Correspondent kimberly how it is standing by for us in washington d. C. In our bureau there while castro is on capitol hill will be talking with them throughout the proceedings over the next few hours lets go 1st to heidi so heidi what can we expect over the coming hours as both sides give their arguments and are we likely to hear anything new at this point. Well this opens yet another chapter in the impeachment proceedings against trump you know we 1st heard from those facts witnesses then it was the constitutional scholars and starting today will be hearing from the attorneys for both parties who will help in this nitty gritty case of the House Judiciary Committee drafting the articles of impeachment that trump will face in essence these are like the indictments that you that a defendant would face in a trial and what we expect to hear 1st are Opening Statements from both sides those could be quite drawn out afterwards there will be opportunities for questions from the various members of the House Judiciary Committee of course will be hearing democrats make the case that trump is guilty of abusing the power of his office in trying to pressure the president of ukraine to open investigations into trumps domestic political rivals and then well hear republicans then make the case that there is no merit to those accusations and in fact that this entire impeachment in their understanding is what the president calls a witch hunt so expect a lot of partisan statements being made today quite a long process of q. And a in a hearing that could extend to be several hours so essentially heidi theres a lot of political theater in all of this as as it plays out so im on Live Television in front of the public and given the fact that the main testimony as has been heard now so is you know how much how much of the public mind matters in all of this Public Opinion is it is it likely to change in any way. That is the biggest question thats out there right now we know that the polling has suggested that public mind will not change because since the launching of this impeachment inquiry up until today over the transports of weeks of witnesses coming forward few people have shifted in their opinions if you believe the polls the American Public still appears to be evenly decided evenly divided rather 50 percent for impeaching and removing the president from office and 50 percent against and if you look at those numbers further its very obvious that people are shifting toward their partisan leanings thats hearty oil tea thats really dictating peoples opinions on this impeachment with democrats strongly for impeachment and republicans sharply against so will anyone have their minds changed will that be enough to then convince their congressional representatives in the Eventual Senate trial to perhaps defect from the president if the evidence is overwhelming enough at this point it appears that what we know thats far from the evidence given simply hasnt been enough to shift minds and still something dramatic would have to merge something unforeseen in order for chum to be actually convicted and removed from office. Life 1st there on capitol hill stand by heidi we will be coming back to you at some point as and when those hearings begin these are live pictures youre looking at right now inside the hearing room of the Judiciary Committee in the u. S. Congress as they all gather to take their seats lets cross over now to our White House Correspondent kimberly how kids in washington d. C. For us so kimberly the white house remaining defiant in its position here in not wanting to cooperate with this impeachment inquiry in any way. Yeah and this is really this is a message that is coming from one person that is u. S. President donald trump the question becomes how will he inserted himself into todays hearings because thats what weve been seeing throughout all of this is the president has said he doesnt want to participate yet he has been in his own unique way and that is through social media we saw whether it was in the hearing of marie yvonne a bitch the former u. S. Ambassador to ukraine while she was testifying the president actually tweeted some would suggest a Smear Campaign against her during her live testimony many people consider that to be witness intimidation in other cases the president has been tweeting when he feels that a republican has defended him very well he will retreat some of that testimony or some of that line of questioning or even see it in the case of u. S. President trump on sunday he tweeted or read tweeted about a 100 different messages in defense of his actions with respect to ukraine so the president has been very vocal while all the time saying this is an unfair process in fact theres been no due process and weighing in on social media now why does the president want this to wrap up quickly something he suggested on thursday he has suggested that this needs to because he says the end alleges that democrats of cherry picked witnesses have not allowed him to have a fair process or due process he wants this vote on impeachment very quickly because he believes that when it gets to the republican dominated senate thats where he believes that he will be in fact hes predicted he will be acquitted that is not a guarantee certainly theres still a lot that could happen a lot that could change but the president sounding as recently as the last few days very optimistic this will eventually go his way even if there is an Impeachment Vote in the house of representatives he believes he will be rebuilt to retain office he will not be removed in a senate trial but again this is the president speculating often painting a rosy picture of what he hopes will be the outcome. All right for the moment kelly how good life for us there in washington so frank bowman joins us again a professor at the university of Missouri School of law and the also of high crimes and misdemeanors a history of impeachment for the age of trump he also served as a federal and state prosecutor and he joins us from washington thanks for being with us. But i want to ask you this time around how how in your experience and what youve seen of this. In the way these impeachment inquiries of gone through American History how how does this particular inquiry compare with the impeachment inquiries of president clinton 20 years ago and with of course Richard Nixon back in the 1970 s. There are 2 points on which this is obviously distinct one of them of course is that the principle subject matter of impeachment here which is to say the ukraine affair is something that the house has really had to investigate on its own whereas in previous cases both clinton and nixon most of the investigation was done by other bodies either prosecutors or a nixons case both prosecutors and a Senate Special senate panel here the house is having to do the investigation itself which has produced some interesting anomalies in this case and given rise to the president s claim that this is somehow or other unfair the 2nd thing thats very different is the heightened degree partisan disagreement not just the obvious instinct of any president or any Congressional Party the republicans here to tend to side with the president of its own party but a real inability of the parties to agree even on fundamental facts and that was not true and next and it was not true and clinton. All right were going to go live now to the proceedings thing that im just beginning at lets listen in Committee Procedures that are described in section 48 of that resolution here is how the committee will proceed for this hearing i will make an Opening Statement and then i will recognize the Ranking Member for an Opening Statement after that we will hear 2 sets of presentations we will hear 30 minute opening arguments from counsel for the majority and the minority this k. K o. O o. O c. What do we. Want to order. 0. 00. 0. 0000. 0 committee will come to order. Shouldnt have to remind everyone present of the audience is here to observe but not to demonstrate to indicate agreement or disagreement with any witness or with any member of the committee the audience is here to observe only and we will maintain decorum in the hearing room and again i will say here is how the committee will proceed for this hearing i will make an Opening Statement and then i will recognize the Ranking Member for an Opening Statement after that we will hear 2 sets of presentations we will hear 30 minute opening arguments from counsel for the majority and minority of this committee then we will hear 45 minute presentations of evidence for majority and minority counsel for the Permanent Select Committee on intelligence followed by 45 minutes of questioning by the chair and Ranking Member who may yield to counsel for questioning during this period. Finally all of our members will have the opportunity to question the presenters from the Intelligence Committee under the 5 minute rule i would note that the president s counsel was given the opportunity to participate today at the white house as declined the invitation i will now recognize myself for an Opening Statement no matter his party or his politics if the president places his own interests above those of the country he betrays his oath of office the president of the United States the speaker of the House Majority leader of the senate the chief justice of the Supreme Court and the chairman and Ranking Members of the House Committee on the judiciary all have one important thing in common we have each taken an oath to preserve protect and defend the constitution of the United States if the president puts himself before the country evaluates a president s most basic responsibility he breaks his oath to the American People if he puts himself before the country in a manner that threatens our democracy and our oath our promise to the American People requires us to come to the defense of the nation that rose stands even when it is politically inconvenient even when it might bring us under criticism even when it might cost us our jobs as members of congress and even if the president is unwilling to honor his oath i am compelled to undermine as we heard in our last hearing the framers of the constitution were careful students of history and clear in their vision for the new nation. They knew the threats from true democracy can take many forms that we must protect against that they want to see against the dangers that would be monarchs fake populace and charismatic demagogues they knew that the most dangerous threat to our country might come from within in the form of a corrupt executive who put his private interests above the interests of the nation he also knew that they could not anticipate every threat a president might someday pose so they adopted the phrase treason bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. To capture the full spectrum of possible president ial misconduct george mason who proposed the standard said that it was meant to capture all manner of great and dangerous offenses against the constitution the debates around the framing make clear that the most serious such offenses include abuse of power the trail of the nation through fire and entanglements and corruption of Public Office any one of these violations of the public trust would compel the members of this committee to take action when combined this single course of action a state the strongest possible case for impeachment and removal from Office President trump put himself before i tree despite the political partisanship that seems to punctuate our hearings these days. I believe that there is Common Ground around some of these ideas Common Ground in this hearing room and Common Ground across the country at large we agree for example that impeachment is a solemn serious undertaking we agree that it is meant to address serious threats to Democratic Institutions like our free and Fair Elections we agree that when the elections themselves are threatened by enemies foreign or domestic we cannot wait until the next election to address the threat. We surely agree that no public official including and especially the president of the United States should use his Public Office for private gain and we agree that no president may put himself before the country the constitution and his oath of office his promise to america citizens require the cut president to put the country 1st if we could drop our blinders for just one moment i think we would agree on a common set of facts as well. July 25th President Trump hauled president zelinsky of ukraine and asked him for a favor that quote was part of a concerted effort by president drub to compel the government of ukraine to announce an investigation that an investigation of corruption writ large but investigation of President Trumps political rivals and only his political rivals president trub put himself before country the record shows that President Trump withheld military aid allocated by the United States congress from ukraine it also shows that he withheld the well a white house meeting from president selenski multiple witnesses including respected diplomats National Security professionals and decorated war veterans all testified to the same basic fact President Trump withheld the aid and to mediate in order to pressure a Foreign Government to do if that favor President Trump put himself before the country. And when the president got quite. Congress discovered that the aid has been withheld from ukraine the president took extraordinary not precedented steps to conceal evidence from congress and from the American People these facts are not to dispute in fact most of the arguments about these facts appear to be beside the point. As we review the evidence today i expect to hear much about the whistleblower who brought his concerns about the july 25th call to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community let me be clear every fact alleged by the whistleblower has been substantiated by multiple witnesses again and again each of who has been questioned extensively by democrats and republicans alike allegations also match up with the president s own words as released by the white house where he said he still says were perfect i also expect your complaints about the term quid pro quo as if a person needs to verbal e acknowledge the name of a crime while his committee you for it to be a crime in all the record at this point is also clear all to bill officials testified that the president s demand for an investigation into his rivals was a part of his personal political agenda and not related to the Foreign Policy objectives of the United States multiple officials testified that the president intended to withhold the 8 until tended to withhold the 8 until you created announced investigations of yes multiple officials testified that they understood this arrangement to be a quid pro quo for the president s personal political benefit President Trump who had himself before tree the president s supporters are going to argue that this whole process is unfair the record before us is clear at this point is well he invited the president to participate in this theory to question witnesses and to present evidence that might explain the charges against him President Trump chose not to show he may not have much to say in his own defense and he cannot claim that he did not have an opportunity to be heard. Finally as we proceed today we will hear a great deal about the speed with which the house is addressing the president s actions to the members of the committee to the members of the house and to my fellow citizens i want to be absolutely clear integrity of our next election is at stake nothing could be more urgent the president welcomed into foreign interference in our elections in 2016 he demanded 842020 then he got caught if you do not believe that he will do it again let me remind you that the president s personal lawyer spent last week back in ukraine media with government officials and in apparent attempt to gin up the same socalled favors that brought us here today and force congress to consider the impeachment of a sitting president this pattern of conduct represents a continuing risk to the country the evidence shows that donald j. Trump the president of the United States has put himself before his country he has violated his most basic responsibilities to the people he has broken his oath