You talk about a political spin. You know, they were blaming it on a video. You know, i know, the American People know it wasnt a video. Did that have a political consequence . Yes, it was right before an election. And yet he didnt get impeached for that. So when we Start Talking about the standards, ill be glad to come back on and debate those standards all day long. But heres the bottom line. No facts, no credible facts, three of the top people in ukraine that continue, they continue to say, there was no linkage, no pressure. I mean, at what point do you say, where is the victim of this crime . Its not the American People, because the president was looking out for their best interest. I want to ask you about that because you say no facts, but we heard from the u. S. Ambassador to the eu, we heard from the top u. S. Diplomat in ukraine, we talked to the Top State Department official who oversees ukraine, we heard from yeah, none officials appointed by the president. All of them said their understanding was that the aid to ukraine would not flow until the president got these announcements of investigations by the ukrainians. Listen, you cover capitol hill and you can you know this very well. You can hear all kinds of things on what people believe are fact. None of the people you just mentioned ever got any of that information from the president of the United States. Not a single one of them. In fact, when you talk to them, you say, well, i presume that. I thought that that was happening. But yet when you talk to ambassador volker, who actually did talk to the president , when you talk to president zelensky of ukraine, who did talk to the president , when you talk to Vice President pence, who did talk to the president , five different conversations, not a single connection between aid. We actually have senators on the other sidede. Senators, bipartisan, mr. Murphy as well, senator murphy was in there talking to president zelensky, not brought up. Dont you think if there was a linkage in one of those five conversations it would have come up . It didnt. Im here telling you this is all here convicting a president based on hearsay and innuendo. Do you think they should hear from people like john bolton or mick mulvaney, acting white house chief of staff who did not testify when they were subpoenaed in the house . Ive been one that has certainly encouraged secretary pompeo and secretary perry to come in. Why did they well, it was an unfair process, thats why. I mean, you covered this. You were here every day. I got to see you down in the scif you got to ask a lot of questions. I got to ask a lot of questions. But i was one of only a handful of members that got to ask questions, but when i wanted to call witnesses and when i actually got close to the truth, adam schiff would shut us offer. You can check the transcripts. Heres the interesting thing. The process has been so unfair. You know. You got leaks from some of my democrat colleagues i heard from your republican colleagues, too. Name them. I will hold them to account. I can tell you that i was in the room. Jim jordan was in the room. When we would have loved to have leaked a few things and broken house rules, we would come out and find some of the reporters with democrat talking points before we actually got the information. Its an unfair process. The American People need to know it. They already are. Theyre seeing it for what it is. What i observe were there were dozens of republicans and democrats from three different committees allowed in those depositions. You split the time so republicans had plenty of time to interview the witnesses just like the democrats we didnt get to call for witnesses. You did get several witnesses. No, no, no. Jim morrison well, they ended up being to our benefit. When tim morrison came in, we thought he was a witness for the democrats. We didnt ask for tim morrison. He ended up giving honest testimony that came to our benefit. Did you get a leaked version of Tim Morrisons . No, because that was to our advantage. Did you get something leaked from ambassador volker . No, because that was to our advantage. What they would do is leak out things that were to their advantage congressman, i will tell you, there were plenty of leaks from both sides, to your advantage name them for the American People. Name them right now. Name who on the republican side leaked it out. Im willing to hear it. You know, listen, you know this is before the public you know, this is you may promise me but name the people. I can tell you that here i was in the room. I was one of the few people. I controlled what happened. And i can tell you when you look at republican leaks, there were not republican leaks because they were all democrats out there getting ahead of it. And am times i dont want to divulge sources on either side. But we heard a lot from both sides moving forward. We heard from some House Democrats that, perhaps, they should hold onto the articles of impeachment after the vote. Not send them to the senate right away in order to somehow force the Senate Majority leader, Mitch Mcconnell, into holding a trial they view as more fair with more witnesses. Do you think that that would be a smart, strategic move . Do you think it would be in line with the constitution . What do you think that would well, its in line with the constitution. They can do whatever they want. And i dont know that they would ask the Freedom Caucus chairman for strategic elements. I can tell you, it doesnt surprise me. Everything theyve tried to do is to fix the game. You know, theyve tried to change the rules. Theyve tried to make sure we didnt have minority witnesses. They tried to make sure that each and every time that we objected to something, they would shut us down. You can check the transcripts. The American People can google it, read it for themselves. So, if theyre trying to use leverage, and it would really be more the resolution because the resolution on who the managers are for the house is what starts the process, if theyre to hold that up in order to give Chuck Schumer some kind of leve you know, it just shows me they want the process to be unfair on the house side and on the senate side as well. Stepping back and looking at this from a big picture standpoint, what does this mean . How does this change things on capitol hill . How does this change things for the president . Is there a before and after here . Will tomorrow be a new day for the president of the United States . Hes now got that asterisk next to his name. Hell forever be known as the third president to be impeached by the u. S. House. Do things stay the same . What does this mean for your relationship with democrats . Give us your big picture sense of what changes after today . Well, the scars and wounds of this partisan process will be with us for a long time. Its not as much about the president or members of the house or senate, its more about the American People. Its what are they not getting . The president is truly at 1600 pennsylvania avenue waiting to help us lower Prescription Drug prices. Ive been working with some of my democrat colleagues to find a bipartisan solution. And what this does is not only put a Chilling Effect on it, but it almost puts a death nail in anything thats bipartisan. You know, you cant impeach the president and impugn him in such a way and expect tomorrow that everything is going to be okay. But, really, this president is going to be judged on the amazing economy, the amazing accomplishments hes been able to get done. And what he will get done in the next five years. At the end of the day i dont see it as an asterisk as for what people are viewing it is. Its a partisan effort to make sure the American People vote for a democrat in november of 2020. And i think it will backfire. Reporter congressman mark meadows, North Carolina, thanks for being with us. I appreciate it. Norah . Nancy, thank you. I want to follow up on what nancy was talking about because, as we witnessed, the house rules chairman jim mcgovern talking about a rules vote and then well go into debate and well return to the floor and show you the debate that will take place today. The very issue of what happens now because i think this becomes a key element of not only the house moving forward with these articles of impeachment but the next step. The next step is the transmission of these articles, the naming of the house managers to the senate. And then what happens in the senate. As even Jonathan Turley said, yes, there should be witnesses. We should hear from them. Yes, they should get the Supreme Court to force these witnesses to testify. Theres still more to this story. I think everybody acknowledges. Even mark meadows said he would like to hear from pompeo, one of the president s staunchest defenders. Theres more everybody wants to know about this story about what exactly was going on. Whats behind this idea of not holding back the articles of impeachment and sending them to the senate right away, major . Theres a conversation going on in speak pelosis office among her top aides. Assuming they believe that the very arrival of these articles of impeachment by themselves an act of institutional leverage. Once you hand them to the senate, youve given up your power. You have no control over anything. Theyre now entirely in the purview institutionally of the senate. Theres a conversation, what if we hold them back and not give them to the senate until weve seen how the senate will conduct a trial. Its an assumed act of leverage. Weve never seen this before. Its a discussion point. We should be careful about this. Its not been put in motion, but the idea is, well, if we hand off the articles of impeachment, give them to the senate, then its entirely the senates business and were out of the equation. Maybe if we hold them back, we can encourage or possibly leverage an agreement on the capabilities of the senate to hold a trial. What we just witnessed there, if youre watching closely, is that a number of aides and reporters you saw following the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, who is going to preside over todays debate and the votes on the articles of impeachment im sorry. I should say, shes going to speak and preside over the articles of impeachment. Shell open it and close it, essentially. Thats the theory. It hasnt been decided. Its, as i suggested, a novel idea. Its novel. And a bit of a paper tiger. To say youre going to hold back the articles, Mitch Mcconnell will go, great, that works for me. Wait as long as you want. The fact is once they pass these articles, it becomes the senates prerogative to call the impeachment. The problem for the house is the precedent mcconnell will cite is coming from people like schumer who joined an effort to bar all live testimony. He joined an effort to bar any trial. So, the republicans during the clinton impeachment. During the clinton impeachment. So the republicans will be citing the democrats for saying, well do impeachment democratic style. This is what you guys said it should look like. Now, the one thing that is informing, in part, speaker pelosis team is theres a very big priority for the president of the United States to be dealt with, the usmca, the redrafted nafta. Mitch mcconnell has made it clear that will not be dealt with until after the Senate Impeachment process is over. Theres some notion, well, how important is that to the president . Is this in some way implied leverage . It may be a paper tiger. Its part of a it contradicts their talking point to say, we have to move now, theres a crime spree afoot and then you pass the articles and say, were going to wait. And then well tell you when were going to send some commentators have suggested thats a way of preserving the integrity of the senate trial when mcmititch mcconnell has announced its fixed, its a charade. I want to make one point for viewers that distinguishes this from whitewater, which i participated in with kenneth starr. In that case there was a independent counsel who had four years and grand jury subpoena power to gather a lot of information that was then handed to the congress. That underscores the absence of that here, which would have been bill barr that would have appointed someone like Rod Rosenstein did with mueller. The lack of a prosecutor to gather facts makes the obstruction case more serious. Lawyers, do you think were just skimming the surface in terms of evidence . I agree with jonathan. I wrote a piece, there should be a lot more people we should have heard from. Mick mulvaney publicly stated it was quid pro quo. Why do you think that . When did he talk to the president . What did he say . I think the American People deserve to hear that. This is a very thin record. My favorite part is when congressman jackson lee held up two binders and waved them at us and said, do you call this a thin record . I almost chuckled. If she held the record up in the clinton case, she would have required two vans. They delivered the records in two vans. Thats the difference of the material records in the two cases. This is very, very thin. Youre leaving really the game mcconnell wants to play in the senate because he can say, you didnt think it was so essential to call these witnesses. You didnt want to wait for them. You said this record is absolutely overwhelming on guilt. Well give you a trial on your record. Well, this is the delay also plays into an exploitation potentially between what the white house envisions, more specifically President Trump envisions, in terms of a law and order public trial versus what Republican Leadership in the senate wants to see. There is a difference there. You heard President Trump talk about it last friday in the oval office where he said, oh, i heard lindsey graham, i heard Mitch Mcconnell, but im going to do what i want. That is, the Senate Leaders dont want the binders to get any thicker. The people the president wants to hear from, rudy giuliani, they said, come into the Senate Judiciary committee but not part of the impeachment trial. If you want to look into joe biden, well do it in my committee, not part of an impeachment trial. Theyre trying to negotiate with the white house to get some of the aspects of what the president wants to see but not actually in the trial, which they prefer to be as short as two weeks. But the house knows these are senators that dont want to see a lot of the evidence. Thats why its a failure not to make them see it by making it part of this record. This record could be so much stronger. A lot of these senators look at this and say, something wicked this way comes. They want it over as fast as possible. They asked about the letter the president sent, extraordinary letter that will forever be part of the institutional rhetoric of the presidency of the United States. The legislative head of White House Affairs ran this process. Just think about this for a second. Hes the one who for the last three weeks has been negotiating directly with nancy pelosi on the trade deal i just mentioned, on defense spending and the National Defense reauthorization act, on preventing a Government Shutdown this friday. The central person acting in the most trusted role on behalf of this president of the United States with the democratic leader on all of these issues ran the process that produced this letter, this scorching, sulfurous letter. You know eric was involved in it . He ran it. I know that for a fact. He ran the process. Others were involved but it was put in his hands. That shows you, in a way, a couple of things about washington. Two things can be true at the same time. You can have entrenched personal disagreements and also get things done, point one. Point two, even within the white house there is a sense impeachment is in a silo and things can be done. Clinton operated that way. Yes. Thats the interesting thing about this letter, it hadnt come out, there was a pretty lively dialogue with the president. Do more accomplishments. Do more of clinton, less of trump. Thats never going to happen. Theres always going to be more of trump, especially under duress. That debate did make its way into this letter which ended up being single spaced and six pages. The president talked about the 7 million new jobs created, 6. 6 million. He talked about isis, he talked about apprehensions at the wall, the southern border, i should say. The wall does not exist yet, only small portions of a wall exist there. So, he does try and also add in those accomplishments, and many other he talks about the paris climate accord, south korea. Thats why theres a lot in this letter. Its not just against pelosi. Right. But the headlinegrabbing rhetoric is all the other. And it may be a preview of the rally we hear later today. Yes, absolutely. In michigan where the president it gets to your psychology point. This man sees no vulnerability, will never admit wrongdoing, is teflon in his own mind. That is beyond, i think, the law and the politics and the facts. That is unique to this man. And were reacting to that. Where clinton issued a public apology at this time, almost 2 is years ago. Were going to take a quick, short break. Theres much more to come on this historic day in washington. Well be back in a little while. And we will bring you the debate on the articles of impeachment. On the house floor. For some of you, our coverage will continue on our 24hour streaming network, cbsn. You can watch it at cbsnews. Com or on our cbs news app. This has been a special report. Im Norah Odonnell. For news 24 hours a day, go to cbsnews. Com we h