President. Today there are two of them. Abuse of power and obstruction of congress. The framers of the constitution described a clear remedy for president s who so violate their oath of office. That is the power of impeachment. Today in service to our duty to the constitution and to our country, the House Committee on the judiciary is introducing two articles of impeachment charging the president of the United States, donald j. Trump, with committing high crimes and misdemeanors. Sources tell cnn and Judiciary Committee vote will take place by end of this week with a full house vote on impeachment sometime next week. Right to manu raju on capitol hill. Reporter one, abuse of power, the other obstruction of congress, related to ukraine but a reference to the president s past behavior, subject of enormous debate behind the scenes with democrats engaging whether or not there should about third article of impeachment including obstruction of justice as detailed by the Mueller Report and evidence of the president who sought to undercut that investigation. A number of democrats believed there was overwhelming evidence the president should be impeached over allegations of obstruction of justice, but ultimately democrats decided not to. Behind the scenes engaged in a debate saying they would oppose this effort if they added obstruction of justice charge. Others it would not be a clear enough case presented to voters if they went forward on this and muddy the waters of sources. Trying to make the case that the president abused his office in his dealings with ukraine. Nevertheless, democrats in the house Judiciary Committee got behind this approach and argued they made the right decision ultimately to get to just two articles of impeachment. We want to give the senate the strongest possible case that they can have while she in the white house abusing his power, inviting a foreign ally to interfere in our elections, but not the first time. So you will see in both of the articles that that pattern of conduct that was underverted with the Mueller Investigation is absolutely in there. Reporter why not include obstruction of justice as a third article of impeachment against the president . You know what . We really didnt feel that that was necessary. It doesnt mean that the investigations will stop. When we had the meeting this morning, we are were very satisfied with the two articles, abuse of power and obstruction of congress, and we feel that those two articles especially obstruction of congress, is broad enough. Reporter is there a concern you wouldnt have the votes to pass obstruction of justice article on its own. Theres ongoing litigation on the obstruction of justice and i think theres broad consensus in the caucus that ukraine scandal, that scandal presents the greatest and most serious threat. Reporter the question is ultimately where did the bolts lie . There are enough votes in the house Judiciary Committee to approve articles of impeachment. The two articles. Those votes will probably start occurring thursday. Tomorrow night members told expect to give opening snamts th statements and then to the full house next week. Exact date unknown at the moment, but the question is will any democrats break ranks . We expect two at the moment. Signaling they will vote against articles of impeachment. Will republicans break ranks . One republican congressman, will hurd, broken with the president occasionally told me hes still opposed to the idea moving forward and voting to impeach the president. And one former turned independent will support these articles to impeach the president. You may see some members break but overall expect party line votes in committee this week and on the floor next week. Brooke . Very possible then by end of next week the president of the United States will be impeached. Manu raju, thank you, of course next to the senate a very different story. Four arms against bill clinton only two approved. For richard nixon, three articles, which of course never got votes, because he resigned first. Lets go to alex marquardt, to take us through what adam schiff called overwhelming enc ining u articles. Reporter why they focused on the two articles of impeachment in the words of the House Foreign AffairsCommittee Chairman he thanted would rocksolid articles. What is the rocksolid evidence they see . First, abuse of power. Democrats point to the transcript of the president s july 25th call. That infamous call with president zelensky of ukraine. Remember, that transcript was releases by the white house and in that call the president said after zelensky asked for military aid, the president says, i would like you to do us a favor, though. He then goes on to immediately ask zelensky to look into a Conspiracy Theory about the 2016 election. Crowdstrike. Shorthand for that Conspiracy Theory. And asks zelensky to investigate the bidens with the help of attorney general bill barr. Democrats lined up a number of witnesses who testified that the president was holding up aid almost 400 million worth of military aid as well as a meeting at the white house for president zelensky until ukraine announced those investigations. Now, these witnesses spoke to the Intelligence Committee behind closed doors, and in open hearings. You had bill taylor, top u. S. Diplomat in ukraine who testified that he was told ukraine wouldnt get that aid without the investigations. Theres gordon sondland, ambassador to the european union, point man for ukraine said e in no Uncertain Terms yes, there was quid pro quo. And fiona hill, former Top White House adviser on russia calling what she saw a domestic political errant. And the second charge, obstruction of congress. House Judiciary Committee chairman jerry nadler saying a president who declares himself above accountability, above the American People and above Congress Power of impeachment, meant to protect against threats to our Democratic Institutions is the president who sees himself as above the law. Democrats infusing President Trump and the white house of what they called unprecedented obstruction of congress. Democrats issued 71 subpoenas and got back zero documents. And all of these officials were blocked from testifying, including key witnesses. Potential witnesses. Like the acting white house chief of staff, mick mulvaney. The former White House National security adviser john bolton as well as former Energy Secretary rick perry. Brooke, back to you. Thank you so much. Jeffrey ingle cnn president ial historian and coauthor of impeachment and American History and Gloria Borger our cnn chief political analyst. Jeffrey, perspective. Alex went into the weeds, but President Trump, 45th president of United States, only four president s had articles of impeachment brought against them. Big picture. What do you make of this . Impressive to see the number of impeachments are increasing. Didnt have one the first 70some years of our countrys history and then three basically within the last 75 years. Thats actually a mistake. Remember, eep of these president s who be impeached need a combination of two thing. First, despised by adversaries and second to have done something to trigger the impeachment process. Think about president barack obama or president george w. Bush. They were both despised by opponents but neither necessarily did an impeachable thing that triggered an investigation that led to these kinds of actions in congress. Its important to recognize this is a very rare thing that were seeing in American History and it may seem like its coming more quickly, but the truth of the matter is i think its just something that has played out because of the president s actions. Uhhuh. In this rare moment in which we all xooiexist, gloria. There could have been more articles. Debate among democrats to include articles based on what Robert Mueller found in his conclusive report. Those articles were not included. Politically speaking, do you think that was a smart move . I do. I think it was a smart move for a couple reasons. I mean, nancy pelosi is very well aware of what are called the front line democrats. Those 30 or 40 democrats who won in trump districts, and they didnt come to congress to impeach the president , nor did they promise to impeach the president , and she wants them to return to congress and she would like to return as speaker. So i think by limiting this, they werent ready to impeach after the Mueller Investigation. While other democrats were. I think she decided, and the democrats decided, narrow this. And secondly, i think in order to give the senate two die nestable things to chew over, that would be very easily understood by the american public, i think they kind of uncomplicated things, by sticking to ukraine. Its a Pretty Simple story. And i think so i think the reasoning was appropriate and i think they did the right thing. What about the senate . Stay with you. You brought up the senate. New reporting about the conversations between the white house and Senate Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell and a bit of rift in thinking over how you think . How each person sees this playing outleader mcconnell wants the trial to be swift and simple. Lack of drama. 9 president wants at show. Hoping witnesses like hunter biden and the whistleblower could turn this into a spectacle. Who do you think leader mcconnell would listen to . His own senators and their desire for decorum or the president of the United States . Its hard to say, but if i had to, if you push me to bet id say Mitch Mcconnell will listen to himself, and his senators, and will tell the president , look, if you want to keep a republican majority in the senate, this is what you have to do. Now, trump may or may not care about that. I presume he does care about it, but i think the president does listen to mcconnell to a certain degree now. Hmm. And they dont want to have a lot of circus, because they also dont want to have a lot of votes that senators would have to take. So they, too, want to keep it simple. Theyre going to look to the clinton impeachment trial in the senate, which had only three witnesses that were videotaped on depositions, that were done privately and that were shown in the senate, but if you want hunter biden there, well theyre going to say, okay. We want to have john bolton and mick mulvaney. Were going to drag everybody in here, and this just is never going to work. You then have, jeffrey, republicans, Kevin Mccarthy clayning once again the democrats are the ones rushing the process, but put this in historic perspective for us. How does this timeline compare to impeachments past . You know, in terms of when Congress Actually began discussing it, it will ultimately be longest of impeachment discussions. Ken starrs investigation of bill clinton actually went on several years before we got to this stage, but in terms of congressional actions, this is actually going to be the longest and slowest process if you will, if i can return actually to the second of the perspective articles of impeachment. The one about obstructing congress, this is one, yeah i keep on thinking about george washington. A man of course at the constitutional convention, a man of course first president. Essentially nome knew what the convention thought and the constitution but played it out in realtime for the first time, was very clear, extraordinarily clear on this issue. He said when first issues a statement of executive authority, executive privilege against congress for diplomatic reasons said you cannot see my correspondence. I need the ability to talk in private, unless its a matter of itch peachment. A martyr of impeachment, washington said basically you get everything because i cannot possibly be the judge of what is or is not something that should be seen for my own trial. So he was very clear there really is almost no reason, no positive reason, that congress should not be allowed to see documents. Dont forget. Bill clinton testified bill clinton testified before a grand jury, because his lawyers figured that if they took it to court they would lose. And the president s attorneys all along made the bet that if they stonewalled long enough it will go beyond the election. Its two very different strategies were looking at. Totally. Thank you both very much. Just ahead, joined live by the only congresswoman who has been involved in all three mods earn impeachment proceedings. Hear what congresswoman sow lock gr gren lockgren happen to say. And the current fbi director is firing back. Youre watching cnn. Im brooke baldwin. Well be right back. Do you have concerns about mild memory loss related to aging . Prevagen is the number one pharmacistrecommended memory support brand. You can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. Prevagen. Healthier brain. Better life. The inlaws have moved in with us. And our Adult Children are here. So we save by using tide. Which means we use less. Three generations of clothes cleaned in one wash. Anybody seen my pants . 1 stain and odor fighter, 1 trusted. Its got to be tide. Up here at the dewars distillery, all our whiskies are aged, blended and aged again. Its the reason our whisky is so extraordinarily smooth. Dewars. Double aged for extra smoothness. Iclimate is the number 1ove priority. Sage. I would declare a state of emergency on day 1. Congress has never passed an important climate bill, ever. This is a problem that continues to get worse. Ive spent a decade fighting and beating oil companies. Stopping pipelines. Stopping fossil fuel plants, ensuring clean energy across the country. How are we going to pull this country together . We take on the biggest challenge in history, we save the world and do it together. Now to a tale of two trump officials. Bill barr and chris wray holding vastly different conclusions about a report. The Inspector General looked how the trump russia investigation began. No evidence of political bias or undercover employees used on the Trump Campaign. Translation, theres no evidence of fbi spying on the trump 2016 team. That was chris wray. Now to bill barr, the attorney general today. Watch this. Foclearly spied upon. Thats what electronic surveillance is. Wiring people and making recordinging of conversations is spying. Going through peoples emails, which they did as a result of the fisa warrant. They went through everything. And now here is fbi director christopher wray. So the fbi did not spy on the Trump Campaign. Well, thats not a term that the fbi we used to describe our work. Do you have evidence that the fbi targeted the Trump Campaign unfairly . I dont. Large area. Our cnn justers correspondent, Deputy Assistant attorney general as well as u. S. Attorney and start with you, laura, on bill barr. How else did he defend his dismissal of this report . So this entire argument appears to be the fbi had a flimsy basis to open this investigation in the first place. He says that all the time. The word is predication. A fancy word for saying did you have legal grounds to do this or not . His argument, just a random conversation with george pop top liss lowlevel Campaign Aide and wasnt enough to do something as important as opening a vast investigation on the Trump Campaign. But Inspector GeneralMichael Horowitz interviewed over 170 people over 1 million documents and said it was properly predicated in part because of such a low threshold and interviewed all the people who actually made the decision to do it and said, look, this is actually a judgment call for the fbi. You can have an argument whether the threshold should be higher but its not and met that threshold and they followed it by the book. Harry, what do you think . Talking about the top cop in this country who is dismissing his own departments report. And that report is there. The Inspector General is there. Specifically to provide an independent, apolitical assessment of the facts. The world is upsidedown here. The whole notion of having the i. Gnk i. G. Report as ma twhat the fbi. This is about what was in front of the fbi agents at the time. And so horowitz judgment is specifically there in order to give public confidence, be apolitical and barrs posttalk intervention along with durhams undermine the notion of an Inspector General. Its really odd times at the doj. Durham and in john durham. Bill barr spoke about this separate still ongoing investigation. Getting criticism he does not agree with the i. G. Conclusion. Here again is bill barr. I think it was definitely appropriate, because i think it was necessary to avoid public confusion. I think it was sort of being reported by the press that the issue of predication was sort of done and over, even though it was a very limited look at that issue by the i. G. , given the narrowness of his, you know, of the evidence available to him. I think it was important for people to understand that the you know, durhams work was not being preempted and that durham was doing something different, and he explains what hes doing different, and that there are areas of disagreement. There are quite a few people calling for durham