If people are held to what they are said prior to being in this house, if Majority Party gets to decide who sits on what committees, i hope you keep that standard because we have a long list to work within your own. Paul thursdays near partyline vote came a day after House Republicans overwhelmingly chose cheney in her leadership post after she came on fire from some numbers for voting to impeach president trump. Lets bring in our panel. Deputy editorial page editor, dan henninger, Colonists Can Strassel and kyle peterson. Why did liz cheney her leadership post even after members were saying her fate was sealed. The boat wasnt even close in the end. Kim i think its because were hogans came to understand this was a symbolic vote in a way, it would send a terrible message if they were to vote her out because it would suggest they were purging her from the party were disagreeing with donald trump. The reality is, theres a lot more going on here, a lot of frustration among the ranks over the past year. There are other things she did but in the end, this is what it came to because her vote on impeachment, thats what made it boiled over. Kevin mccarthy made a strong pitch they needed to come together and unify it seems to hold in the end. Paul most replicants included this would play into democratic hands. Kim they know democrats are trying hard to stoke divisions and the only way they will be able to win back the majority is to come back together as a party. Paul kyle, lets turn to Marjorie Taylor green. Kevin mccarthy had a sit down with her and considered stripping her of Committee Seat and offered to do so with the democratic Majority Leader saint we will take her away from education and small business. They said they wanted to go to a vote and did. First, why did the republicans handle greene the way they did . Kyle they are arguing is a brad that President Set if the Majority Part can dictate the assignment of the party. Thats not something that has happened in the past and thats what Kevin Mccarthy has said in the past. They have said wacky things and power changes back and forth in the house. They will stay democratic forever. Paul the idea is the democrats and others will be up or could be in the future because democrats said that president , is that what youre saying . Kyle exactly. The democratic response has been that Taylor Greene said she regretted past statements but she didnt exactly apologize. I understand the argument but i still think theres reason to worry about and escalating tit for tat in the house. Paul dan, what is the motive here they do have vulnerability, lets face it. That many members of the house every two years, you will get a lot on both sides. Over the years, weve had that. Why are they trying to play so hard on the single freshman from georgia . Dan lets make clear what they did, they stripped greene of her seat. Its unprecedented in modern house history, its never been done for a long time. Eventually, it nullified the district in georgia. There larger purpose is to associate greene and the things shes said in the past with the rest of the Republican Party. The whole idea is to keep raising over and over again the events and january 6 attacks, a Conspiracy Theory said Marjorie Greene associated herself with it and all republicans with that cudgel and upset the public about that. Marjorie greene went into the house and repudiated the past years. They said it was sincere but you will never see Maxine Waters going to the house and repudiate some of the views they have expressed as outrageous as hers. Its a clear double standard. Frankly, i dont think it will succeed on the democratic side. Paul kim, the larger strategy here is a run between now and 2022, running against the capital riot january 6 donald trump and anybody and all things associated with trump because trump endorsed greene. Greene said i have Donald Trumps support. Kim in their minds, donald trump will forever keep giving the gift. They want him to have the event of january 6. The Republican Party is a bunch of crazies that believe in qanon. Its not just what greene said in the vote on this cheney but having Mitch Mcconnell and Kevin Mccarthy, and all leaders in the Publican Party say we do not abide any of this in our party and we condemn it, in that regard, it was a strong statement. Paul all right, thank you all. Democrats move forward with a 1. 9 trillion covid Relief Package. Making it clear they will push it through with or without republican support. The new president talks about unity but the white house staff and congressional leadership working with a different playbook. U. S. Economy adding 49000 new jobs in january, return to Growth Job Losses in december with the jobless rate falling to 6. 3 . Democrats moved ahead this week with President Biden, 1. 9 trillion covid Relief Package with a clear message for republicans pass it with it without you. We cannot delay, we cannot dilute because the troubles nation has and the opportunities we can bring are so large. We are united as one, a big and bold package working with republican friends when we can. Paul we are back with dan henninger, kim strassel and kyle peterson. Even if the jobless rate did fall, i looked at the report and focuses on job losses on those areas affected by the pandemic and lockdowns. Hospitality, service oriented, that is clearly the big problem here. Not some spending issue. Thats right. Business and professional services were up in nonetheless, democrats are sticking with their game plan. Chuck schumer came up with the new ones that ive heard, Dog Will Day Delay in dilute. I like that but what they want to do is im putting this nearly 2 trillion into the economy and there is a real dispute, a serious dispute between an economic economy is reviving, the vaccines will release more people into the economy, hospitality, restaurant will probably reopen by middle summer and theres a lot of pent up savings. We know that and the economy can revive on its own. Democrats, joe biden and Chuck Schumer believe the economy needs a massive injection of spending to reduce unemployment. Its an enormous amount of money, people show republican Centers Point out billions of dollars weve not spent from the previous bills. Thats essentially the court of the debate. We can get into the particulars about state and local spending but its a massive injection into the democrats want and republicans up with pushing back against. Paul kyle, the view from the democrat from 2009 when they spent 800 billion stimulus, it was too small. When you look at it, employment was heading to 10 , recession wouldnt be over until june 2009. The recession here has been over six months, unemployment down to 6. 3 . The economy is growing. A lot of people are affected by lockdowns who are hurting but you can help them with a lot less than 1. 9 trillion. Kyle Larry Summers pointed out the pandemic is out of earnings income, 38 billion a month now. Bidens plan would feel that with about 150 billion a month five times that. They are worried about inflation and that even before you talk about unrelated provisions in here like the 15 minimum wage. Paul which would have a bad effect on employment for the same workers who need jobs in small business. Kim, republicans, Tent Republicans offered a plan was about 700 billion. That was their first offer, it could sell somewhere in between that and 1. 9 trillion. There are so many numbers, i have a hard time keeping up. The president sat down with them for a couple of hours but in the end, decided we will plow ahead why do you think that is . Kim what they were offering i think is support from moderates on the democratic side, which is led to give money for more vaccine distributions, things that are needed and necessary, thats target those most hurting because of the lockdowns. The president is a no go. I think part is the left side, they are pushing a bill we all understand is not necessarily all about stimulus, it democratic long time Spending Priorities and they see this as a vehicle to pop money to the State Government schools and different sectors and theyve got this under the guise of covid and they will not give up on that to keep responding to that. Paul dan, i am puzzled by this. Joe biden has been preaching bipartisanship. Why not take a trillion dollars is a heck of a lot of money in itself. You leave some physical space open for infrastructure and others, if you pass it now on a partisan basis, it will be harder to pass a future bill. Dan it is but increasingly, it really does not look as though the biden presidency is turning out bipartisan, as moderate as we thought it would be. You get the feeling really strongly progressive, driven by people like Bernie Sanders who is driving the minimum wage bill despite some states cannot afford minimum wage. I think the state that are driving on the democratic side our state like california, illinois, new york, new jersey, they are losing population. They somehow feel this is a train leaving the station, they need hundreds of billions of dollars right now to shore up there spending because they are under a lot of pressure from the pandemic and i agree with you, would pass a smaller bipartisan bill, work on these issues later but the Democratic Party seems to want things done right now. Paul when we come back, Donald Trumps second Impeachment Trial underway next week. Both sides plan to argue their case and why the former president is refusing to testify. When you switch to xfinity mobile, youre choosing to get connected to the most Reliable Network nationwide, now with 5g included. Discover how to save up to 300 a year with shared data starting at 15 a month, or get the lowest price for one line of unlimited. Come into your local xfinity store to make the most of your mobile experience. You can shop the latest phones, bring your own device, or trade in for extra savings. Stop in or book an appointment to shop safely with Peace Of Mind at your local xfinity store. Both sides laying out legal strategies the second Impeachment Trial of donald trump set to get underway in the senate next week. House democrats argue tuesday the former president is singularly responsible for inciting the capital right. Defense responding it would be unconstitutional to convict the president after he left office. Lets bring in jim, former Justice Department prosecutor and partner at the law. Good to see you again. Lets distill the prosecutors, house managers argument, what are they charging . The main charge, its repeated in a number of fashions in this document, incitement for causing insurrection, causing a violent overthrow of the u. S. Government. They spent a good amount of time chronicling violence against police and essentially concluding from their perspective that president trumps words lit the match to the violence that happened january 6 at the capital. Paul so the incitement to violence as part of the charge rather than simply incitement not to count the Electoral College votes which they were doing on that day . I ask this because as you know, incitement for violence is a criminal charge, not just impeachment charge. The bar for that is pretty high and you have to make the close link. Are they really charging incitement of violence . Not literally criminal indictment yes, they use the language of insurrection but they expanded talk about how impeachment can cover non crimes, misconduct that may not fit into a federal statute. I think they want the best of all worlds which is shoot for the stars and settle for the moon. We think we can prove incitement for causing insurrection but at least a violation of oath to the constitution and that is the murky area of impeachment being the political process, General Board warned about, it is a crime. We may be in that territory with a trying to take expansive reading on a more narrow allegation. Paul in the president s defense, how would you distill that . I guess the short version is, its a long memo type of response. I wouldnt say its full on defense yet, i suppose we will have to see that next week but its essentially taking exception to the thought of a former officeholder being subjected to impeachment. They have a different take than the house managers but theres at least some concentrated argument about how his words have to be given their normal meaning and they were not calls for violence, it may have frustrated people but they were not literally a call for any criminal activity, on the contrary, they call for peace. The process of saying the president cant be subjected to this at all. Paul a constitutional question obviously, i have lawyers and constitutionalists, i respect on both sides saying it is or is not constitutional to try a former president. If you were former president trump, would you litigate this question and do the managers of congress and bring it to the court . What i would love to get the whole Snap Impeachment before a court. Id explore the option and create a record, litigating in listing all complaints i have about impeachment that took place seven days after the physical act for the criminal investigation is still ongoing. The fact that there are hundreds being arrested, giving statements and being provided discovery while there is contrast of the president elected by or voted by 70 Million People being told we will disqualify you based on what we know, theres not much to process their. I spent a lot of time on his and talking about how outrageous Snap Impeachment is even if its not a little criminal proceeding, its very important that should have fundamental fairness. Paul he did sue and it went to the courts, this is a question for judges, its for the Political Part so debated their. The Supreme Court showed, all courts showed reluctance for the political question of the fairness of the election. Most of those findings is the Trump CampaignPeople Associated with it based on procedural obstacles by the court. It reflected distaste for resolving purely political questions. I think the Supreme Court is probably not chomping at the bit and have to decide things like the validity of this Impeachment Proceedings and Justice Roberts is even attending which you would normally see in a removal type proceeding so i think if you trump, he built up a record as well as the substantive problem in this charge and hope if you have to, you might get traction. Paul thank you. We will see how it fold next week. When we come back, academics and progressives calling for Government Crackdown on political speech. Realities are going to an Administration Near you. Calls for academics Progressive Press to police conservative political speech In The Name Of combating what they call disinformation. New York Times Technology columnist, floating the idea of a Biden Administration putting together cross Agency GovernmentTask Force Tackle Disinformation and domestic extreme is him which would be led by Something Like reality are. We are back with dan henninger, kim strassel jason. Jason, give us The Big Picture here, what are we seeing among journalists and progressive academics and politicians talking about political speech. I think The Big Picture is in america, we voice it is agreed. They think its false and we have typically sorted out by arguing with one another and trying to win elections but with what they are increasingly seen, temptation among some to say we are in power, we won, the debate is over and now we will use unusually coercive measures boycott, perhaps new regulations and setting realities to enforce a review sidestep our traditional political process. Paul the voices you hear on this, these arent obscure. They are not just a couple of cranks, these are mainstream dominant politicians and journalists institutions, give us an example. You have the New York Times columnist call for boycott on fox shows, Washington Post media columnist chiming in on that. You have academic, New York University without report for a Digital Regulatory Agency so i say people are flushing victory, they just want an election and control the government, they control most of the p