it s clear they re going to use that now. what arguments are they going to make as republicans? what arguments are they going to make as democrats? i can t imagine the republican senators will be shouting the way jordan and some of these other in a word, they re going to make process arguments. that s what we saw in the house. david gergen, manu raju. rick gates, he cooperated with robert mueller s investigation. will he get a break at his sentencing? any minute now we should learn the sentence of the former trump campaign aide, and remember he pleaded guilty to lying to the fbi. if your glasses aren t perfect, we ll fix them.
doesn t want to be impeached, viewing it as a personal humiliation. that will be the first line of any biography that comes from this point on, that he was the third president to be impeached in the history of the country. although he has lined up the support of republicans from the top down in the senate and his conviction is very unlikely, this is still a defeat. we ve seen from the beginning, this is a president who does not like to lose and he sees even the vote that s going to be taken in the house this week, he will see that as a defeat, he will see that as a personal slight. but at the same time, he will frame this as an attack on the united states, as an attack on the people, as an unfair process, when at this point what i m looking for is what happens when this does get to the senate, because all of the process arguments have to fall away, because the republicans will be entirely in control of the process. we know it s unlikely witnesses will be called, which cuts against th
conduct. why was it not a fulsome debate? i don t think they have i don t think they felt comfortable engaging on the facts, but i do think these process arguments have been working the a certain extent with the public. that s the reason you re not seeing pressure on republicans to vote to convict the president and why i think if there is a glimmer of bipartisanship in this process, it s going to be house democrats in vulnerable districts voting to impeach the president. michael steel, adrienne elrod and elise jordan, thank you. here is jamie rascon of the house judiciary committee. he just voted in favor of the articles of impeachment. i should bring you into this. we re talking about the house judiciary, what happened yesterday. why did we not see, why did the public not see debate on the issues, a debate on the facts yesterday? well, we presented, katy, overwhelming evidence that the president had shaken down a foreign government using foreign
instead focus again on farcical process arguments in my view. i m compelled to respond to at least one of those which is this notion about the closed door depositions. because as i understand it from reading these transcripts, many minority members were present and granted equal time to question witnesses brought before the intelligence committee, the foreign affairs committee and the government oversight committee. some of those members are actually on this committee. so i struggle to understand the objections in that regard. the idea that the intelligence committee s investigation was not sufficiently transparent in my view also rings hollow because, as we know, the transcripts from those interviews, those depositions have been released. i know i ve reviewed them. i suspect many of my colleagues have as well. and if you did not review those transcripts you surely watched
the live testimony of ambassador sondland, lieutenant colonel vindman and so many other public servants over the course of many weeks as millions of americans watched along with us. so again, it is i understand that we re going to have a robust debate about the legal standards that govern the inquiry before us and the decision we make on these articles but let us stay true to the facts and let s dispense with these process arguments and get to the substance of why we are here today. i ll also just say, historical context matters. i was not on the judiciary committee in 1999, 1998, but my understanding is at that time, the judiciary committees did not examine any fact witnesses during the clinton impeachment inquiry. i know there are members of this committee that were here at that time, and they will are well aware that they did question,