Stay updated with breaking news from Article i. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
judiciary committee has taken formal positions which we can track about this question. i would just direct you to, again, article i, section 2, clause 5. the house of representatives is the sole power of impeachment and can design and structure impeachment as it sees fit. >> mr. cole, not without house rules, they can't. not that it gets authority to go outside house rules. that's the problem here, we're going outside house rules. when a counsel has not been here forever, that's what happens here. they went outside house rules. that's the problem i would have and we can discuss this more in depth. >> i have reason to suggest this has been going on longer than these proceedings. in 1998 during the clinton impeachment proceedings, chairman nadler stated in the house judiciary committee that, quote, there must never be a
president trump, including jared golden, democrat from maine. he has said he's voting yes to impeach on article i, but voting no on article two, obstruction of congress. don't know if that's to deal with his district or how he thinks about the case. let's bring in our panel. okay. mara, it's a foregone conclusion, this will go to the house and be debated tomorrow. likely along party lines. >> yep. we expect no republicans to vote yes and some democrats to vote no. like jared golden, there might be some that split their vote, feel that obstruction of congress really wasn't proved. the house did not go to court to enforce those subpoenas in a lot
protests on the' eve of the vot in several cities. what if any impact do you think that's going to have in the minds of the voters and for lawmakers? >> look, i'm not sure how lawmakers are going to be swayed or not by something like that. i think that for a lot of these democratic lawmakers who are in swing districts, they're already hearing a lot. there's already a lot of organization from groups like moveon and other big national organizations that are mobilizing around this. this has been a big mobilizing factor for a lot of democrats, just as it has been for the president's base, as well. so if there are any undecided democrats, this handful of undecided democrats that are still out there, i think maybe they'll be listening to things like that, but they're probably taking this weekend and going to make up their mind by tonight or by tomorrow. >> elizabeth, thank you so much for joining us. >> thanks. the trial of president trump is expected to start in january. the constitution lays out the rules, it's right there, article i, section 3. the senate shall have the sole
it comes after a marathon debate marked by angry exchanges and personal attacks, and in the end, the final tally broke along straight party lines. nancy cordes leads off our coverage tonight from capitol hill. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> reporter: the mood in the hearing room was somber as 40 lawmakers cast their votes. >> aye. >> aye. >> my vote is no. >> reporter: first, on article i, abuse of power. >> mr. chairman, there are 23 ayes and 17 no's. >> reporter: the outcome was identical for article ii... >> no. >> aye. >> reporter: ...obstruction of congress. >> the article is agreed to. >> reporter: the charges are similar to those the committee passed during the nixon impeachment process. >> mr. hogan? >> aye. >> reporter: in 1974. >> this is a moment where we had to hold the president accountable. >> it's a scam. >> reporter: president trump had this reaction from the oval office: >> i tell you what, some day there will be a democrat president, and they'll there
core of conduct here by president trump is probably not a crime. but if you look at why impeachment exists at all, if you look at what the framers meant by impeachment, they were most concerned with abuse of power. you know, you or i could lie in a grand jury tomorrow. you would never do that -- >> i would hope i wouldn't. >> but you or i could not week-old a withhold aid to ukraine. only a president can do that, and that's much more significant even if it's not a crime. and that's why abuse of power is so much at the core of the impeachment power of congress rather than simply a crime. and there is also the small fact that when congress -- when the framers passed the constitution, article i, ii, iii, there was no criminal code at all, so there
the president, the process would head to senate for a trial with the chief justice of the supreme court residing. there hasn't been such a proceeding since 1998. our capitol hill senior producer chad pergram explains how an impeachment trial could work today. >> reporter: the constitution says little about how the senate conducts an impeachment trial. article i, section six of the constitution says the senate, quote, has the sole power to try impeachments. the chief justice presides, and it takes a two-thirds vote to convict. >> under the impeachment rules of the senate, we'll take the matter up. the chief justice will be in the chair. we intend to do our constitutional responsibility. >> reporter: but on cnbc, mcconnell took a different tack. >> i would have no choice but to take it up. how long you're on it is a whole different matter. >> reporter: i've covered mitch mcconnell for a long time now. i've learned to parse his language. he usually says exactly what he means. the senate would have to take up
again. and my sense is that she thinks that this focus on article i, one article on abuse of power, involving trading away of our national security interests for personal political gain is the strongest armament that she can give to a suburban democrat going into the next election. an impeachment vote like that. >> chris, good evening. she certainly recognizes that none of us ran for congress to be a part of an impeachment inquiry. we ran on health care. we ran on gun violence. and to end it, we ran on extending jobs to people who want to work. but the urgency of this upcoming election and the extortion scheme that was going on forces us to answer the question, what do we do with our children watching what we will do with this democracy? will we allow this scheme to continue? and for foreigners to play in our elections, will we say, no, we're not going to allow it? now, we have crime, we have confession, we have cover-up. we're beginning to give this president a fairer investigation than he probably deserves. which means we're going to bring the witnesses in.
vertical after widespread criticism of this choice in defending the original decision he tried to argue, he was the victim. >> i don't think you people with this phony emoluments clause -- and by the way, i would say that it's cost me anywhere from $2 billion to $5 billion to be president, and that's okay. between what i lose and what i could have made, i could have made a fortune. if i just ran my business. i was doing it very well. >> the president blamed the very real, by the way, united states constitution, article i, section 9, clause 8, to be exact, and democrats as well. in reality, the reversal was because republicans, republicans refused to defend him on this. nbc news reports that after calling into a saturday meeting of moderate house republicans, according to two sources, quote, trump was told that the majority of the room felt it would be best for him to reverse himself. "the new york times" reports, with many members already unhappy with the consequences of the president's move to withdraw
friends and ripping off the american taxpayer. and so that's why we have a constitution and that's why the founders made sure it was congress that can impeach the president. the president cannot impeach congress. article i, the branches are standing up and we're not going to tolerate this anymore. >> all right. congressman jamie raskin, thank you very much. >> thank you. ahead what we learn from today's hearing in which the acting director of national intelligence tried to explain why he let the trump white house decide whether congress will ever see the whistle-blower's credible complaint about the president. the anatomy of a cover-up in two minutes.
over. we all know the argument that could be made against us in terms of our philosophy, in terms of our priorities and the rest. and the president knows there are arguments that could be made against him and, therefore, he wants to distract from them. you have to give him credit. he's a great distracter. that's what this is about. so let's just take it to a better place. let's take it to a better place. america. the president wants to make america great again. we all do. what does that mean? what is america? so many times we've come together and talked about america. america as our ideals in the constitution, an example to the world of founding documents that rejected a monarch and put forth separation of powers, article i, the legislative branch, having that priority enlisting and that is being under -- that's being