tv House Rules Committee Considers Impeachment Resolution for President Trump... CSPAN January 13, 2021 1:24am-2:51am EST
people will forget. people should not forget what happened. there has to be a consequence. if there's not a consequence, this will happen again. this will happen again. so, in any event, i want to make an announcement here. we are in the middle of two votes. so, we're going to take a brief recess so we can all vote on both of these votes. the previous question and the rule. once you are finished voting on the rule, come back and we will continue this discussion. without objection, the committee stands and recess subject to the call of the chair. >> after a brief recess, the
committee reconvened to hear testimony from colleagues on the proposed articles of impeachment. the resolution will be debated by the full house when members return at 9 a.m. rep. mcgovern: i would like to yield to dr. burgess. dr. burgess: thank you, mr. mcgovern. i want to thank mr. armstrong for joining us this evening. good to see him up here. part of your opening remarks, you mentioned this could be setting a new standard. impeachment is such an infrequent or historically has been such an infrequent activity , every decision this body makes is going to affect subsequent discussions of this activity throughout the course of history. i guess i was just struck by
your comments about the timeframe involved in the rapidity by which this is being brought to the rules committee and subsequently to the floor. i think i share your concern about setting a new standard. do you care to speak more about that? >> i ought to be perfectly clear, obviously, impeachment does not require criminal liability. i know that. i note it is not treated the same way because there's nowhere else in any court room anywhere in the country where you would accuse somebody of a crime on a wednesday, begin the prosecution on tuesday before all the arrest have occurred. there are two different schools of thought whether you can impeach after someone is out of office, but it has happened with a judge. ominous school that says you can. there is plenty of to him to do those things. i don't know how you can
impeach, i just don't, how you can do with this quickly without any fact hearings. there's a real first amendment question. there needs to be one we need to have that discussion. as i said, i have been critical and i don't take those comments back about what happened and how it happened. but clearly, we also have to take, i think, a deep look -- we're setting a vague standard in these articles that has the ability to set some kind of precedent. i'm really afraid of president trump's final days. we have read so many articles in the last couple of days. guilt is not doubted and innocence is never delivered. i spent 10 years as a criminal defense attorney. i would have never allowed my colleagues to go through this kind of rough process. if we are not going to hold that standard accountable and do this in a deliberative fashion, i
think we are doing an injustice to an institution. >> i also agree with your comments that the house speaker has made some assertions that it has to be carried out right away. yet, we can hold onto these articles for a period of time which then belies the urgency with it being brought to the floor. we're urgently approaching the situation because it is so important. then, in fact, we will get around to it. it just doesn't sound like that type of threat with the articles because it is inconvenient based on what else the senate has to do. rep. armstrong: i agree with
that. to be clear, that sounds like that is no longer the course of action. there is also still talk -- any trial is going to occur after president trump has left office and president biden is in office. rep. burgess: thank you for your participation this evening. i will yield back the balance of my time. rep. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman. i think all the evidence we need to see, we saw on january 6. the whole world saw it. what we are doing here today, we're voting to move forward tomorrow and the case will be heard over the united states senate. what is the precedent we are setting if we just have a blind eye? maybe people have short
memories. i was here on wednesday. i was in the chamber. when i walked out in the speakers lobby, i saw that angry mob. these people were desecrating the citadel of freedom and democracy. and it's almost as if we are going to say, well, just let it go. let it go. this is donald being donald. another bizarre episode in a bizarre presidency. give me a break. honest to god, when is enough enough? i give congresswoman cheney and the other republicans coming forward, including some republicans in the senate saying enough is enough. this is not about political party. this not even about if you like donald trump or not. this is about responding appropriately to one of the most egregious acts any of us have ever seen in our lifetime come from the white house. i now want to yield to the
gentlelady from california, ms. torres. rep. torres: thank you, mr. chairman. it is absolutely true that the future of our democracy is not guaranteed. i can only point to the floor today and what is happening with our republican colleagues challenging, pushing through our capitol police because they refuse to abide by some basic safety principles. where does it stop? our democracy can and is being eroded. one corrupt act at a time. and until our democracy is a mere facade that masks the tyranny within. mr. chairman, right now the
tyranny is not even masked. it's here inside these walls, using the american flag to attack, beat and murder police officers who keep us safe. today, we are conducting a somber, but necessary business for the american people. the united states of america is at a crossroads. we've had four years of a brand of politics unlike any other in american history. a politics removed from facts, rooted in fear, reinforced online and broadcast to the masses through media outlets that were complicit in the lives. -- lies. last wednesday, we saw firsthand where that path of mass misinformation leads. and it's shameful that it's
continuing. it leads to violence. it leads to destruction and tragically, to death. president donald trump incited the mob that stormed these halls. he did it in public view on a stage with cameras capturing his every word. using words like march on the capital and fight, the rioters did exactly what he told them to do. some of our colleague stood on that same stage. and repeated very offensive report -- remarks and lies. five people died including a capitol police officer. another one killed himself.
more than 50 police were seriously injured. 15 were injured so badly, they were hospitalized. all you have to do is walk by them to see the pain that they still have. now i ask you, how could a man ever safeguard our democracy? how could a man who brings a mop to overturn an election ever protect our constitution? how could a man who targeted our vice president, your vice president, our speaker can never be trusted with our safety? let me tell you, he can't. he cannot. president trump has done something no other president has never attempted to do, something
no other president would dare do. he incited a mob to attack his own people. and the democracy he swore an oath to defend. his behavior is disturbing -- deserving of exceptional shame and a second impeachment is exactly that. a private citizen had stood on the stage and said the same things he said to incite this mob into violence that caused the death of five people, that person would have been arrested. a vote for this article is a rejection of a politics of hate and division. it is a vote to ensure he never holds elected office again, ever. and it is a declaration to future generations that we did all we could to ensure that this democracy continues to thrive for future generations.
so, i will say again, we are at a crossroads and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this article and to support our democracy today. there is no republican or democrat. when they took us to a safe room, we were there together. this violent mob was incited by baseless claims that this election was stolen. claims that many of my colleagues have repeated over and over again. let's discuss why this election cycle is different. where's the line between raising reasonable questions about the fairness of an election and what we have here today?
eight senators and 139 house members seemingly to this day are denying that joe biden is a duly elected president of the united states. what common thought do you have about that? >> thank you, ms. torres. if this an appropriate time for my remarks -- does that make snse? sense? rep. mcgovern: that's fine. >> thank you very much. i have been moved by ms. torre'' remarks and the moral seriousness and intensity by which our members are grappling
with this unprecedented armed, violent mob insurrection and attack of this government and congress. the mob killed several people, chanting "hang mike pence." one officer said that chant will be ringing in his years for a long time -- ears for a long time. they were also asking where is nancy? apparently with the idea of kidnapping her, holding her hostage or worse. they could have wiped out the line of succession. in fact, senator lindsey graham, who obviously thought himself a friend of the president, said this mob could have blown the building up.
they could have killed us all. ms. torres is right. it would have killed all of us regardless of whether you are the biggest trump supporter or biggest trump opponent in the world. this was an attack on the congress of the united states of america. this was an attack on the people's house. it's constitutionally intolerable, unacceptable. and we must act. and if this is not an impeachable event, then what is? is inciting a mob for insurrection for your own government is not an impeachable event, then what is? rep. torres: if i may interrupt you for a minute. i have to run to the floor for a
vote. mr. chairman, when mr. raskin is finished, i will yield back to you. rep. mcgovern: thank you. rep. raskin: i wanted to make a few points. i have been working on a resolution on the floor which is why i missed part of today's extremely important work, hearing on the impeachment resolution. ms. cheney from wyoming, the outgoing congresswoman from wyoming, and the chair of the house republican congress which makes her the third ranking republican released an absolutely starting lately impressive statement today where she really reflected about what has just taken place in our country. i want to just quote a small part of it. it is not very long but i want to quote it because it synthesizes so much of what i feel about our situation.
i don't know where she is right now. i want to salute her for her ethical seriousness and for her constitutional patriotism and her love of our country. she said "much more will become clear in coming days and weeks. but what we know now is enough. what we know now is enough. the president of united states summoned the mob, assembled the mob and let the flame of this attack. everything that followed was his doing. none of this would have happened without the president. the president could have immediately and forcibly intervened to stop the violence. he did not. there has never been a greater betrayal by a president of the united states of his office and oath to the constitution. i will vote to impeach the
president." that's liz cheney writing to her colleagues. all right, unfortunately, i've got to go. i want to very quickly say, mr. armstrong and his comments -- the brandenburg standard for criminal constitution as a citizen for his/her speech, but the constitutional standards for impeaching a president for high crimes and misdemeanors against the republic. those are two completely different things. that was totally disoriented on the law. even if you were going to try to prosecute the president for incitement, you would likely get him on that. that is not what we are doing. we have a much lower standard. the standard is should a person who counseled, advises, encourages and ferments insurrection against our government continue as the president of the united states? the brandenburg standard is an
irrelevant distraction from what congress needs to be thinking about. if you have doubts, read the statements of the american civil liberties union. the executive director just wrote a long analysis of why the aclu board unanimously supports impeachment of a president who would betray his own democracy like this. they say the first amendment has nothing to do this because it is the speech of a government official and a completely different standard applies. he is not being impeached for one speech, is being impeached for entire pattern of conduct for months, try to undermine, nullify and reverse the results of the democratic election. this is a fundamental betrayal of his oath of office. this president cannot stay in office and we must act as congress to defend the congress, the people and the constitution. i yield back, mr. chairman. rep. mcgovern: thank you very much.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to read an article by jonathan turley who we heard from in the last impeachment that was put forward. it was published in "the hill." the author once wrote, my guiding principle is this. guilt is never to be doubted. democrats suddenly appear close to adopting that standard into the constitution as they prepare for a second impeachment of president trump. with seeking his removal for incitement, democrats would cut not only the impeachment standard but also free speech all in a mad rush to remove trump just days before his term ends. democrats are seeking to remove trump on the basis of his remarks to his supporters before the writing of the capital.
like others, i condemn those remarks as he gave them. calling them reckless and wrong. i also opposed the challenges to elegant -- electoral votes in congress. again, this is from jonathan turley. it does not meet the definition for incitement under the criminal code. it would be viewed as protected speech by the supreme court. when i testified in the impeachment hearings of trump and bill clinton, i noted an article of impeachment does not have to be based on any clear crime but that is congress has looked to the criminal code to weigh impeachment defenses. for this controversy now, any such comparison would to sell claims of criminal incitement despite broad and justified condemnation of his word, trump and actually called for violence riots. he urged his supporters to march on the capital to raise their opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to back
the recent challenges made by a few members of congress. trump told the crowd to peacefully and patriotically make your voices be heard. these crimes of legal challenges have -- kinds of legal challenges have been made by democrats in the past. trump was pressing republicans in congress to join the effort on his behalf. the end of his remarks was meant to provide republicans the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. he told the crowd let us walk down pennsylvania avenue. marches are common across the country to protest actions by the government. the legal standard for violence speech is found with brandenburg v. ohio. as a brie -- free speech advocate, i criticized the 1969 case and it's dangerously vague
standards. even if it would treat the remarks of trump protected under the first amendment. with that case, the government is able to criminalize and likely to incite or produce such action. there was no call for lawless action by trump. instead, there was a call for a protest of the capital. violence was not imminent and the vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters were nonviolent before the march and most did not riot inside the capital. like many violent protests in the last four years, criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators. capitol police knew of the march but declined an offer by the national guard since they did not feel violence was likely. congress is now seeking an impeachment for remarks covered by the first amendment.
it would create president for the impeachment of any president linked to violent acts of others after using reckless language. what is worse, those few cases that would support this type of action most obvious is the 1918 prosecution of socialist eugene debs who spoke against the drafter world war i and lead figures like woodrow wilson to declare him a traitor to his country. he was arrested and charged with sedition. a new favorite term for democrats to denounce trump and republicans who doubted the victory of joe biden. in 1919, one of the most infamous decisions to issue from the supreme court. it dismissed the free speech rights for debs and held it was sufficient that his words have the natural tendency and reasonably probable effect of deterring people from supporting the international conflict.
that decision was a disgrace. democrats are not arguing something even more extreme as a basis for impeachment. under their theory, any president would be removed for rhetoric that is seen to have the natural tendency to encourage others to act in a riotous fashion. even a call for supporters to protest peacefully could not be a defense. such a standard would allow for a type of impeachment that attributes conduct to third parties to any president for the purposes of removal. democrats are pushing this dangerously vague standard while objecting to their own remarks, given new meaning from critics. conservatives have pointed to maxine waters asking her supporters to confront republicans and restaurants -- in restaurants. ayana pressley the violent marches last year that the needs to be unrest in the streets.
kamala harris said protesters should not let up. even as some of those marches turned violent. they can legitimately argue it was not a call for violence but the standard is filled with subjectivity. the damage caused by the rioters this week was enormous but it will pale in comparison to the damage from a new president of a snap impeachment for speech protected by the first amendmente. it is the threat that the framers sought to avoid in the process of deliberative judgment. the reference to a snap impeachment is a contradiction. in this new system, guilt is not doubted an innocence is not the liberated. this would do the constitution -- this would do to the constitution what the violent rioters did to the capital and
leave it in tatters. mr. chairman, i ask you to insert this article from jonathan turley into the record. rep. mcgovern: without objection. thank you. i just need to respond. what happened in the capitol on wednesday is a little bit different from somebody's dinner being disturbed at a restaurant. people died. there was an attempt to launch a coup. to prevent congress from doing its constitutional, fulfilling its constitutional responsibility. this was an insurrection. to be honest with you, you know, you may have interpretive his words one way, but clearly that mob interpreted it quite differently.
when you talk about donald trump using the word peacefully, that was after he got caught. that was not before the march. that was after all hell broke loose. that was after somebody handed him a prepared statement to read because things were so out of control. he said fight like hell. rudy giuliani talked about trial by combat. let's be very clear about what happened at that rally and the result was. rep. lesko: mr. chair. rep. mcgovern: i recognize the gentlewoman from arizona. rep. lesko: i was reading an article written by jonathan turley. that was my full reading, exactly what he wrote. rep. mcgovern: my criticism is for jonathan turley then. rep. lesko: mr. chairman, i
would encourage you to read the transcript from the speech. i read it. excuse me. i just want to set this for the record, i'm not trying to be argumentative. i'm just trying to say this is exactly from the transcript. this is what donald trump said during the speech. "we have to demand that congress do the right thing. the electors who have been lawfully slated. i know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." this was 18 minutes and 16 seconds into the speech. thank you, mr. chairman, i yelled back. -- yield back. rep. mcgovern: there's a lot of chunks of that speech missing. i yield to mr. cicilline. rep. cicilline: thank you. first of all, it is important to
say, and i think mr. raskin articulated this a moment ago. this first amendment claim is a silly argument. private citizens have a first amendment right to protect them from government interference in their free speech. government officials are in a very different position. brandenburg has nothing to do with the impeachment of a president. this president made a serious statement and took a series of actions that incited this insurrection. secondly, impeachments are not about punishing people for a crime. it is about preventing future danger. impeachment of the president is to remove the president from office because of the danger he presents currently. finally, there is a first amendment exception even if it did apply to the president which it does not for incitement. finally, i know there was reference to the notion this is
impeaching the president for speech. as detailed in the impeachment report, it was much more than a speech. this was an ongoing campaign to promote a lie that he had won the election and it was stolen from him despite the fact he won by tens of millions of votes. he riled up his supporters and told them they had to come to washington to fight and fight hard to take back the country or they wouldn't have a country anymore. there was wide public reporting this group was descending on the capital at the president's urging to stop the steal. and that they were armed and dangerous and violence was likely. with all of that knowledge, the president continued to repose -- to promote the big lie. that morning was the icing on the cake. he riled them up, telling them they wouldn't have a country of they didn't fight. rudy giuliani talked about combat. these all contributed to the
incitement. the president after it happened didn't immediately call to stop the violencee. . public reporting is he was delighted by it. he was pleased by that. and that he makes statements saying this is what you get when you take away an election. so, we still have not seen the president who had shown remorse, understands the gravity of this insurrection and continues for that. not a single speech, not one phrase, it was feeding the lie every day for weeks and weeks to enrage his supporters and make them believe their votes had been stolen away and that they had to fight like they've never fought before to take back their democracy. that is what incited the violence which was the inevitable result of donald trump's ongoing campaign to get people to come to washington and disrupt the electoral college and attack.
i yield back. rep. mcgovern: thank you. i yield to mr. gohmert. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. cicilline did a great job explaining what this is all about. i thank him for that, i thank him for this work on this. bottom line, i say to my friend, mr. armstrong -- i want to thank you for standing up for the constitution last week and affirming and confirming the electoral college votes. you and a number of other republicans -- i'm sure you have taken some grief, people are complaining to you about that. i do appreciate that. i disagree, however, with how you described this. i appreciate that you were a defense lawyer and i would say to my friend, mr. cole, the flaw
that is -- the flaw of your logic, mr. armstrong, is you say a lot of things that i would agree with except this is to prevent future behavior. this is not looking back and trying a particular case, best evidence of what you will do in the future is what you did in the past. this is more like a domestic kind of a situation where you want to make sure there is protection. to preserve, protect and defend the constitution and the president didn't do any of that in this particular instance. you know, do we want to proceeding with an impeachment with eight days left? no. that is not something we want to do. we want to have a peaceful transition. we want this to get finished.
we want joe biden and kamala harris to be sworn in, but there are threats that have surfaced for next week similar to the threats that occurred last week. we need to make sure that there is somebody who wants to preserve, protect and defend. mike pence and i served together. i have to say i appreciated the way he conducted himself. he was threatened. to be hanged. the only thing i would say to my friend, mr. armstrong, that makes all of this difficult is that each and every one of us is a witness and each of every one of us is a victim of what occurred last week. each and every one of us have a responsibility to do whatever we can to make sure it doesn't happen again next week. and that there is a transition of government.
so, i appreciate the argument my friend makes. i appreciate what mr. cole said but this does not deal with preventing summit going one in the future -- something going on in the future. with that, you'll back to the chair. rep. mcgovern: thank you. you. thank you. i appreciate it. i was just going to say i don't mean to put you on the spot but is there anything you want to discuss that you don't feel was brought up and i just want to give you a chance. >> thanks. i don't particularly disagree although i would argue no matter what we do here today and on the floor, donald trump is still
going to be the president and if you are were really worried about this institution and the process we were all victims and witnesses and when tensions are high that is when the process matters the most. if you are worried about future conduct and the integrity and more importantly about the majority of supporters particularly i sat through the last impeachment and also the answer isn't doing this or doing nothing. that's never been the answer. i want to be clear about that. but this institution matters
until january 20th, we should do this, we should have hearings if we are going down this path. there's a process to engage in and that's not a new argument. the defender in the hearing and he talks about this idea of the due process coming to the conclusion the impeachment is this discussion of the house and
the house has the authority to write its own rules and that's what happened. there's basically the discussion to figure out how to conduct each impeachment has justice and to those who are saying it would have been a week since the riots were caused by the president. andrew johnson it took the house three days to impeach him. the house had the evidence it needed. here are the president kind of send the evidence right into our
lap and people on this meeting had to leave abruptly and had at the shelter in place and we heard what the mob did and we saw and heard the president has expressed no remorse that he did not send assistance to the capital to the first branch or first article branch of the government. so, we have the evidence to impeach. if the senate chooses not to take it up before the inauguration, we can't control that but we can do our duty and say this is wrong i think that is the point of this impeachment because of the clear and present danger of what can happen in the next few days with a president
whose followers are still supporting him still in the insurrection. on the plot that required uncovering of evidence and also the president presented to some danger but it was sort of creeping and slow danger. in this case the remaining in office is a clear and present danger today. there are no facts in dispute unlike the last impeachment to
do incredible damage and dozens were injured as well as significant damage to the citadel democracy so people saw all of this play out and all of the statements and speeches of the president promoting the lie. that was just a culmination of an ongoing effort to get the board to come to washington to support the stop the steel event
to stop the peaceful transition of power. so, there's no dispute about any of that. it happened before our eyes. they were victims and witnesses do all of these events and finally i would note we provided the opportunity to present. due process that's when you have the right to call witnesses and cross examination, present evidence and documents. the impeachment is the indictment, the accusation of the president. i would say to return to my first point of this is urgent. to undermine the democracy and undermine what remains a clear and present danger we must be
removed from office immediately. a. >> thank you. i will yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman for your steadfast leadership today and every day and i know this is a remarkable day but i just want you to know how much i appreciate you and thank you for your leadership and authorship of the resolution and for all the work you do, tireless work you do on behalf of the country. mr. chairman, the members of the committee find ourselves yet again with a sovereign obligation before us and i want to just take a moment to sort of express my thoughts and i will be repeating some of what my colleagues said i want to lay out what is for the first time in the history a decision to impeach a sitting president for the second time none of us take any joy or good feelings away
from this. this is something that reflects on a political decision. this was made november 3rd by the millions of americans. to hold accountable for their actions, these events of the past week remain shocking, emotional, painful the building that is the symbol of the democracy, a sacred space that represents the rule of law, the voices of the people and fundamental values that we hold dear. it was incited by the president himself to undermine and disrupt the votes that would take to be close his presidency and the actions and rhetoric demonstrate that he's unfit for the
presidency. i want to repeat what you said just sometime earlier this afternoon and in doing so to protect the american people from a clear and present danger that confronts us now. this moment a dark and insidious great danger that threatens the foundation and people of this grand republic to this hazard president trump must be removed from office using any means afforded to us by the constitution. they are doing no question the president not only advocates the responsibility to protect the country and not only refuses but actively encourages them time and time again calling upon the nations darkest demons instead of summoning our better angels and there could be no question
surely such a president is the type of executive the founders had in mind when they entrusted the house with the power of impeachment in the first place. our president wants us here, the rioters and insurrectionist's said they firmly believe they were fighting for him and said minutes before the attack on the capital after this we are going to walk down and i will be there with you although he was not and they believe because they have repeatedly being lied to you have to show strength and be strong. after this, the president said we love you, you are very special. that was after the incident, not
before. you can talk all you want about the things on this list. outside of the bounds we have come to be almost numb to it. but let's acknowledge it, the rhetoric that led nor is it poised to act. the president is continually reveled in the report he receives from the worst factions of america who spout hatred and is repeatedly refused to condemn the violence of neo-nazis, white supremacists and anti-democratic traders. we teach the children that words matter. but it's a lesson that gets harder and harder to teach when time and time again it is willfully defined by the leader of the highest office in the land. so let's come together to make it clear to the children, grandchildren and the
generations that follow that donald trump's behavior is antithetical to american law, democracy and values. we must make it clear to this president and all future that we cannot and will not tolerate the actions life liberty and the pursuit of happyness for all americans. for all of us let's ensure one thing remains clear. those of us that trust with the safety and security of the nation a good conscience president kennedy widely observed is the only sure reward and history will be the final judge. a time of good conscience is now and to support this resolution and urge the approving final judgment of history. with that i will yield back, mr.
why don't we go and come back did my microphone work this time? thank you mr. chairman and members of the committee. thank you very much. we talk a lot about the horrible events that happened here at the capital on january 6th and i want to end with that but start with the beginning of violating the law and urging others in order to prevent the peaceful transfer of power he was working on that before january.
he was working on that in georgia to try to have elections officials and find votes for him. illegally find votes for him. that was asking people to violate their oath and that was asking people to violate the law so that he could prevent the peaceful transfer of power to president elect biden and vice president elect harris. that didn't work so what did he do? he tried to get the vice president to go against his duty under the constitution and reporting on the electors.
and the vice president to his credit refused to do it because he knew that that would be violating his oath and violating the law. after both of those things failed, he told a mob and it was because they saw them when he came into the capital and as they were around the capital that it was up to them to save his presidency, to save the country. three things that resulted in the desecration of this capital and that resulted in the loss of life so many people's lives and so many put in the hospital and
he still has no remorse. if those three things do not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, i don't know what does. what the house is doing here isn't helping the trial. this is presenting the evidence and we are at this point because the president has not admitted that he has done anything wrong through this entire pandemic, and unfortunately, the vice president said he will not invoke the 25th amendment. so, what is left?
the only thing that is left is the authority of this house to indict the president and this pattern of inciting lawlessness, not just the violence that we saw here but after he lost an election. that cannot be in a democracy. that cannot be under our constitution. we must impeach this president. i'm so happy congresswoman cheney has agreed and has taken a very bold and brave stance. it is our duty to do this and i thank you for bringing this forward. with that i will yield back my time. >> thank you.
now -- >> i'm sorry about that. [inaudible] >> that's what i get for using a texas company's computer. i switched back to my california company. i just want to thank you again and the ranking member and all of my colleagues for their comments and just reiterate what i said earlier. lincoln said they died from internal rottenness and i think all of us could agree that what happened in the capital building
last wednesday was about as bad as we would want to see. i don't see how you could separate the president's actions for what we saw in that building and i try to understand your perspective if my party behaved like this i wouldn't feel that way with all due respect so i think we have to do what we have in front of us and i'm happy to support this resolution. i'm not happy that the country has to go through this, but after what's happened i don't see how we can't take the
actions we took earlier today does any other member of the committee wish to ask a question of the panel? let me take this opportunity to thank mr. armstrong and mr. cellini for going before the rules committee and making the case. we appreciate your time and obviously your passion on these issues and if there are no more questions, you are excused. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we now have another panel. i would like to welcome the gentle man from texas to make sure we have him here. >> i am here, mr. chairman. >> it is great to see you.
thank you for the testimony today. any written testimonials before the conclusion will without objection be entered into the record and i am now happy to recognize the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for allowing me to listen to all of these various testimonies and comments. i came prepared to talk about federalist -- >> if i could pause you for a second. your volume is coming over pretty low. i don't know if you could speak closer to the microphone.
can you hear me well now. >> i came to talk about federalist 65 and how i was preparing myself for a debate to talk about andrew johnson more specifically article ten of the articles of impeachment and requirements for impeachment. but after listening to you, it is felt in my heart the extent i want to talk about what this is really about now. it's about hate. this is about hate. all of this that we saw was motivated by hate.
it's about the ability to manipulate. i want you to know that i also am worried about the picture. i'm worried about the future that will allow another donald trump to believe that he can recognize hate and use it as it was used against us here but i'm also worried about people that don't have the protections that i have. but people that are afraid. the people in oklahoma, the
people that understand. if they decide they want to attack a community, there are a good many people who believe that it would be a community of color, so i'm worried about the hate and the fear people have. if i go through an airport and they verbally assault me, police officers protect me. but there are people who have to suffer the consequences of hate that don't have the protection that we have. you go to the floor and members are searched. we are protected. i'm here tonight to appeal to you let people vote on these amendments. vote here to let people vote on
the floor. it's a challenge on both sides. the first amendment by supporting it which i think a good many of you will [inaudible] i know what this kind of hate looks like. i've had a cross burned in my yard. i know what this kind of hate sounds like. but i want you to understand how much i understand what it feels like.
there was a red bicycle and a child like all child wanted to get out and have a great experience it felt some on the arm and the face and it became even more intense and you could hear a popping sound. and then some young boys stood up and talked about how i've got it, i hit him first but they called him the n word shooters.
floor and the floor votes to impeach it isn't appealable. so i beseech you and implore you and appeal give the second amendment that i've given to you but you can't because there are many people who would benefit because we will label this president for what he is. a president that has weaponize hate but he's used to that for his advantage. this is a seminal moment.
>> mr. green. [inaudible] >> i'm sorry, mr. perlmutter. >> i wanted to thank mr. green for his amendment and there are a number of things that go to the overall article of impeachment. leading up to january 6 and there are a number that he has listed and all of that leading up to january 6th as a part of his amendment i just want to thank the gentle man and i will yield back. that is what we all believe. >> unanimous consent. a. >> i'm so glad that you are part
of this house of representatives. i appreciate your passion on this issue and dedication on this issue and what you said today resignations with a lot of us. if there are no other questions, you are excused. thank you. we now have another panel. ms. jackson lee. i think that it's your birthday today. >> it is. i thank you for the leadership. to reflect on where we are today to the insurrection and attack
it was the framers of the constitution that said the character is thus marked meaning the president by every act that may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. as we have looked at impeachment from andrew johnson, continuing to richard nixon those preceding this presidency impeachment and maybe even treason. and so because the facts clearly point to the act of insurrection
and for the mob to attack the democratic symbol i introduce h rise 26 that speaks to the insurrection but also has article number two that speaks to the question of abuse of power and failure to defend the constitution and highlights the fact that it failed to defend newly elected federally elected persons such as members of congress, the speaker and the senate leadership. i am supporting my colleagues and article one for h rise 24 and i want to indicate that 26 provides the framework of the
abuse that mr. trump has continued from the moment of his inauguration. i started with the number of people who came. this is his circle moment and much more will be said on the floor of the house but i did want to offer to the rules committee if h rise was to be amended the idea of the failure to defend the constitution among the insurrection and of course the enormous abuse of power and the framing of this attack from november 6 by the constant insinuating saying the election was stolen and those that had the racist tendencies and could
utilize this as an opportunity for their violence and then those who would not take the democratic process of winning or losing but wanted to take these and turn them violently on innocent persons on january 6th, 2021. so again, i offer consideration and rise as well to support my friends, fellow colleague on the judiciary
resolution shall be privileged during the remainder of the 117th congress. finally the rule provides that it agrees to the january 4th 2021 is a method by striking january 208th and each place that it appears starting february 11th. >> the motion for the gentlewoman from california. is there any amendment up for discussion? all of those in favor. >> opposed. in the opinion of the chair, mr.
finished dealing with. i just went down the record. and i was waiting to make sure that we are clear here. >> now mister chairman at the beginning i need my cigar time now. you're getting very serious. i thought i would wring it down to 152 for celebratory first rules committee cigar. i'm not the only one anxious to go. >> i think as i've been told were all set and. [inaudible] i will vote for the majority i will. >> i will and mister chairman i will say i need to buy this
>> "washington journal" continues. host: jay waller joins us on what a 50-50 senate divided means for the incoming administration. i know you spent years working on capitol hill and you live on capitol hill. your thoughts on the events of last wednesday? guest: i think like many millions of other americans, i was just shocked. i am still unpacking it. it is truly shocking to me. it really was a sad day and a tragic day for all americans. host: one of the topics i know you study is the rule, the
institution of the senate. we are getting a warp speed lesson on the rules of the senate when it comes to an impeachment trial in a very short window. what is your thought on if democrats in the house say they will impeach the president this week. can a senate trial be held in the timeframe before he leaves office? guest: one thing i have learned in the senate is that anything is possible. it's important to acknowledge it is very difficult. the procedural posture will bar it from starting. if the house passes articles of impeachment prior to january 20 at 1:00 p.m., one hour after joe biden is sworn into office and president trump leaves office. of course, the senate can agree to waive the current procedural posture by unanimous consent.
and there has been discussion of having a trial after president trump leaves office. it has only happened twice before in american history. and also the impeachment trial in the president's cabinet. in both of those instances, there is no conviction. it is literally unprecedented for the senate to convict an official that is no longer an office of the charges in an article of impeachment. host: and a trio of republican senators you have worked for. what is your read on republican senators having enough republican senators to convict on impeachment charges? guest: it is not clear. it could be closer than this time last year. it is not clear that two thirds of the senate are willing to vote to convict.
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on