitution and by fundamental principles of fairness in the procedures that they do for the hearings. do. as we heard from judge starr house democrats essentially abandoned the principles that have governed impeachment inquiries in the house for over 150 years. i will touch on just a few points and respond to a couple of points to house managers have made. the first is that in denying due process rights the house proceedings were a huge reversal from the position house democrats themselves have taken in the recent past, particularly in the clinton impeachm

not all housing, but public housing. >> mr. madrid: public and city-owned housing. >> city facilities that are not project managed by public works. if public works is the primary project manager for the city facility, when the public works access team is doing those reviews. >> mr. madrid: thank you for that. and so my question is, when you're saying that some adaptable units for someone who needed grab bars, showerhead, whatever may be, i just wonder how come it has to be -- written? so if someone needed that -- needed to move in, it's ready for them to use that. i have to work six months to get it done. can you tell us how that process -- how come it's like that? >> nicole: well, i can try. some of this is all set by the code. so there is -- so in terms of percentages and the numbers, that is all identified through the california building code. and so i think -- but i think the city's intention and i think this would be a good question for when our colleagues in the mayor's office on housing come in, the intention is that if

the house did its job. in the face of the presence of obstruction and categorical commitment to hide the evidence, we still gathered direct evidence of the conduct and determined that his conduct required impeachment. the president complains about due process in the house investigation, but he was not only permitted to participate, he was actually required to participa participate, and yet he refused to, and refused to provide the witnesses and documents to tell his side of the story, and so now it is up to you w. the backing of the subpoena authorized by the chief justice of the united states, you can end president trump's obstruction. if the senate fails to take this step, or you don't ask for this evidence, this trial and your verdict is questioned. congress and the american people deserve the full truth. there is no plausible reason why anyone wouldn't want to hear all of the available evidence about the president's conduct. it is up to this body to make sure that happens. it is up to you to decide if t

in the people's house house every congressperson gets a vote we note the concept. one person, one vote. more generally, the president, as i reviewed the record, has consistently and scrupulously followed the advice and counsel of the justice department and in particular the office of legal counsel. he has been obedient. as you know, that important office, many of you have had your own experiences professionally with that office is staffed with lawyers of great ability and it has a reputation for superb work. it has done such thoughtful work in both democratic and republican administrations and the office is now headed by a brilliant lawyer who served as a law clerk to justice anthony kennedy. the house may disagree with the guidance provided to the president by that office and the house frequently does disagree. but for the president to follow the guidance of the department of justice with respect to an interbranch legal and constitutional dispute cannot reasonably be viewed as an obstruction and most emphatically not as an impeachable offense. history, once again,

house voted on the resolution. i think it was resolution 803 to authorize the impeachment inquiry. all of that was gathering work in the public domain or by other committees and flofs come pulse over process issued. in fact, the chairman specifically determined when there was a move to have the house committee issue subpoenas after the saturday night massacre, that the committee lacked the authority to issue any come pulsory process until there was a full vote to authorize the committee to do that. this is not an esoteric rule. this was just a fundamental rule under the constitution about how authority that has been given by we the people to chambers of the legislature, the house or the senate, once it is given there to the house, how does it get to committee? kit only get down to a committee if it is delegated by the house. that can only happen with votes. there no, sir longstanding rule that gives the house judiciary committee authority to use the power of impeachment as opposed to the authority to legislate. the

they obeyed the house subpoenaed and testified before the house. in all, we know that by issuing the blanket order and later the specific orders, president trump prevented at least 12 current or former administration officials from testifying during the house's impeachment inquiry. he specifically forced nine of the witnesses to defy dually authorized subpoenas. the facts are straight forward and they are not in dispute. first, in the history of our republic, no president ever dared to issue an order to prevent even a single government witness from testifying in an impeachment inquiry. second, president trump abused the power of his office by using the official power in an attempt to prevent every single person who works in the executive branch from testifying before the house. finally, president trump's orders in fact prevented the house from attaining key witness testimony from at least 12 current or former government officials. president trump's orders were clear. they were categorical. they were indiscriminant and they were wrong. they prevente

president, numbers of the senate i announce the managers on the house of representatives. and conduct the proceedings on half of the house concerning the impeachment of president donald trump. >> on the part of the house will be received and escorted to the well of the senate. >> the sergeant at arms will make the proclamation. >> hear ye, hear you, hear ye, all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment. while the house of representatives is exhibiting with the senate of the united states articles of impeachment against donald john a 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 representatives are present and ready to resent the articles of appeasement which have been referred by the house of representatives against donald and john a trump, president of the united states. the house adopted the following resolutions which with permission of the senate, i will read. house resolution 798, appointing and authorizing managers for the impeachment tri

i was a house painter. i used to go and paint other people's apartments and then come back home to mine and i would say why couldn't i live in a place like that. and now i do. >> the teams really, really went above and beyond and is continuing to do that today. this past year, the san francisco public utilities commission water quality division started receiving many more requests to test for lead in the public school system here in san francisco as a result of legislation that had passed from the state requiring all of the public schools to do lead testing. and so as a result, the public utilities commission and the water quality team in particular was asked to meet with the san francisco unified school district to begin to prioritize which schools to test to meet that state mandate. >> the team that tests, we're a full service environmental laboratory, and we take care of both the needs of the water quality division and the waste water enter price. and on the water quality enterprise, we have to also have

the house has adopted articles of impeachment and the argument by the houses -- house is i want the district court to give me a judgment, then that does entrench on the senate's prerogative. i want to back up which the house has now adopted two articles of impeachment that don't have anything to do with the premise of this case. they concern the events that occurred after the mueller report was completed. it -- in its supplemental brief, there are two things. the house wants to use the information in the senate trial and if you look at the impeachment report for any witnesses discussed, the trump tower meeting, they don't appear. appears place any of it is the end of the discussion of article one inconsistency with prior conduct and there is one paragraph mentioned andy holt -- a two-page section is shedding light on the approved articles of impeachment. >> what about the house support that itsosition consideration of other articles of impeachment are ongoing? >> let me say a few things about that. first, the representation by house lawyers in this court, i think it is telling that

is more than just the capital in the white house. but because we host them, we hear about all the partisan bickering all the time, from the white house we hear fearmongering and we hear indecisivene indecisiveness. we can solve our nation's pressing problems if we have the right leader in place to turn innovative ideas, i like to say fresh ideas, into reality. and mike bloomberg is the only candidate who will unify our country and defeat donald trump. [ cheers and applause ] and has a blueprint to rebuild america and improve the quality of life for all americans. he is committed to giving every american a fair shot through his housing affordability and all-in economy plans, putting an end to gun violence with common sense gun reforms. and mitigating the causes of climate change. i've known mike for many years. and i know firsthand his longstanding commitment to making cities stronger, more prosperous, and more inclusive. and that's why today i'm endorsing mike bloomberg to be president of the united states. [ cheers and applause ] so

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

the house will be in order. house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the gentleman. the argument made by the gentleman from texas, the best argument the majority has made thus far, focused on upholding the rule of law, but a hallmark of rule of law is proportionality of punishment. if the president were caught, if any president were caught speeding at 100 miles per hour, he would have to be disciplined so others would not feel reckless speeding was permissible, but we certainly wouldn't use a political equivalent of capital punishment, impeachment, to discipline that president. on the other hand, if the president accepted a bribe, there would be no doubt he should be impeached and all 435 of us would vote for it. lying under oath about an extramarital relationship requires significant punishment such as censure, but not the political version of capital punishment, impeachment. my colleagues, the rule of law requires that the punishment fit the crime. allow us to vote for censure, the appropriate pu

. >> the house will be in other. >> for 40 years, c-span busy been providing coverage of the white house, the supreme coufert and public policy events from washington, d.c. and acrass the country, so you can make up your own mind created by cable in 1979. c-span is brought to you by your local cable and satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> today, marked the beginning of the second session of the 116th congress. senate majority leader opened the session by talking about the killing of an ian leader in iraq. he went on to talk about the impeachment of president trump. he was followed by senator chuck schumer to discuss the same topics. this is about 45 minutes. mr. mcconnell: this morning iran's master terrorist is dead. the architect and chief engineer of the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism has been removed from the battlefield at the hand of the united states military. no man alive was more directly responsible for the deaths of more american service members than qasem soleimani. the leader of the quds force within iran's islamic revenuesary g

but the chairman of the house intelligence committee and the chairman of the house judiciary committee decided not to. they decided their inquiry was finished, and moved right ahead. house chose not to pursue the same witnesses they apparently would now like, would now like the senate to precommitment to pursuing ourselves. as i've been saying for weeks, nobody, nobody will dictate senate procedure two united states senators. majority of us are committed to upholding the unanimous bipartisan clinton precedent against outside influences with respect to the proper timing of these mid-trial questions. and so if any amendments are brought forward to force premature decisions on mid-trial questions, i will move to table such amendments and protect our bipartisan precedent. if a sanded and moves to amend the resolution and order subpoenas specific witnesses or documents, i will move to table such motions because the senate will decide those questions later in the trial, just like we did back in 1999. now, mr. president, today may present a curious situation. we may hear house managers themse

the house calls john bolton. the house calls john bolton. the house calls mick mulvaney. let's get this trial started shall we- we are ready to present our case we are ready to call our witnesses the question is. will you let us. that is the question before us. mister filmon says well if i should have been court said i wasn't ready the judge would throw me out of the court of course we're not saying we're not ready. but you know what happened if mr feldman went into a court. and the judge said. i've made a deal with the defendant. i'm not gonna let the prosecutor call any witnesses i'm not gonna

house aides, including the white house counsel, the former chief of staff and multiple senior advisors to president clinton. president clinton himself gave testimony on camera and under oath. he also allowed his most senior advisors, including multiple chiefs of staff and white house counsels, to testify in the investigation that led to his impeachment. and as you can see in the chart, their testimony was packaged and delivered to the senate. there were no missing witnesses who had defied subpoenas, no aides who had personal knowledge of his misconduct were directed to stay silent by president clinton. we have an entirely different situation in this case. here we are seeking witnesses the president has blocked from testifying before the house. apparently president trump thinks that he can do what no other president before him has attempted to do in such a brazen fashion, float above the law and hide the truth from the american people. that cannot be allowed to stand. let me now address some bedrock principles about congress's authority to conduct investigations. our broad powers of inq

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

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

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

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

there are 71 requests by the house and the white house produced zero documents. seventy-one requests. zero documents. president trump is personally responsible with that senate of information and what to consider in the trial. when faced with the congressional impeachment inquiry set up by the framers of the constitution in article one the president refused to comply in any respect and ordered his senior aides to fall in line. in response to his obstruction 12 key witnesses refused to appear for testimony and the house impeachment inquiry. no one has heard what they have to say. these witnesses that the abuse of power. what is the president hiding? equally troublesome? they did not make any legitimate attempt to make a reasonable accommodation with the house to compromise with any document request or subpoena. why? because president donald john trump was not interested in corroborating but interested in a cover-up. so think about what he is doing complete and total presidential obstruction is unprecedented in american history. even president nixon whose articles

as the house presentation will make clear, the president's coverup started even before the house began to investigate the ukraine activity. the president learned early on of the existence of a lawful whistle-blower complaint from within the intelligence community that would ring the first alarm. he deployed the white house and the justice department to intervene in an unprecedented fashion, to concealed and withhold from congress for the first time ever a credible and urgent whistle-blower complaint, even though the law requires that it be provided to the congressional intelligence committees. once the impeachment inquiry was under way in late september, the president used the immense and unique power at his disposal to direct and maintain at every turn the categorical defiance of congressional scrutiny. even as he attacked the inquiry itself and its witnesses. the president offered multiple and shifting justifications for obstructing the house's inquiry. each of them deficient, while his actions and statements powerfully reflect his own consciousness of guilt. second, the ramification

to house coverage here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us fray. dear god we give you thanks for giving us another. -- another day. we ask your special blessing upon the members of this people's house. they face difficult decisions in difficult times, with many forces and interests demanding their attention. in these days give wisdom to all the members that they might execute their responsibilities to the been fit of all americans -- benefit of all americans. bless them, o god, and be with them and with us all this day and every day to come. may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his pproval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from new york, mr. rose. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic fo

. >> this achieve justice, senators, counsel for the president, house managers on behalf of the house of representatives, rise in opposition to leader mcconnell's resolution. let me begin by summarizing why. last week, we came before you to present the articles of impeachment against a president of the united states for only the third time in our history. those articles charge president donald john trump of attraction is the mostles series against the president. the first article, abuse of power, charges the president with soliciting a foreign power to help him cheat in the next election. moreover, it alleges and we will prove that he sought to course ukraine into helping him cheat by withholding official acts -- two official acts. a meeting that the new president of ukraine desperately sought with ukraine at the white house to show the world and the russians in particular that the ukrainian president had a good relationship with his most important patron, the president of the united states. and even more perniciously, president trump illegally withheld almost $400 million in taxpayer

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

house and the senate are different institutions. t this point in time, controlled by different parties. as james madison wrote in the federalist papers, the purpose bicameralism is to guard gainst the dangers of encroachment and to stop toxic resolutions from taking effect. we saw separation of powers prevail against an abuse of power. constitution intends. the idea of withholding a sloppy mpeachment case to force the senate to change its rules is constitutionally and politically of.ard frankly, it's just ridiculous. 5, the le 1, section constitution clearly states -- the house may determine roles of its proceedings. it doesn't say the house may roles of its proceedings in the senate. he speaker's actions have only persuaded members of the senate that evidence of -- that the impeachment was neither thuro or satisfactory. satisfactory. let's be honest. this was never about persuasion. about the rule of law. it was about alexander alexander is what hamilton warned us, that one arty would get control, and just because of the animosity

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.

>> well, again, if the house -- it's the house's job to provide in it investigation, and as we look at firsthand knowledge, we've already had firsthand witnesses that continue to say that the president didn't condition the aid. one of the best firsthand witnesses is the actual president of ukraine who said that he felt no pressure. that doesn't change, regards of what ambassador bolton says, it doesn't change. >> what whatever conversations n like from the white house or majority leader mcconnell that there will not be -- across the aisle and allowing democrats to call witnesses? >> for all of this, house members, we would all agree, i think i speak for all of us, giving advice mouse to mitch mcconnell and my senate colleagues is normally not a good idea. and so in doing that my advice to leader mcconnell and to all my republican colleagues is look at the evidence, assess the evidence can assess the worst case of the evidence, and if indeed this president should be acquitted, then vote to acquit. and you think you can look at the worst case of the facts that it represented and still vo

after the house has provided. will be conferring, we'll meet again before we go in session monday. we'll talk about tuesday and probably not going to cut to that until wednesday.

vote from the house. and those statements simply aren't accurate. there is supreme court precedent explaining very clearly the principle that a committee of either house of congress gets its authority only by a resolution from the parent body. united states versus romely and watkins versus united states make this very clear. and it's common sense. the constitution assigns the sole power of impeachment to the house of representatives. to the house. not to any member, not to a subcommittee. and that authority can be delegated to a committee to use only by a vote of the house. it would be the same here in the senate. the senate has the sole power to try impeachments. but if there were no rules that had been adopted by the senate, would you think that the majority leader himself could simply decide that he would have a committee receive evidence, handle that, submit a recommendation to the senate and that would be the way that the trial would occur? without a vote from the senate to give authority to that com

there will be 6,514 units of housing when all is said and done, of which 29% will be affordable housing. for commercial there will be 5 million square feet. for office, lab, and clinical use, 560,000 square feet of neighborhood serving retail, and event center, for ucsf there is a campus where they are provided 43 acres. they will be building the .6 million square feet of developments. 550 bed hospital complex, 250 room hotel, a public library in public safety building with fire and police stations, and public schools. a little bit of context here in the map, north of mission creek is mission bay north project area. this is residential and commercial. to the south is mission bay south project area. the residential area is in the northern portion and the commercial is in the southern portion. in the center, the ucsf campus that i spoke about is located there. also in the previous slide we talked about 40,000 linear feet. that is about seven and a half miles of new roads and streets. you can see where they started to put the grid together. in addition to the streets, there's all the infra

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

bolton you have to hear from him in the house. if you don't mind me finishing my, that would be wonderful. where they have the ability to hear from him and continue to work as we do so then we would be able to do america's priorit- >> i would go one step further to say even if everything in bolton's book happens to be true in everything he testifies happens to be true or he happens to be called. i still do not believe that that rises to the level of the impeachable offenses that the houses charged the president with. we heard 54 questions and answers so far today and at the rate recording will probably hear 160 total. we will have an opportunity for all of our members to hear more information but i'm committed to go to the end of the day on friday and cast a vote to say and ready to go to final judgment, i don't see a need for any additional witnesses america has heard enough. most people do not realize under the system that the senate can do no other work until work through with impeachment which means working on drugs, highway b

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

as data from the first housing report highlights, we aren't simply in a housing crisis, we're in a housing affordability crisis and our unique challenges in san francisco require thought. data-driven solutions. not broad stroke mandate based on a mentality or blind faith or even mitigate our affordability crisis. last week the g.a.o. committee approved my proposed amendments to the board's original resolution. the amendments clearly state the need for sb50 to ensure that existing area plans are respected and allow the community to engage in planning to increase housing density giving communities a seat at the table. number two, capture more of the value conferred to developers when we up-zone and direct it to affordable housing and community benefits. number three, provide meaningful funded and enforceable protections against displacement and gentrification. and number 4, ensure there is adequate transportation resources to go alongside housing development. i went to work in good faith with the state representatives as we work on our local efficients on community planning and affordable ho

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

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 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. then you hear the president's counsel get up and say, well, they should have brought the evidence, they shoul

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

coming up tonight on c-span, house speaker nancy pelosi announces the senate house impeachment managers. the u.s. house on sending the articles of impeachment to the senate. that's followed by the and grossman ceremony where speaker pelosi signs the impeachment resolution and the managers walk the resolution to the senate. later, senate majority leader mcconnell announces the schedule for the impeachment trial in the senate. [inaudible] >> good morning, everyone. this is a very important day for us. founders and poets and others use used over time to place in time, to emphasize the importance of time. everything is about time. how we market. today is an important day. because today is the day that we name the managers who go to the floor to pass the resolution to transmit the articles of impeachment to the senate and later in the day when we have our engrossment, that we march those articles of impeachment to the united states senate. as i've said, it's always been our founders when they started, when in the course of human events it becomes necessary when. abraham lincoln four score an

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

, the white house denied these key witnesses in the house. the president says he wants to call them, let's call them. was called john bolton who called this a drug deal and all that supports this characterization. >> bret: you say it's the house's job, they should've waited, they should've done it, that the pitch about urgency and holding on to the articles for 33 days doesn't really line up. what do you say? >> first of all, the house did act like a grand jury investigation and when you get to trial you often have more evidence and information and witnesses. that's exactly the point. it is fair to wait to try to get an agreement from the senate that the trial will be fair. like we hope most trials in america will be. for example pure just the other night, i offered an amendment to say, let's let the chief justice to the united states make the preliminary ruling on request for witnesses and documents. but the chief justice was not needed by republican president, he can call the balls and strikes. let's let him decide what's a relevant witness

i know dan adams is here from the mayor's office of housing. thank you for doing amazing work around affordable housing every day. with that i want to introduce thsupervisor for this district r small site acquisition, supervisor fewer. [applause] >> thank you. first i want to start off by saying a big thanks to a lot of people. meta coming out here and buying this property for us and managing it. it is a gift. i know it is out of your geographic area. thank you for keeping these homes here. to our may orthopedic and t -- . it takes everyone together. the san francisco housing accelerator fund and of course our rock star tenants of 359 third avenue. i want to say this is why we are able to do this and this is why we do this. i also really want to thank the housing rights committee. we have a west side site. there are partners in everything. they are the first people we go to when we hear about a building going to be for sale. when people e-mail to say, help, my building is being sold. i don't know what to do. i have lived here for 44 years. we c

watching thee house speaker nancy pelosi and the house managers delivering the articles of impeachment to the senate, the signing of the paperwork. it is very ceremonial. quite fascinating, even as you pointed out this is unlikely to go beyond the senate. in terms of what happens next, the house speaker said she is not sure of the timing of the democratic impeachment managers could head to the senate as early as tomorrow morning to read the articles of impeachment out loud. later in the day, chief justice john roberts would be sworn in to preside over the impeachment trial and he will swear in the senators as jurors. president trump will also be receiving his official summons as well as a date which he has to respond in the various deadlines and pretrial motions will be set in motion as well. in terms of the main part of the trial, that could start as early as tuesday and could go on for several weeks passed the state of the union and address. we are pointing out that schedule for february 4. president trump's defense team will be held by the white house counsel and his personal lawyer

by the house. [video clip] >> when you look at these articles of impeachment, they are not only ridiculous, they are dangerous to our republic and why? first of all, the notion that invoking your constitutional rights to protect the executive bynch that has been done just about every president since george washington, that that is obstruction. that is our patriotic duty, mr. schiff, particularly one confronted with a wholesale trampling of constitutional rights that i am unfamiliar with in this country. frankly, it is the kind of thing our state department would criticize if we see it in foreign countries. mr. schiff said have i got a deal for you. abandon all your constitutional rights. andet about your lawyers come in and do exactly what i say. no thank you, no thank you. then he said he has the temerity to come into the senate and say we have no use for courts. it is outrageous. host: that is a small sampling of the arguments made for and against yesterday. we have set aside a special section of

, 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