tv Americas Newsroom With Bill Hemmer and Sandra Smith FOX News October 31, 2019 6:00am-9:00am PDT
world. lucas tomlinson is watching this fours and joins us live from the pentagon. hi, lucas. >> bill: the head of u.s. forces in the middle east since the assault force highlighted having american forces on the ground. new data and video shows al-baghdadi's compound being leveled by laser guided bombs and jets. u.s. special operations forces left the target with a trove of intelligence and ice yens leader's remains. the commander of u.s. central command planned the operation. >> those of you have seen before and after pictures of the compound it looks like a large parking lot with potholes right now. the operation was planned and executed and demonstrates the united states global reach and unwavering commitment to
destroy isis and bring its leaders to justice. >> critical early intelligence from the sdf, the main u.s. ally against isis. he said al-baghdadi used a messenger system, not the internet to communicate with followers and used cure yors to distribute messages. he was asked if he cried and whim period. >> i can tell you this he crawled into a hole with two small children and blew himself up. you can deduce what kind of person it is based on that activity. that would be my observation of what he did. i can't confirm anything else about his last seconds. >> more u.s. troops are going to the oil fields keeping them out of isis hands. a successor to baghdadi was also killed. >> bill: there are dozens of conservatives groups hitting nancy pelosi with an complaint
using the impeachment matter as a weapon. >> julie: a stunning admission by elizabeth warren, the senator agreeing medicare for all could kill two million jobs. could this impact her campaign? >> here they are. one strike and one out away. 3-2. there it is! >> bill: man, oh man, what a series that is. the nationals make history, taking a historic win on the road in game seven. what a finish. details on how they came back late last night coming up here. as a struggling actor, i need all the breaks that i can get. at liberty butchemel... cut. liberty mu... line? cut. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty biberty...
cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
yearend deadline set by kim jong-un for washing ton to start nuclear talks. >> bill: an economist suggested medicare for all in warren's plan could result in the loss of two million american jobs. >> part of the cost issue and should be part of a cost plan. although do recognize on this what we're talking about. and that is, in effect how much of our healthcare dollars have not gone to healthcare. think about the for-profit insurance system that lies right in the middle right now of our healthcare delivery system. >> bill: i think the key line at the beginning of that clip. this is part of the cost issue. she concedes that point apparently. >> yes, there will be costs. you know, it is interesting it's taken this long for us to
get to this point of wondering what will be the effect of this. elizabeth warren keeps attacking the healthcare industry, healthcare companies. guess what? hundreds of thousands, millions of individuals work for those healthcare companies and her proposal medicare for all is to eliminate private healthcare insurance and substitute the government. the idea that all those workers would simply walk over and start working for the federal government is preposterous and now she is facing the music of the costs. >> bill: she has been asked repeatedly about how you pay for it and specifics have been elusive, shall we say. now joe biden is taking on her and bernie sanders. want to play this clip from yesterday. >> like a lot of people i tell you how much my plans cost. it doesn't cost $3.4 trillion per year and take 10 years maybe to get there assuming you can get it passed. the fact is it will cost us somewhere the estimates range
between $600 billion total to $720 billion. >> bill: did you get all that? >> a mere $700 billion? >> 600, 720. >> details. what we are finding out here for years now healthcare has been the bermuda triangle for washington politicians. remember when the republicans said they were going to repeal and replace obamacare? they failed at that. now these republicans -- these democrats running for president are finding they, too, are having difficulty putting across ideas that are inherently difficult to do. >> bill: it appears listening to that particular sound bite from yesterday he was clear as mud. you write a piece called the democrats' spooky politics. check it out in the "wall street journal." the floor of the house, dan, they're reading the resolution. i think if you print it out it
is 8 1/2 pages in length. they will read the resolution and go into some level of debate and speeches and at some point this morning we are going to see the resolution get a vote. what do you make of this today as we watch it? >> you know, i think what's going on here is what's been going on with nancy pelosi from the beginning. pelosi, remember, opposed going down the impeachment path. primary reason was she was trying to protect the 30 or so freshman democrats who had replaced republicans in these swing districts. i think this vote is all about allowing these democrats to cast a procedural vote in favor of impeachment making it public, elevating the process in a way that protects them in those districts. the key vote would come when they actually vote on impeachment itself. then we'll see how many of them come across. >> bill: they would have to go back to their district and explain the vote now and make a clear distinction what they are voting on at the moment. >> those democrats are the
reason nancy pelosi is speaker of the house. they took back control of the house because of those 30 or so democrats. and she -- they are the ones she has been trying to protect from the beginning of this so-called process. >> bill: as you look at it from the outside and if you do the math you might get a few republicans voting with democrats and a few democrats voting with republicans. by and large it will be a partisan vote right down the middle. >> a totally partisan vote. it is a good thing that they're making it public now so the american people can get a view of what exactly is going on rather than hiding behind the closed doors of adam schiff's committee. >> bill: when we go to public hearings if you look at the resolution, that might be the week of november 11th. about two weeks from now. how does this change if you get a witness who is, for lack of a better word, unimpeachable in their testimony? >> well, the issue is what are they testifying about. let's keep in mind from the
beginning the issue here has been what president trump was asking ukraine to do on behalf of investigating joe biden and perhaps hunter biden. there has been no suggestion that this issue is going to push beyond the parameters of what we know. so i don't think there is any possibility that a new witness is going to come up and blow this issue out of the water. it is what it is. senator kennedy was saying earlier, we know what it has been from the beginning. they can have the impeachment vote tomorrow morning as far as i'm concerned. >> bill: we'll see if that happens. senator kennedy said we know where it will go when it comes to the senate. thank you. we're watching the resolution and get a vote as we said at some point this morning. a lot of this right now is in free flow form so be patient with us and we'll take it a step at a time and when we get the latest developments from the floor of the house we'll bring them to you. get a break here. back in three minutes after
thbecause with nband after thleague pass on xfinityr. you can watch the out of market games you want- all season long. and with the all-new xfinity sports zone, you get everything nba all in one place- even notifications about your favorite teams. watch the dropped dimes, monster blocks, and showstopping dunks.
plus get instant access to your teams with the power of your voice. that's simple, easy, awesome. say nba league pass into your voice remote to upgrade for a great low price - or go online today. >> bill: we'll be doing this for next several hours now. dip into what is being said. mcgovern, democrat from massachusetts, the chairman of the rules committee and he will be followed by the republican tom cole, the republican from oklahoma. just drop in here and we'll get a sense of what we're hearing on the floor of the house. >> taken for granted today but having just shaken off a tyrant the founders knew better. they understood the very foundations of our country are dependent on safeguarding against one branch of government encroaching on the others. that's what the idea of checks and balances is all about. within that system the framers gave only this congress the power if need be to impeach a
president over possible wrongdoing. this fact that no one is above the law is what separates this country from so many others. because of its seriousness, the impeachment process has been rarely used for presidents. for just the fourth time in our nation's history congress is now investigating whether to impeach a president of the united states. our authority to do so under article 2 section 4 of the constitution of the united states and the rules of the house of representatives is clear. and the courts have recently agreed. for all the disagreements i have with president trump, for all his policies, his tweets, and his rhetoric that i deeply disagree with i never wanted our country to reach this point. i do not take any pleasure in the need for this resolution. we are not here in some partisan exercise. we are here because the facts compel us to be here. there is serious evidence that president trump may have
violated the constitution. this is about protecting our national security and safeguarding our elections. that's why the intelligence committee has been gathering evidence and hearing testimony like any investigation, reasonable confidentiality has been paramount. witnesses should not be able to coordinate testimony in advance. the truth must be allowed to prevail. republicans have been a part of every single proceeding conducted so far. republicans conducting these depositions along with their staffs have had an opportunity to question each and every witness. now madam speaker we're entering the public facing phase of this process and i commend the investigative committees and their staffs for the professional manner which they've conducted themselves. i would also like to commend the courageous public servants that have bravely come forward to tell the truth. without their courage this possible wrongdoing would never have seen the light of day. the public should not be left in the dark. they should see the facts about
the president's conduct firsthand. that's why i introduced this resolution. it establishes the next steps of this inquiry including establishing the procedure for public-facing hearings conducted by the intelligence committee and the process for transferring evidence to the judiciary committee. it is about transparency and it is about due process for the president. some on the other side will never be satisfied with any process that uncovers the truth of what the president did. madam speaker none of us knows whether or not president trump will be impeached or convicted. only the facts and how we respond to them will dictate the outcome. but i truly believe that 100 years from now historians will look back at this moment and judge us by the decisions we make here today. this moment calls for more than politics. it calls for people concerned not about the reactions of partisans today but of the consequences of an action decades from now. if we don't move this president
-- >> bill: the chairman of the rules committee delivering his opening remarks. the debate will go on for at least one hour. we'll hear from the republican tom cole when mcgovern is finished. we'll go in and out of the process throughout the morning. we'll play it as we get it here on "america's newsroom." we'll share that with you as the house is now gaveled to order there. >> julie: also happening now on capitol hill as we speak former top russia advisor at the national security council now testifying on capitol hill what he is telling lawmakers next. et looking cars can smell musty? that's because odors trapped in your car's soft surfaces get released, and are then circulated by your ac system. to stop the cycle of odors try febreze car vent clips. febreze stops the circulation of musty air by trapping and eliminating lingering odor molecules for up to 30 days of fresh, clean air. plus, they come in a range of scents including extra light. stop the cycle of odors in your car with febreze car vent clips.
at humana, we believe your healthcare should evolve with you. and part of that evolution means choosing the right medicare plan for you. humana can help. with original medicare, you're covered for hospital stays and doctor office visits, but you'll have to pay a deductible for each. a medicare supplement plan can cover your deductibles and co-insurance, but you may pay higher premiums and still not get prescription drug coverage. but with an
all-in-one humana medicare advantage plan, you could get all that coverage plus part d prescription drug benefits. you get all this coverage for as low as a $0 monthly plan premium in many areas. and humana has a large network of doctors and hospitals, so call or go online today. find out if your doctor is part of the humana network and get your free decision guide. discover how an all-in-one humana medicare advantage plan could save you money. there is no obligation, so call or go online right now. >> bill: top republican on the rules committee is tom cole republican from oklahoma. drop in now here on the floor. >> both president nixon in 1947 and president clinton in 1998. today's resolution provides fewer process protections and fewer protections for minority rights than what we've seen in previous impeachment efforts.
at our mark-up yesterday republicans tried to change that. we tried to offer constructive amendments that made the process more fair, that would give rights to the minority, that would give rights to the accused, and that insure due process for everyone. republicans offered 17 amendments and not one, not one madam speaker, was accepted. not one. we offered amendments that would align the subpoena powers in this resolution from the subpoena powers used for president clinton. unlike the clinton inquiry, today's resolution does not provide for co-equal subpoenas power. instead it grants the minority the right to subpoena witnesses and materials only with the concurrence of the chair with no such limitation on the rights of the chair to issue subpoenas. we offered amendments to change that. the majority rejected each of them in turn. we offered an amendment that would allow all members the right to fully access committee
records. this is common sense. if you're doing something as serious as impeaching the president, then members should have the right to see what records the committee produced so that they will know what they are voting on. yet the majority rejected that. we offered an amendment that would require a chairman of the rules committee to promulgate procedures to allow for a participation of the president and his counsel in proceedings of the intelligence committee, the oversight committee, the foreign affairs committee. this right was granted to president clinton in 1998 yet it is not present here. the majority again rejected the amendment. i think the difference is clear. today's resolution fails to give the minority the same rights as were present during the clinton impeachment. and it fails to offer the same due process protections that were given to presidents nixon and clinton. and in the latter case, i note those rights were given by a republican house to a
democratic president. today's resolution shows a democratic house failing to give these same protections to a republican president. madam speaker the unfairness is clear. this is not a fair process nor was it ever intended to be. it was pre-or daneed from the beginning. without due process and without a fair process that respects minority rights i don't believe the american people will regard this process as legitimate. >> bill: tom cole is making his case here. the way the democrats, a series of committees will have a interviews and depositions, however, whatever word you want to use. they will file a report and give it to the judiciary committee. what republicans are arguing and the white house has argued as well the president has not been given his chance to defend himself during these depositions/interviews. that will only be afforded if you go to public hearings at a time to be set later. that's the case tom cole is making as we continue to listen to this debate. get another legal analysis.
>> julie: joining me for more on this is brett tollman, first we heard from the house rules committee chairman jim mcgovern speaking first to set up the rules as bill mentioned to get the ball rolling. followed currently by the congressman tom cole, the republican. he just called this preordained. the republicans have said that the democrats have gone about this the wrong way and that they have not gone about getting these witnesses to come forward and testify in an ethical way, behind closed doors and going about it in a way that's only set to impeach the president without giving republicans a chance to rebut. what do you make first of all of how the day will go? >> julie, look, this is supposed to be about fairness. they even mentioned due process, how important that is. the republicans are upset and screaming for due process. the democrats claiming that
they've given it. back up and take a look at the fact. imagine this were a grand jury looking at bringing a criminal indictment against somebody. and you learned that the grand jury had previously stated to multiple people that it thought it should bring the indictment. on multiple occasions this congress led by the democrats have wanted to impeach the president over several different incidents. now they finally have one they're pushing forward and the question is did it start fair and is it going to maintain that fairness through the process? >> julie: the investigative period is over for the most part. now they'll take this vote to see if the inquiry continues. nancy pelosi has said she don't plan an voting. do you believe she doesn't believe her vote will be needed because she thinks she will have the votes? what reason would you believe nancy pelosi would have, the one who embarked on this whole impeachment proceedings would not vote today? >> well, i think that sthe --
sthe is worried about voting. each vote that gets cast is a permanent reflection on where the house is and what their efforts are. there are 30 some odd representatives that are in states and districts that president trump carried and has a lot of support. so she has to be concerned with any vote especially when it comes to those 30 plus representatives. >> julie: i want to talk more about house lawmakers debating the impeachment resolution while these depositions continue. tim morrison the key witness of the day for democrats. trump's russia director on the national security council began testifying at 8:00. do you think his testimony was explosive as democrats hoped it would be? >> what's hard about this is we don't get insight into the testimony itself. what we get are those things that are released and that they are sound bites. the democrats who control the
process control the information are the ones that feed us the public bits and sound bites that we can rely on or not. i don't think what you get when you are only looking at sound bites is the whole context of testimony. you don't get cross examination. you don't get credibility assessment and so it's hard to make those determinations. no witness has been explosive outside of thoefs that the democrats have labeled as explosive. >> julie: we appreciate your time this morning. thank you very much. >> bill: there will be a flurry of legal analysis throughout the morning here as we mentioned if you are just joining us the house is right now opened up the debate portion of this impeachment resolution outlining the rules. there will be a full house vote later sometime this morning. how will that go? we wait to see that. in the meantime republican mark meadows has been rather outspoken on this. will he get a chance to express himself on the floor of the house?
>> bill: lawmakers are getting a minute each at the micro phone. mark meadows is with me live from the hill. you aren't inside the floor of the house. you will be shortly. will you get an opportunity to speak today, sir? >> well, bill, obviously we've been very involved in this whole process. i've been down in a deposition this morning. i will be going to the house floor right after i get finished talking to you which is just a few feet away from me. i can tell you much of the democrats talking points down there are really ringing hollow today because what we know is that it has not been a fair
process. it has been a closed-door process. i've been in almost 70 hours of testimony right now and all that is leaked out are the things that are damaging to the president of the united states. i can tell you today's opening testimony they aren't going to leak it out. some of my democrat colleagues look like they're sucking lemons this morning as we start to hear from another witness behind closed doors. >> bill: are you referring to tim morrison who started his interview this morning? >> i was there. start evidence with tim morrison this morning and certainly we can't talk about the specifics of what are going on in there but i can tell -- >> bill: frame it for our audience, okay? give us a sense if you are going to say they're sucking on lemons which suggest they got a sour taste in their mouth. how come? >> i think what's happening is we're now at a little over 10 witnesses that we've had come in and all of a sudden what you are starting to see is some
contradictions between witnesses that we had yesterday, witnesses that we're having today. you are starting to see a different side of the story. what we are finding and what your viewers need to understand is that each time that the witnesses are asked about holding up aid and was it held up for improper purposes, the answer is no. so anybody who has talked to the president is able to articulate that in a real way that really this aid hold-up was nothing more than a normal process that you would have and ultimately was released without any promises being made by the ukrainian government. so we're starting to see the other side of the story today. >> bill: you have said for sometime you thought nancy pelosi should take a vote. well, they are. it may not be the vote on impeachment ultimately. perhaps that comes later in november. but it is a vote of sorts on
the resolution. so in that sense aren't you getting your way today? >> we're not getting our way today because it is not a fair process. despite what my democrat colleagues are talking about, this is not a fair process. it allows adam schiff to once again control everything that is going on. if we're talking about a fair, open, transparent process, let's make sure that we actually have due process. let's hear from some of the allegations of the whistleblower and why is that important? because some of the things that the whistleblower has alleged in their complaint has been directly contradicted by not one, not two, but multiple witnesses behind closed doors. it is time that we allow the truth to come out. when we do, we'll find that the president of the united states did not -- i would emphasize did not commit any impeachable offense. >> bill: you are making the case the thread of connection through all these stories is
not there. >> we do know one fact. the aid was held up. we also know the aid was released and when it was released it was not released as a condition of anything that the ukrainians had to deliver. so you can't have a leverage point if there was not a deliverable on the back side. so the president is innocent of that regardless of all the rhetoric that you are hearing from capitol hill. >> bill: mike mccaul was with us yesterday and said the following. he says i think they, meaning adam schiff and the whistleblower, were complicit in working together to come forward with this complaint and start the entire impeachment inquiry. what does he mean by that? can that be proven? >> well, certainly we can tell by some of the defensive postures we get in the deposition when we ask questions beyond what is leaked out adam schiff starts to object violently in terms of not allowing the witness to
answer questions. and so it would indicate, as chairman mccaul was talking about, it would indicate there was a coordination between the whistleblower and others as they put forth this narrative. and so do i subscribe to that? adam schiff i believe and his team are the only ones who knew who currently know who the whistleblower is and certainly are the only ones that have had discussions with them. >> bill: is there a chance john bolton is a witness next week? would you expect that? >> there is a chance. ambassador bolton would have to speak for himself. i can't imagine as a close advisor to the president that he would do that or that the white house would encourage that to be done. whether it's this administration or a previous administration, when you get that close to the president i don't know that that's a precedent we want to start. at the same time, we are talking to a number of the people that actually had
conversations with ambassador bolton and getting a pretty good view without his testimony. but certainly that will be up to him and his legal counsel. >> bill: how close are you with the 31 democratic colleagues who won in districts that were also won by president trump? what would you characterize your relationship with them? >> with some of them. most of them are newer and so i'm just developing relationships with some of those. but we have a very fine and cordial relationship. >> bill: with those when you talk to them about this particular vote, what do they express to you? do they have reservations or do they all seem forward ahead? >> everybody is trying to push them into a corral so they vote one way. i can tell you there is real nervousness a few feet from us from those democrats because america is going to see this as an impeachment vote. they'll see it as an unfair impeachment vote and ultimately there will be consequences at the ballot box. >> bill: have you spoken with
the president in the past 24 or 48 hours? >> you know, bill, i don't normally comment on my conversations with the president and that's why i get to have conversations with the president. >> bill: mark meadows, thank you for your time and we'll wait to see you get your minute at the microphone. thank you for coming on here. we'll watch it as it unfolds. we believe the debate portion will last an hour, hour and a half. which may give us a vote on the resolution sometime at the 11:00 eastern hour. stay tuned. we'll find out together as we move forward after this. the newday va streamline refi is the reason why. it lets you shortcut the loan process and refinance with no income verification, no appraisal, and no out of pocket costs. one call can save you $2000 every year. call my team at newday usa right now.
but you don't feel good. with polycythemia vera, pv, symptoms can change so slowly over time you might not notice. but new or changing symptoms can mean your pv is changing. let's change the way we see pv. you track and discuss blood counts with your doctor. but it's just as vital to discuss changing symptoms as well. take notice and take action. discuss counts and symptoms with your doctor. visit takeactionpv.com
and he has essentially said the entire thing has been neutered referring to democrats that have not been giving the republicans a fair shake getting in on the closed door meetings. he has been angry about this for weeks now talking about how nancy pelosi is basically blatant power grap is what he accuses her of. let's watch some of this now. >> one of the committees we couldn't have access because they said we couldn't. that needs to stop. this house is developing and shredding procedures every day. if members of the minority or majority cannot have the rights we're given we're in a sad situation. in the haste to put this something they didn't exempt the rule 11 -- they didn't exempt it out even in those two impeachments maybe we don't let every member see it. we didn't exempt it during this time. we were so hurried to impeach this president we don't really give a darn about the rules. here is my biggest concern.
ranking member of the judiciary committee i have a question. we've been here 200 plus years as a committee and our committee has been neutered. our committee who handles impeachment. we're the reason in that committee that's our jurisdiction. we have been completely sidelined. our chairman and others have been sidelined and i have been sidelined. it is so bad they had to have the rules committee write the presidential due process and give it to us. this is not right. i wish -- >> give the additional 15 seconds. >> i don't know what happened to our committee. we still exist. due process only kicks in at judiciary for the president. doesn't kick in the closed door secret hearing of adam schiff. it's a travesty. no one should vote for this. it is a sad day. the curtain is coming down on this house because the majority has no idea about process and procedure. they are simply after a president. i yield back. >> julie: doug collins accused adam schiff of making this and
himself the judge, jury and prosecutor of this case. republicans are standing by the president as this continues. the debate continues. congress members will each get one minute. and then a vote so this should go on about an hour. much more continuing coverage for you right after this break. stay with us. that our new house is haunted by casper the friendly ghost? hey jill! hey kurt! movies? i'll get snacks! no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on our car insurance with geico. i got snacks! ohhh, i got popcorn, i got caramel corn, i got kettle corn. am i chewing too loud? believe it! geico could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
it's just a loan designed for older homeowners, and, it's helped over a million americans. a reverse mortgage loan isn't some kind of trick to take your home. it's a loan, like any other. big difference is how you pay it back. find out how reverse mortgages really work with aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage guide. eliminate monthly mortgage payments, pay bills, medical costs, and more. call now and get your free info kit. other mortgages are paid each month, but with a reverse mortgage, you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait, and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. discover the option that's best for you. call today and find out more in aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage loan guide. access tax-free cash and stay in the home you love.
you've probably been investing in your home for years... making monthly mortgage payments... doing the right thing... and it's become your family's heart and soul... well, that investment can give you tax-free cash just when you need it. learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse mortgage loan to cover expenses, pay for healthcare, protect investments, and so much more. look, reverse mortgages aren't for everyone but i think i've been 'round long enough to know what's what. i'm proud to be a part of aag, i trust 'em, i think you can too. trust aag for the best reverse mortgage solutions. so you can... retire better. >> bill: fox news alert. critical day on the hill. watching our coverage throughout the morning here. debate underway leading up to the first vote as it relates to
the impeachment matter. the house considering a resolution to formalize the inquiry which essentially sets the ground rules for the investigation and what we might expect to play out over the next month or two or beyond. new hour starts now. bill hemmer live in new york. day of history as we watch it unfold together. welcome back. >> julie: i'm julie banderas in for sandra smith. lawmakers in the house right now taking up the measure that sets up the next steps in the impeachment effort. the measure calls for public hearings and the release of transcript from closed-door proceedings and outlines what rights republican lawmakers and president trump himself would have to participate as the process moves forward. we have brand-new reaction from both sides of the aisle earlier on "america's newsroom," watch. >> is there anybody in the milky way who really thinks that speaker pelosi or chairman schiff are impartial? i don't. i think they made up their mind.
their judicial philosophy on this has been guilty. >> republicans have had just as much time to question those witnesses behind closed doors for the last two weeks as the democrats have. there has been perfectly equal time between the two parties and they will have exactly that right when we go to open hearings. >> bill: fox team coverage begins this hour. a-team standing by in studio to cover all the angles. welcome. we already have both sides heated up. let's go to back to capitol hill. senior producer is chad per gram. lays it out for us on the hill. chad, where are we as of this moment? >> we're in the middle of the debate here setting up this vote. i would expect from a timetable standpoint we would get to the vote series, not the vote itself around 10:45 and calculate 25 minutes past that, maybe about 11:10 if things go well they would start the vote and close it by 11:20. keep in mind house speaker nancy pelosi and other leaders
are afforded what we call as the magic minute. they are allowed to speak as long as they want and that could drag this out a little bit. we have calculated there are more than 230 democrats who will vote for this. i spoke with jim clyburn, the democratic whip. do you think you have more than 230? he said there are too many absences for that. that number may be a little lower. again, the algebra on capitol hill is always in motion. there are currently 432 members of the house. so if they all vote you would need 217 to pass. it is hard to get 432 people in the same room at the same time. that's the absence issue that clyburn is alluding to. there is no question it will pass. that's something that steny hoyer the mouse majority leader told me a few minutes ago as well. this morning we have had one freshman democrat who is vulnerable come on board who said she is going to vote for this. kendra horn, a freshman democrat from oklahoma. she said this is not a decision
i made lightly. this is not a vote for impeachment. it is a vote to create clear rules for public hearings. that's a vulnerable district. that district went for president trump by 13 points. republicans are going to try to weaponize this roll call vote against those vulnerable democrats. i would look at two hold-outs now who we don't know how they'll go. colin peterson, a veteran democrat from minnesota and also a freshman democrat from new jersey jeff van drew. he flipped a district from red to blue and skeptical of the process all along. i asked peterson how he would vote. he said i'll figure it out. peterson's district went to trump by 31 points. some democrats are kind of skittish calling it an impeachment resolution. a big back and forth earlier in the week with steny hoyer what to call it. people here on capitol hill were calling it an impeachment resolution and democrats have been defensive about that. the reason is because moderate
democrats don't want this to be tied or interpreted as a vote for or against impeachment itself. remember house speaker nancy pelosi just a couple of weeks ago said she didn't need to have a vote like this. now here we are. why some of the moderates got revved up. we aren't expecting any republicans to vote yes on this. they've been criticized by conservatives by not standing strongly behind the president. a solid unified vote today would give them for street credibility. liberals like alexandria ocasio-cortez, the freshman democrat from new york, they have been pushing for this vote for a long time. and i spoke with her last night. there is some question about the timing of this vote. listen. >> the vote happening halloween? >> oh, it's very spooky to some people in the white house but -- [laughter] >> this is what people are looking for to see how the vote will play in different districts. i asked ocasio-cortez her
district feels differently about impeachment compared to some of the moderate districts we've talked about here, the horns and petersons. that's a risky vote for them. >> bill: kevin brady at the microphone. we have a great panel. i need two quick answers. you said there may be absences today. what would explain that for such a critical day? >> it is hard to get everybody in the same room at the same time. people are sick, have lives, funerals to go to. they almost never have perfect attendance in the house of representatives. >> bill: is that a way of escaping this vote today possibly? >> there are members who once in a while with will do that. when i spoke to members on both sides of the aisle they feel very passionately about this vote and view it as their duty for or against it is something they'll cast a ballot for. members generally take the high road on those issues. the only thing you're guaranteed to do in congress is cast a vote on the house floor. you aren't guaranteed an amendment or anything else. you are guaranteed a vote. >> bill: speaker pelosi said if
the spirit moves me i'll vote. i don't think i'll need it. adam schiff. >> the days and weeks ahead may be the most important service as members of congress we will ever pay to the country and constitution that we all love and have pledged to defend. for the past several weeks the intelligence committee, the oversight committee and the foreign affairs committee have engaged in an intensive investigation. that work which has been conducted with equal opportunities for both parties to question witnesses has added a great deal to our understanding of the president's conduct as evident in the july 25 call record and the events that both preceded and followed that call. that work has necessarily occurred behind closed doors because we have had the task of finding the facts ourselves without the benefit of the investigation that the justice department declined to undertake. despite attempts to obstruct we have interviewed numerous
witnesses. we have provided important testimony about the efforts to secure political favors from ukraine. who have provided important testimony about the efforts to secure political favors from ukraine. we have reviewed text messages among key players which show how securing political investigations was placed at the forefront of our foreign policy towards ukraine. this resolution sets the stage for the next phase of our investigation one in which the american people will have the opportunity to hear from the witnesses first-hand. we will continue conduct this inquiry with the seriousness of purpose that our task deserves because it is our duty and because no one is above the law. madam speaker i urge passage of the resolution and yield back. >> the gentleman from oklahoma. >> thank you, madam speaker. >> bill: adam schiff there. chad, i want to bring you back for a moment. you ask how speaker nancy
pelosi if she would vote. she said if the spirit moves me. is that sarcasm, a chance she doesn't vote at all on something she's been pushing for weeks? >> it's rare to have house speakers cast a ballot on the floor. that probably only happens a couple of times a year. as with all speakers they try to stay above the fray. pelosi did cast a ballot tuesday. there was a resolution about armenian genocide. it was notable this morning. i have not seen this happen in a while where the speaker actually presided over the opening part of the debate. a democrat from colorado is presiding now. it was notable and kind of emblematic to preside over the first few moments. nancy pelosi when i asked her that last night indicated her vote would not be needed. >> bill: chad, stand by. you'll take us through it when developments happen on the team.
want to bring in the a-team. jessica tarlov, fox news contributor, brian brenberg chair of the program of business and finance at kings college in manhattan. chris staszak, former new york assistant a.g. welcome back, chris. smart move today or fool's errand taking this vote? >> i think this is actually more of a fool's errand for democrats than they want to admit for two reasons. one they put some of these vulnerable members in the spotlight saying can you please articulate exactly what you're voting for today? if it's not impeachment, what is it? a process? second difficulty. tell me about the fairness of this process? transcripts to be released or only enable schiff to release these transcripts? >> bill: let me jump in here. speaker pelosi on the floor of the house. >> provides for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the
blessings of liberty of ourselves and to our posterity to ordane and establish this constitution of the united states. it goes on immediately to establish article 1, the legislative branch, article 2, the executive branch, article 3, the judiciary. the genius of the constitution, a separation of powers. three co-equal branches of government to be a check and balance on each other. and it's with that we take the oath of office. we gather here on that opening day with our families gathered round to proudly raise our hands to protect and defend the constitution of the united states. and that is exactly what we are doing today. sadly, this is not any cause for any glee or comfort.
this is something that is very solemn, that is something prayerful. and that we had to gather so much information to take us to this next step. again, this is a solemn occasion. nobody -- i doubt anybody in this place or anybody that you know comes to congress to take the oath of office, comes to congress to impeach the president of the united states unless his actions are jeopardizeing our honoring our oath of office. i'm grateful to our committee chairs for all the careful and thoughtful investigation they have been doing as this inquiry has proceeded. and today the house takes the next step forward as we establish the procedures for open hearings conducted by the house intelligence committee so that the public can see the
facts for themselves. this resolution insures transparency advancing public disclosure of deposition transcripts and outlining the procedure of the transfer of evidence to the judiciary committee to use in its proceedings and enables effective public hearings setting out procedures for the questioning of witnesses and continuing the precedent of giving the minority the same rights and questioning witnesses as the majority. which has been true at every step of this inquiry despite what you might hear from there. it provides the president and his counsel opportunities to participate including presenting his case, submitting requests for testimony, attending hearings, raising objections to testimony given, cross examining witnesses, and more. and contrary to what you may have heard today, we give more
opportunity to his case than was given to other presidents before. and thank you, mr. chairman, for making that point so clearly. and these actions, this process, these open hearings seeking the truth and making it available to the american people will inform congress on the very difficult decisions we will have to make in the future as to whether to impeach the president. that decision has not been made. that is what the inquiry will investigate and then we can make the decision based on the truth. i don't know why the republicans are afraid of the truth. every member should support allowing the american people to hear the facts for themselves. this -- that is really what this vote is about. it is about the truth. what is at stake? what is at stake in all of this is nothing less than our
democracy. i proudly stand next to the flag and i thank the gentleman from new york for providing it for us. this flag, so many have fought and died for this flag which stands for our democracy. when benjamin franklin came out of independence hall. you've heard this over and over. on september 17th, 1787, the day our constitution was adopted, he came out of independence hall, people said to him dr. franklin, what do we have, a monarchy or a republic? and he said as you know, he said a republic if we can keep it. if we can keep it. and this constitution is the blueprint for our republic and not a monarchy. but when we have a president who says article 2 says i can do whatever i want, that is in
defiance of the separation of powers. that's not what our constitution says. so what is at stake is our democracy. what are we fighting for? defending our democracy for the people. you know that in the early days of our revolution, thomas payne said the times have found us, the times found our founders to declare independence from a monarchy, to fight a war of independence to write our founding documents and thank god they made them amenable so we could always be expanding freedom and the genius of that constitution was the separation of powers. any usurping of that power is a violation of our oath of office. so proudly you all -- we all raised our hands to protect and defend, support the
constitution of the united states. that's what this vote is about today. we think the times have found our founders and others in the course of our history to protect our democracy, to keep our country united. the times have found each and every one of us in this room and in our country to pay attention to how we protect and defend the constitution of the united states. honoring the vision of our founders who declared independence from a monarch and established a country contrary to that principle. honoring the men and women in uniform who fight for our flag and freedom and democracy and honoring the aspirations of our children, no president whoever he or she may be in the future could decide that article 2 says they can do whatever they want. again, let us honor our oath of
office. let us defend our democracy. let us have a good vote today and have clarity -- clarity as to how we proceed, why we proceed, and again doing so in a way that honors the constitution. we must honor the constitution and how we do this. we must respect the institution we serve and we must heed the further words of our founders. they don't know how different we would be but they knew that we needed to always be unifying. so hopefully as we go forward with this, the clarity of purpose, clarity of procedure, a clarity of fact, a clarity of truth about the truth, it's about the constitution. we will do so in a way that brings people together that is
healing rather than dividing and that is how we will honor our oath of office. i urge an aye vote and yield back the balance of my time. [applause] >> bill: we may see kevin mccarthy follow the house speaker. back to julie banderas here in new york and chris staszak. if the allegation against the president is even true as they laid out. is that an impeachable offense, is it a crime? >> that's a good question. impeachable offense is one time. is it a crime? i think so far the answer is no if you are trying to prove a crime. i've heard some people suggest it is a violation of foreign corrupt practices act. that usually in the context of a business dealing. you bribe a foreign government or foreign businessman to get business. all the time the united states conditions aid on the behavior of the receiving country. for example something called the leahy amendment. you can't give u.s. aid to a foreign country for violating
human rights. that's a condition. i haven't seen a clear-cut crime at this point. as jessica mentioned earlier if it's a bigger issue and they can say it's conduct unbecoming or shouldn't be doing it. that's a different issue. i haven't seen evidence of an actual crime as if one of us were charged with a crime. >> julie: originally the president maintained he withheld aid because of corruption. he wanted the corruption issues in ukraine to be cleared up before he gave that money. we're hearing from testimony that perhaps it was because biden was not under investigation by ukraine. but what do you make of the fact this is not an impeachable offense if it's not a crime? >> it is up to interpretation and how brad bro*d they want to go. abuse of power and soliciting foreign interference. a game changer. not just a traditional you have to meet the threshold to get u.s. aid. you have to meet this threshold by investigating my political opponent. no one can deny whether you're investigating joe biden and his
son and the dnc server that republicans like to believe is hiding out in ukraine wouldn't benefit republicans in the 2020 election. its. i believe that's what they'll go on. nancy pelosi was smart to talk about the constitution and the oath of office. you hear from people on the republican side that are against the president on this saying we did not swear an oath of office to the president. we did to the constitution. democrats will continue to hammer this and i appreciate that we are taking away all of the talking points from republicans where eventually they will just have to face facts about things that lieutenant colonel vindman is saying, what the read-out from the call is saying, memorandum. bits that are missing we heard from colonel v*intdman. >> there is very little repetition of the facts of the story. when we get to a public hearing we can all decide. >> jessica just said nancy pelosi is taking away a lot of
talking points. she is giving republicans talking points. she said the public shaud hear the facts for themselves. republicans will say that sounds nice. tell me about what's been happening over the past month? why no transcripts? >> bill: dr. bill bennett joining our coverage now as we continue to watch it play out on floor of the house. viewers at home we'll go in and out throughout the next hour or two depending on how long the debate lasts on the floor and when we get to the vote. is this a smart move or a fool's errand ultimately? >> well, can i just point out 6-2 in houston last night? if you don't mind. >> julie: duly noted. >> another important event for washington if i might say. i think it's a fool's errand. i just listened to speaker pelosi. she says our democracy is at risk? let's for the sake of the argument grant democrats' point
which is in dispute. let's say the president said to the people in ukraine i want you to investigate corruption including the corruption of the bidens. is our democracy at risk because of that? do you remove a president because of that? it just strikes me that's ridiculous. it cheapens the currency of impeachment. it suggests that for future presidents any slight -- anything inappropriate would be ground for impeachment. this is not honoring the constitution, this is trivializing the constitution and the meaning of impeachment. let's look at the facts. once the vote is taken the american people are confused. i'm confused myself and i live here and follow this stuff. the headlines tomorrow, house votes for inquiry. people will say they impeach the president. a lot of people are confused. let's look at the facts. when we look at the facts we realize it is not grounds to
remove a president, quid pro quo or not. >> bill: andy biggs on the floor of the house now. >> we want the american people to see it, open it up. give members access to the transcripts. let the media into the room. let us participate. failing to do so denies transparency. >> yelled one minute to the gentleman from california. mr. -- >> bill: he has been on our air quite a bit. >> julie: i want to ask you the measure calls for public hearings and the release of the transcripts from closed door proceedings. the republicans have remained steadfast. why can't we get to go on the closed door meetings? it's the whole point of the investigation. should the republicans not have the chance to review the facts before they then turn around and defend themselves? the public hearings, what do you make of this all becoming public and finally for these transcripts to be released?
>> well, i think public is right. a justice said sunlight is the best disinfectent. we watched it publicly. the emphasis on process. i understand why the republicans are objecting because they are being left out of this and this is an all adam schiff operation right now. but the process is not as important in the end as the facts. and when the facts come out i just think people will say we're going to remove a president whom we elected because he had a conversation with the president of ukraine about corruption and talked about joe biden? democrats have done things like that before. senators, senator menendez, senator leahy sent letters to the ukraine saying unless you do x, y and z we aren't going to release aid. it will not hold up. we're wasting a lot of time
here and trivializing the constitution, trivializing what the founders talked about. benjamin franklin, we'll lose the republic because donald trump said to the president of ukraine the biden corruption thing may be pretty serious too. come on. >> julie: there may not be enough there there to prove a crime has been committed. in all fairness it wasn't just about joe biden but to dig up information for an investigation ton a political rival of his here which would essentially help him and benefit his campaign personally. so that is why we're talking about this today. not just because he decided to talk about a former president. >> i understand but go ahead. >> julie: you continue. >> the point is let's assume the democrats have that right. he was talking about biden because biden would be his most fear some opponent in a
presidential race. it wasn't appropriate to do that. but presidents do things that are inappropriate all the time. a violation of the constitution? a risk to our democracy that he did this? no. all this mystery about all these witnesses, we do have this transcript, you know? it is out there in public view. there just isn't much to go on. let's get through the process. let's have the public hearings and back to work. but the one great political advantage for the republicans here is if the democrats persist in this, they will probably have the record of going for almost four years, the entire first term of trump's presidency trying to remove him from office. that's not a galant or great moment for that party. >> bill: the point he makes as i jump on this. i'm not so sure it is a legal question as a political question. as you point out in the house that's what they do. you are largely going to get a party line vote. at the end of the day a lot of those who vote for it will have to explain to people what they
were voting on or for. was it a resolution, inquiry, what was it? and that's going to take some time to do that. >> absolutely. i think really -- in some ways it's a legal issue but really political and they'll have to explain at the minimum they voted to continue the investigation of the president and i think everybody knows they are going to vote and it will be impeachment and go to senate and they probably won't convict. >> no rights for the minority unless the chair so designates. in fact, in this resolution it allows the chair to veto even the ability for the president to have legal counsel in the room. if the chair chooses at his whim they can kick out the president's legal counsel. this is unprecedented. it is not only unprecedented, this is soviet-style rules. maybe in the soviet union you do things like that where only you make the rules, where you reject the ability for the person you are accusing to even be in the room. to question what's going on.
for anybody else to call witnesses. when only one person has the right to call witnesses. and as we saw just the other day, the chairman was literally directing the witness to not answer certain questions by the republicans. what kind of fairness is that? maybe you think it's fairness if you can run roughshod oversomebody because you have the votes but that's not how impeachment was supposed to go. alexander hamilton himself during the debate on the constitution in the federalist papers, alexander hamilton warned of days like this and i quote. the greatest danger is that the decision on impeachment will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. alexander hamilton warned about days like today. this is not what we should be doing clearly. when you ask the american
people who know that they are paying higher drug prices and they say there is legislation, bipartisan legislation to lower drug prices that won't come to this floor because of the infatuation with impeachment, we don't even have a bill to formally pay our troops and make sure they have the tools they need to defend this country because there is such an infatuation with impeachment. madam speaker when you look through this resolution and see how one-sided, how soviet style this is running, this is the united states of america. don't run a sham and tainted process like this resolution insures. it ought to be rejected and i think you'll see bipartisan rejection of this resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. [applause] >> bill: steve scalise on the floor of the house. we await on who is coming up next as the chairman of the rules committee there is back to the microphone. want to bring chris wallace host of "fox news sunday". welcome to new york.
camping out this week with us. >> i'm the host of fox news reporting for at least two more shows. >> bill: we saw it yesterday afternoon. it is a different animal. >> it is indeed. >> bill: you are watching this this morning. what do you think of where we'll be an hour from now? >> we'll be in an hour from now this resolution is going to pass. there seems no doubt about it. nancy pelosi whatever you think of her can count votes. she is a master at that and this will pass almost certainly with almost every democrat for it and i think it seems every republican against it. on the one hand it will answer the argument or at least be a rebuttal to the argument there is no process here, no due process, no fairness that hasn't been approved on the house floor. on the other hand as you heard from some of your commentators and heard from steve scalise republicans will say it's too little too late and doesn't give the president and
republicans enough. but it will to a certain degree, i think, put the process arguments on the back burner and move the substance argument. what did the president do and was that okay or not to the front burner. >> bill: ultimately this gentleman will be significant. jerry nadler the democrat from new york, chair of the judiciary committee. just drop in on his message for the moment. >> i support this resolution not because i want the allegations to be true, they saden me deeply, but because if we're true the constitution demands we take action. i support the resolution because it lays the ground work for open hearings, the house and american public must see all the evidence for themselves. i support this resolution because i know we must overcome this difficult moment for the nation. this resolution is necessary to insure that our constitutional order remains intact for future
generations. i support this resolution because we have no choice. i yield back. >> gentleman from oklahoma. >> bill: one thing that's different and this has been hammered home and worthy of explaining, just so that our viewers are up to speed on this. the process they're going by was not done in the late 1990s with bill clinton or even with richard nixon in the 1970s. they're outsourcing it to various committee. they'll issue a report and give it to the judiciary committee where jerry nadler is the chairman. republicans cry foul and say it's the wrong way to do it and the wrong process. >> the thing is. i'm interested in the republicans saying this. the constitution is very clear and very non-specific. it basically says the house has the power to impeach. it doesn't say anything about how they do it, what committee they send it to, whether the
hearings are open or closed. you just had a federal judge this last week say it doesn't matter whether there has been approval by the full house floor or not. the house has the power to impeach and they can do it as however they see fit. and so it is interesting. the process is different. jerry nadler at the end will be very important. the articles of impeachment have to be written by the house judiciary committee. nancy pelosi clearly made a decision that she wanted adam schiff and the house intelligence committee running this operation. when we get these must-see public hearings which will be a big deal when they finally happen sometime in november it will be schiff and his committee that handles this, not nadler and his committee. one reason i think is the intelligence committee is smaller, it tends to be a little bit less partisan, you get a lot of people on the extremes in the judiciary committee. and i think she just thinks it
-- >> bill: you could also make the case the last few public hearings did not go quite a way democrats had hoped. >> exactly in the judiciary committee. you had some of the intelligence committee. let's hope adam schiff doesn't make up testimony like from the president or anybody else. i think clearly she trusts adam schiff to run the tv show more than she trusts jerry nadler. >> julie: i want to talk about some of the explosive testimony in particular tim morrison. democrats were hoping this would be the most explosive testimony yet. he began testifying this morning at 8:00 in the morning. according to bill taylor's testimony morrison helped coordinate withholding the aid to ukraine. he went ahead and resigned last night in anticipation of testifying today. this is not the first time that an elected official in the white house -- >> not elected. >> julie: a government official in the white house has resigned in anticipation or been fired in anticipation of testifying. >> one of the points i would
make. i respect bill bennett allot. you were hearing from here. he makes it and some republicans do that it was just a phone call. it was a lot more than a phone call. it was a coordinateed campaign. what you've heard from a number of colonel vindman and others, it was a coordinated campaign by people outside the state department to put pressure on ukraine to do certain things to investigate the democrats from what they did in 2016 to investigate biden that preceded the phone call on july 25th and followed the phone call after july 25th. and i think that's one of the things that will be so interesting to hear from tim morrison today is this campaign. it didn't begin and end with the phone call. >> bill: mark meadows was with us at 9:00 a.m. he was in this morrison hearing that started at 8:00 eastern time. i think the phrase was they are
sucking on lemons right now as if to suggest what he is saying is making everything sour. the ultimate point he was trying to relay to us the thread doesn't tie together among the different witnesses they've spoken to. if you're adam schiff you want to take a story public that follows a line of thinking that the public can follow along with. if there are contradictions you want to stay away from that. my guess is the interviews now are allowing him to investigate the story and try and figure out who could be the best witness. when you go public, you don't know what surprises can come at you. >> you will know a lot more in terms of surprises having had these closed door hearings, in effect depositions than if you had just simply called these people up on out of the blue and done tv hearings. from a political view i can understand the democrats did what they did. they find out what the case is in private and a lot of it is leaking an both sides and democrats are making the most of it and republicans are making the least of it.
but they'll have a good sense by the time they go public as to what their story is and that's one other point i would quickly make. for all of our talk about what public opinion is now, i don't think it matters because in the end once you hear these people in person live. we're all able to judge for ourselves. is bill taylor going to be as explosive as his testimony was or not. is colonel vindman going to be? there there be con -- contradictions. i think public opinion will be determined by the public hearings. >> bill: you get a party line vote. go through public hearings and before christmas a party line vote again. listening to republican senators this issue for them is dead in the water. maybe that changes with the public hearing but if it doesn't, what are you left with? january of 2020 you are looking at an election that's 10 months away. >> it depends.
we don't quite know where we'll be at that point. if the public -- first of all i don't think it's a fixed matter. i think both in the house and particularly in the senate if public opinion changes one way or the other, then it could go down to the benefit of the democrats or help the republicans. you know, you could see some of these people. a number of republicans have said i'm not going to vote. what does any politician care about most? getting reelected. if they begin to think this is really a stronger case than i thought it was or a weaker case you could see some democrats jump ship on the idea of removal. you could see republicans jump ship and vote to remove. i really think that it's interesting where we are now but like taking a poll of where democrats are, trump versus biden in october 31st of 2019. it's interesting but doesn't really matter. >> julie: you make a great point. fact it would be public. democrats can't hide behind closed doors anymore.
with elections coming forward perhaps it will hold them accountable before they make this vote. my question to you is -- >> let me quickly say. neither can republicans hide behind closed doors. we'll hear for ourselves what they have to say. >> julie: this will be a way for their constituents to watch them and hold them to the fire. >> absolutely. >> julie: i want to talk about whether this is impeachable if this is an impeachable offense. we talked about this moments ago with a guest. has a crime been committed? quid pro quo or not. we had a guest earlier saying a crime hasn't been committed. is this an impeachable offense? >> again, the constitution is very specific and very unclear about what is an impeachable offense. it says high crimes and misdemeanors. what does that mean? if you read federalist 65 written by alexander hamilton and very specific on this issue, specific but in its kind
of wide explanation it is basically whatever the house and the senate decide it is and it talks about abuse of power. it doesn't necessarily have to be something that violates u.s. code 213. it can be whatever the political representatives of the country and the congress decide is acceptable or unacceptable. i think that incidentally could end up being the republican fallback plan and you heard some of that from bill bennett. all right, you'll have all this testimony. my guess is it will be damaging to the president and people here were saying is it not proper? is it bad enough you want to overturn an election of donald trump. >> bill: three weeks ago mcconnell said as long as i am senate majority leader there is no impeachment process that will come to the senate floor.
then he said yes by the constitution we have the take up the issue. how long we spend on it is a different matter. do you get any sense that he has changed at all in the initial comments he delivered four weeks ago? >> i don't think he changed how he will vote removing the president. he is as good a vote counter as nancy pelosi is in the house. mitch mcconnell is a good vote counter in the senate. 53-47 majority. you have a few republicans in there that susan collins of maine, mitt romney of utah, cory gardner of colorado. but to -- if you wanted to say let's just table this and we won't have a trial you would need a majority. he may not have a majority to table it. do i think you'll get to 67? no. who knows where we'll be in probably january when this will come up. >> bill: you'll be right here in a matter of minutes.
commercial break here. we've been watching and waiting for a lot of these different members of the house to come to the microphone to our viewers at home. be patient. trying to pick the best moments and give you a sense and flavor for what we're hearing on the floor of the house. there will be a vote on this resolution. we thought all along it would happen at 11:00 eastern hour 30 minutes from now. we believe that's still the schedule now. we were going to take a break. i'm being told kevin mccarthy is next in the queue. he will be there in matter of moments. >> julie: we get the magic minute. he can go on just like nancy pelosi. they can talk all they want. >> bill: why don't we hang for a moment and see what kind of message we get. republicans say the way the rules are being established on this 8 1/2 page resolution that they'll vote on today doesn't give the president a chance to defend himself until you get much further down the road. >> i completely agree with that. if i were the republicans i would say this does not answer
all of their concerns as was pointed out by your guest earlier. yes, they now will have the right to subpoena, call witnesses subject to the decision of the chair adam schiff. yes, they can basically have the right to plead with that and there we go. >> julie: here we go. >> bill: kevin mccarthy, the republican from california. >> elections have consequences. our fellow americans used their vote to choose who will work for them. so i ask you all a simple question especially to my colleagues, is that what is happening here today? are we gathered in these final moments before we depart for a week to fund our government, to pay our troops? are we gathered today to prove a new trade deal? or are we gathered to debate the critical national security issues regarding china, or iran?
well, that answer would be unanimously no, we are not working for the american people. those items would resemble the achievements of a productive congress, a congress that truly works for the people. but you know what this congress counts? this congress records more subpoenas than laws, that's the legacy. it is not just devoid of solutions for the american people, it is now abusing its power to discredit democracy. by using secret interviews and selective leaks to portray the president's legitimate actions as an impeachable offense. democrats are continuing their permanent campaign to undermine his legitimacy. for the last three years, they
have pre-determined the president's guilt. never accepted the voters' choice to make them president. for 37 days and counting they have run an undemocratic and unfair investigation. this resolution today only makes it worse. i've heard members on the other side say they promise rights to the president. but only if he does what they want. that's the equivalent of saying in the first amendment you have the right to the freedom of speech but you can only say the words i agree with. that's what you call due process. the amendment offered by my colleague mr. cole would help correct some of the transparency concerns we have witnessed over the last few weeks. but today is more than the fairness of an impeachment
process. it is about the integrity of our electoral process. democrats are trying to impeach the president because they are scared they cannot defeat him at the ballot box. that's not my words, that's the words of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle that has offered impeachment three different times. this impeachment is not only an attempt to undo the last election, it is an attempt to influence the next one as well. this is not what democrats promised when they entered the majority 11 months ago. in this chamber, we heard from our speaker while we all sat here. we heard what the speaker said when she talked about words of optimism and cooperation. it was said we would work together to make america stronger, more secure and more prosperous. we were told our mission was to return the power to the people.
in fact, our new colleagues on the other side of the aisle were sent to washington with a mandate to do just that. so what's happening? nothing like that today. not long ago democrats recognized that a partisan impeachment would put politics over people and harm our nation. that exact same speaker that talked about cooperation, that talked about and promised the american people that they would be different if you trusted them with the majority. you have failed in that promise. that speaker said impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, the word of bipartisan, i do not think we should go down that path because it divides the country. what has changed since those words have been spoken?
alexander hamilton wrote there will always be the greatest danger that the decision to use the impeachment power would be driven bipartisan animosity. instead of real demonstrations of innocent or guilt, this sham impeachment by democrats have proven hamilton right and portrays the speaker's own words. i know emotions are high. i know members would even run for positions of chair simply on the fact that they would be a better chair for impeachment right after the election. but when we all stood that day and listened to the words of the speaker of cooperation, we all raised our hand to uphold the constitution. tomorrow is november 1st.
we're one year away from an election. not just for this house, but for the highest office, the presidency. why do you not trust the people? why do you not allow the people to have a voice? why in a process that america lends their voice to all of us that you deny us to speak for them? is animosity risen that high? is hamilton proven correct again? there is a moment in time that you should rise to the occasion. this is that moment. this is the moment that history will write. history will ask you when you cast this vote, when you cast a vote to justify something that has gone on behind closed doors, i want you to ask the historian and answer the
question what do you know that happened there? have you read anything that took place that you just justified? what do you believe the definition of due process is? what do you think the first amendment is? you have the right to have a voice or only the words that you agree with? you may get elected in a primary but in a general election you are elected to represent the people of america, not to deny their voice. this house is so much better than what is transforming today. i believe everyone who runs for this office runs to solve a problem. but when you go back to the american public with the achievement of more subpoenas than laws, that is not why you
ran. that is not why we are here. and that's why i agree with my colleague mr. cole, that believes in the power of the people. people before politics. we believe and know we can do better. that we believe the speaker when she said about cooperation. we believed her when she said if you trusted them with the majority they would be different. i guess it's only fitting you take this vote on halloween. i yield back. [applause] >> bill: kevin mccarthy, house minority leader. the republican from california. one line that stands out at the beginning and the end. more subpoenas than laws, suggesting what this congress will be remembered for. the debate continues. >> julie: we have chad pergram. we'll come to you -- >> bill: this democratic
majority can legislate and fulfill our constitutional responsibilities to hold this president to account. >> julie: chad, i want to ask you first of all about mccarthy's words just now about due process. something that the republicans have been furious about. the fact that the republicans have not been able to go inside those closed-door meetings held by these democrats. the democrats are now hoping to get a vote forward so that they can release the transcripts of those interviews and the testimony. how did testimony go this morning so far, do you know? >> no opening statement from the witness morrison. that has been an anomaly. trying to glean what's going on down there. einstein said everything doesn't happen at once. he never worked on capitol hill. you have the deposition going on downstairs in the intelligence committee. on the floor you have the impeachment resolution. hard to keep track of both. there hasn't been very much come out of that because we
don't have that deposition. of course the republicans have been critical of this. some of us have gotten the opening statements. we're keeping an eye on that. just this morning they talked about another slate of witnesses to come next week. that's where people are starting to wonder just how quickly are they going to get to maybe public hearings? they would release these transcripts maybe in the middle of november. when would they get to public hearings and the judiciary committee to mark up articles of of impeachment? would that be early december? that's why a lot of people don't think there is any way they do this before christmas. it would closely mirror the time late in 1998 when they voted on the articles of impeachment on the saturday before christmas in 1998 and started the senate trial in 1999. the other thing we should point out. they are getting close to wrapping up the debate on the house floor. i want to give the viewers an update. it involves parliamentary
algebra. 10:54 now. let's say they wrap up in four to five minutes. the first vote on the floor will be a procedural vote in relation to the resolution itself. that will take about 25 minutes to do that. actually as i'm listening here on floor it sounds like they've just concluded the debate. i can tell you what's going on. >> madam speaker. those favoring a vote. >> they'll start the vote series in just about a minute or two and the first vote is going to be procedural. this has something to do with the impeachment resolution but not actually on the impeachment resolution. so by my timing here it's now 10:55 in the east. they would probably get to the actual vote itself around 11:20. you will see on the scoreboard in a second say a 15-minute
vote. this is kind of like soccer. they need -- it's hard to get 432 people to the house floor and why the vote would probably start around 11:20. the vote itself on impeachment is scheduled to take five minutes because of the slippage i would say probably take seven to eight minutes. probably a result by 11:30. >> bill: a couple of things here, chad, before we squeeze in another break as we watch this infold. the number at the moment is 217 for simple majority i believe based on the composition, 217. when you speak to democratic members of the house, just address what kevin mccarthy's allegation is. more subpoenas than laws, is there concern on behalf of those members of the house that that could be what is hung around their neck? >> well, the line by mccarthy that i was struck by and speaks to that point, bill.
he said this is the moment that history will write. so people will go back and this is the challenge for democrats. will they remember a vote on usmca? that's the question. >> bill: chad watching that for us. procedural vote at the moment. in about 20 or 25 minutes get the vote on the resolution. a break here in a moment. back with chris wallace, back with dana perino, juan williams, martha maccallum. to our viewers at home want to remind you we'll bob and weave our way in and out of the house floor and what happens over the next hour plus. stay tuned. back in a moment at the top of the hour. to work as hard as they do. however, since 2000, the buying power of the dollar has dropped by over 31% - that means the dollar is only worth about 68¢ now compared to 2000. had you owned gold, your value would have increased over 400% and owning gold is easy...
with rosland capital - a trusted leader in helping people acquire precious metals. gold bullion, lady liberty gold and silver proofs, and our premium coins, can help you preserve your wealth. call rosland capital at 800-630-8900 to receive your free rosland guide to gold, gold & precious metals ira and silver brochures. with rosland, there are no hassles, no gimmicks, and we have the fastest shipping around. dollar down. gold up. pretty clear. make gold your new standard. call rosland capital today at 800-630-8900. 800-630-8900. that's 800-630-8900. did you know that feeling sluggish or weighed down could be signs that your digestive system isn't working at its best? taking metamucil every day can help. metamucil supports your daily digestive health using a special plant-based fiber called psyllium. psyllium works by forming a gel in your digestive system to trap and remove the waste that weighs you down. metamucil's gelling action also helps to lower cholesterol
and slows sugar absorption to promote healthy blood sugar levels. so, start feeling lighter and more energetic by taking metamucil every day. hi, my name is sam davis and i'm going to tell you about exciting plans available to anyone with medicare. many plans provide broad coverage and still may save you money on monthly premiums and prescription drugs. with original medicare, you're covered for hospital stays and doctor office visits, but you have to meet a deductible for each and then you're still responsible for 20% of the cost. next, let's look at a medicare supplement plan. as you can see, they cover the same things as original medicare and they also cover your medicare deductibles and co-insurance. but they often have higher monthly premiums and no prescription drug coverage. now, let's take a look at humana's medicare advantage plans. with a humana medicare plan, hospital stays, doctor
office visits and medicare deductibles are covered. and, of course, most humana medicare advantage plans include prescription drug coverage. in fact, in 2018, humana medicare advantage prescription drug plan members saved an estimated $7400, on average, on their prescription costs. most humana medicare advantage plans help you stay active and keep fit by including a silver sneakers fitness program at no extra cost. and, you may be able to save on dental and vision expenses, because coverage is now included with most humana medicare advantage plans. you get all this coverage for as low as a zero dollar monthly plan premium in many areas. and your doctor and hospital may already be a part of humana's large network. if you want the facts, call right now for the free decision guide from humana. there is no obligation, so call the number on your screen right
now to see if your doctor is in our network; to find out if you can save on your prescriptions and to get our free decision guide. licensed humana sales agents are standing by, so call now. >> bill: 11:00 in the nation's capital. busy day on the hill waiting the vote formalizing the resolution on the house impeachment inquiry. welcome back to "america's newsroom," hour three now. i'm bill hemmer live in new york. julie, nice to be with you. >> julie: what a halloween. julie banderas in for sandra smith. the house is expected to vote mostly along party lines as expected on the ground rules going forward in the investigation and also the upcoming public hearings with democrats in control passage is close to certain. house speaker nancy pelosi making the case for the resolution while minority whip steve scalise argues against it.
>> i don't know why the republicans are afraid of the truth. every member should support allowing the american people to hear the facts for themselves. this -- that is really what this vote is about. what is about the truth. and what is at stake. what is at stake in all of this is nothing less than our democracy. >> this is soviet-style rules. maybe in the soviet union you do things like this where only you make the rules. you reject the ability for the person you're accusing to even be in the room to question what's going on. for anybody else to call witnesses, when only one person has the right to call witnesses and as we saw just the other day, the chairman was literally directing the witness to not answer certain questions by the republicans. >> bill: all that from the last hour. bring in our team, a big one. chris wallace, martha
maccallum, dana per ena, and juan williams and bret baier. mike emanuel on capitol hill. >> bill: we are in the procedural votes. members are starting their make their way to the house floor. we'll get a vote on the matter. nancy pelosi made the pitch for this measure a short time ago. >> the argument that they're mange on the floor is not floor. this is a sad day. it's a sad day. nobody comes to congress to impeach a president of the united states. no one. we come here to do the work, make the future better for our children, for america's future. we take an oath to protect and defend the constitution. >> let's take a live look at the house floor. it sounds like this like it will be a party line vote.
all indications will oppose. collins making this argument against the measure. >> the problem i'm having the resolution before us today is not about transparency but it is control. it's not fairness it's winning. this resolution is about delivering results. >> the top republican called the launch of this investigation flimsy. >> how this whole thing started. democrats are trying to impeach the president of the united states 13 months before an election based on an anonymous whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge with a bias against the president who worked -- vice president biden. >> the face of this impeachment probe is the house intelligence chairman adam schiff of california. >> this resolution sets the stage for the next phase of our investigation, one in which the american people will have the opportunity to hear from the witnesses first-hand. we will continue to conduct
this inquiry with the seriousness of purpose that our task deserves because it is our duty and because no one is above the law. >> timing is not always precise on capitol hill. we expect this critical vote on the next phase of impeachment later this hour. >> bill: thank you, mike emanuel watching that. bring in bret baier anchor of "special report" and author of the book. where do you think we'll be >> a place where the inquiry passes the house probably along party lines. let's take a step back for a second. speaker nancy pelosi didn't want to have this vote. she didn't want to have it because she didn't want to put democrats who won in trump districts, districts where donald trump in 2016 won by 8 to 20 points, that democrats then controlled in 2018. she didn't want those members to have to vote on anything
before an articles of impeachment was laid out before the american people and the table was set. now because partly the arguments of the republicans have stuck in and the process argument i think is giving them a little bit more juice to get this across the finish line, she is doing this and she is going to have the votes at the end of the day just by doing the math. the question is, is politically down the road if the democrats can lay out this case for impeachment how well they do that, because it is a long stretch to believe that 20 republicans in the senate are going to vote to acquit in a trial and then the ultimate kick-out of office is the election in 2020. and that's possibly what the political play is here for the democrats. >> bill: stand by. good to have you join the coverage from california today. thank you. >> julie: more on this now from our power panel. let's call them that.
it is chris, martha, dana and juan. what are we left with at the end of the day. >> in some ways it is kind of where you were before because what the speaker is doing is not a full blown impeachment resolution. it is basically to get the process going. and they have -- they are going to still allow six different house committees to pursue. there is all the details that you have been reporting on the last two hours. republicans complaining about process, their complaints about process has been well founded and they've been banging on that for the past month. now this is the next step. i do -- i want to go back down memory lane. in 1997 and 1998 i worked on capitol hill as a staffer on the republican side with the congressman from colorado who said he would not talk about impeachment every day. pretty much it shut down. there wasn't that much more to do. i am skeptical of the democrats being able to keep attention on this matter despite today we're all here to see this kickoff. but you will soon start to see i believe many staffers on
capitol hill decide this is not worth it. as nancy pelosi said, the speaker said nobody comes to washington just to impeach a president. they will probably head out to go on the campaign trail for the presidential campaign whether republicans or democrats. move out of there and figure where they could make a difference. this will drag on every day. and in contrast to the hill, what the president is able to do is have this amazing power of incumbency. accomplishments with the economy and national security. have a medal of honor ceremony, travel around the country. he is showing and telling all these things while the democrats will keep congress there talking about impeachment every day and dribble out they will definitely pass something on lowering drug prices or maybe on trade. they have made a decision now to wholely consume themselves with impeachment. i'm skeptical of it. >> bill: you make the case it works against them. >> look, barring some
bombshells that come out i would think in the long run it's either a wash or net negative for the democrats. >> bill: where are you, martha? >> i watched adam schiff this morning. this is an individual who said there was clear evidence of collusion during the russia probe. so now it's on his shoulder to prove there is clear evidence of a quid pro quo. what is different after this process today is that this becomes a much more public event. i think what remains to be seen is how the american public feels about this effort. in washington everyone is all in, completely absorbed. in the media we're completely absorbed and all in. when you look at the swing state polls on this it's interesting in terms of what it indicates. so far what we're seeing is that there is a majority of americans in the states that will matter come election come, arizona, wisconsin, michigan
and pennsylvania. the majority saying they want the inquiry to go forward. a minority who say they want the president to be removed and impeached. they are indicating at least if that poll holds up to be true that they want the democrats to move forward with this process. how the democrats handle it is going to be a huge reflection on them. nancy pelosi has said since the beginning as was also quoted with regard to what alexander hamilton said in the federalist paip this should be a bipartisan evaluation and a bipartisan effort to row move a president from the united states. >> bill: let's go around the horn to complete the play. juan williams. congratulations to your nationals last night in a manner of speaking we continue to go around the horn with you. just listening to dana set out the political dangers of this and the case martha is making there. when you listen to kevin mccarthy say more subpoenas than laws, how do you campaign on that? >> well, i think what you
campaign on is that you have a president who has gone rogue and is in violation of his responsibilities in their political opinion. impeachment is a political act. what we're seeing here today, though, i think it's important to say republicans have asked for this. republicans said we're sick and tired of closed-door depositions, hearings, whatever is going on even though they included republicans. we think this should be done if public. this involves the president of the united states. and you shouldn't have somewhat the president has described as witch hunt, coup or effort to unseat him rather than go through the political process. this is a political process, impeachment in the constitution. nancy pelosi is following the rules and today republicans get what they want. we go to a public phase in which the intelligence committee will have hearings and hearing from people like
lieutenant colonel alexander vindman. having delivered bombshell testimony with regard to actually having heard the president on that phone call in july make demand of the ukrainian president in terms of getting dirt on his political opponent joe biden, the former vice president. and then after the intelligence committee conducts those hearings then they will send a report to the judiciary committee chaired by jerry nadler and nadler then will write up articles of impeachment. so it's clear as to what the process is. this is what republicans asked. this is what republicans are getting. >> bill: this is not without political risk. chris wallace, bring you into the conversation. politically speaking what you get down the road after the end of the day today or maybe even after the end of this coming hour. there is risk involved here. significant risk for the house speaker as to whether or not the public hearings go the way they anticipate. we have seen these hearings over the summer not turn out the way a lot of people expected. >> that's exactly right.
the mueller hearing i thought was a disaster for the democrats. mueller turned out to be a very poor witness on his own report. you have know it's interesting this resolution because juan says this is what the republicans asked for and they're getting it. i would say yes and no. they wanted a vote on the full floor of the house. they'll get that. they wanted this to be an open-door process not a closed-door process they'll get that. on the other hand the republicans will have plenty to complain about in terms of the process this resolution calls for. first of all, in terms of republicans when they have these hearings it says republicans can offer their own subpoenas to call for documents and witnesses but subject to the approval of the chair of the house intelligence committee add a am schiff. i suspect a lot of republicans won't be happy about that. they also wanted the president or the president's counsel to be more involved in this as clinton's counsel was involved
and able to actually interrogate ken starr back in 1998. the president and his attorney are missing. the only time they're able to sit in is when it gets to the judiciary committee and there may not be any public hearings or hearing from witnesses during the judiciary committee, just may be marking up articles of impeachment. in terms of the politics of this, it's interesting. brett was exactly right. a few weeks ago nancy pelosi said gee, republicans are making hay about process. maybe we need to hold a vote and a lot of those democrats in trump districts in swing districts that trump won in 2016 and they won in 2018 said , no it will be hurtful. she polled them this week. the vast majority of those 31 house democrats in trump districts said we're fine with this. public opinion has moved enough. not to impeachment but to an impeachment inquiry we're okay with this. at least in the short term i
think nancy pelosi and the democrats are fine with their political base. if it actually gets to voting articles of impeachment then that gets much diceier and i think it will depend a lot what happens in the open hearings. >> julie: i think it's very important to remind viewers at home this is not an impeachment vote. not a vote to impeach or introduce articles of impeachment. it is not legislation. if you compare this to past impeachment inquiry in the past. if we look at bill clinton, richard nixon. the way the investigation was conducted. how would you say this would be different than the past two impeachments that this country witnessed? >> i don't think there is any question about a difference in terms of procedure. one is the ability to issue subpoenas. previously it would have required the initial vote we're seeing today coming from full committees. now those rules have been
changed and committee chair are allowed to issue subpoenas why they were being conducted in this episode. previously you saw much more of an interaction. i think it was much more of the person who was being impeached especially in the case of clinton making the case on capitol hill trying to delay the procedure, trying to argue against the procedures. but not in fact denying that the congress had the right to act and oversight responsibility of the white house. here in this situation you have president trump fighting to provide not only documents but witnesses. and that's a different -- a different kind of political moment in american life defined by the high level of political polarization we'll see in the vote today. >> bill: 1998 you had 37 democrats vote with republicans in the house to go ahead and
impeach bill clinton. want to bring in bret again from california. perhaps the way we gauge how the president responds during this process. i saw a tweet earlier today where he said read the transcript. he has repeated that a couple of times over the past few weeks. how do you expect him to react to this? >> i think he will probably weigh in right away. we're one tweet away from another news event from the president. i think he will probably get involved here. want to quickly go over the logistic here. this is a procedural vote you're looking at now. next you'll get to the actual resolution itself for the impeachment inquiry. that needs 217 votes in this house. the current configuration. interestingly katie hill the resigning member has not resigned yet. she could vote so the magic number is 217. as of last count our folks had counted hard yes for the impeachment inquiry 229 democrats. there were about four from new
jersey, new york, maine and minnesota who were non-committal or deciding whether they were going for an inquiry but not on board with impeachment yet. there are many democrats as chris mentioned that are in that boat. ready to go forward with inquiry and wait to see what the articles look like. there is one representative justin amash now an independent from michigan who has said he is voting yes for this impeachment inquiry. look for the vote when it starts to go along party lines and republicans will hit on that to say this is a political process and the president will weigh in and say it's a witch hunt. >> bill: we believe a few moments away from the resolution being voted on. back to what the president could or could not development these rallies that we have seen have been significant. you think about going to dallas, texas, 20,000 inside, 15,000 outside. you did not have that in the late 1990s when bill clinton was being impeached. you do have that among 34, 35,
36% of those who favor president trump in every way. how he deals with this and whether he has rallies during this process could be a significant part of this. you mentioned the 31 democrats who won in his district in 2018. that is the dynamic we did not see 21 years ago but we will clearly see it this time. your thought on that. >> if you look at the newest ad out by the trump campaign, it hits on that very thing. it hits on that he is pushing for lowering drug prices. that he is pushing for solutions on the economy. that he is pushing to pressure china to get this phase one deal to improve the u.s. economy. and it points to democrats in this ad obsessing over russia and now the impeachment inquiry on ukraine. so i think he is going to make a ton of appearances during
this time and it is going to be a battle. the other thing to remember is that there are two tracks here. impeachment track and then we are still waiting on the i.g. report and the john durham report on the investigation of the investigators. so it is like two trains getting to the finish line and we'll see when that collision happens how washington absorbs it. >> bill: the i.g. report many thought it would come out a few weeks ago. maybe it comes out today or tomorrow or another month. dana, if you're in the west wing running communications how would you address the question how the president conducts rallies during this and what he does and what he communicates? >> juan reminded all of us impeachment is a political decision. it's not a legal one. and what you saw in 1997 and 1998 with the democrats is they rallied around bill clinton and in some ways they pay a price for that today. for what the clintons did at
the time, they set up a separate war room for all communications was directed to that war room. i don't know what they called it. if you had a question to the white house press office about impeachment you had to go over there so the white house press office could focus exclusively on the president's agenda, business of the kun tree. he was getting things done. one thing that is different between then and now we didn't have social media back then. you didn't have ways to communicate directly to the american people. like the president of the united states does today. and he has taken full advantage of that. super polarized country now. you have republicans who say they are 95% behind president trump. i don't think the democrats have that yet. i guess they are loosely organized but also this is not your parents' republican or democratic party. things have evolved quite a bit the way people communicate
quite a bit is the case. if you go back to the book a couple of his campaign workers wrote "let donald trump be trump." i don't think there is anything anybody can do to stop president trump from talking about this. even if they said don't go to the rally and talk about impeachment. i don't think that would happen and i don't think there is anything wrong with the president of the united states from either party if they're being impeached. a political decision for them to counter punch with just as strong of a political hit against the democrats in this case. maybe the democrats will figure out a way to say we can weather this storm. maybe we go into 2020 in a 50/50 position and what turnout results in. i go back to i think the democrats at this point end up either in a wash or in a net negative at the end of this. >> bill: the procedural vote is now concluded and we'll wait for the official vote on the resolution. the resolution lays out the roadmap for how democrats would
carry out the next several weeks or months depending how long it happens. house speaker nancy pelosi dropping in here and let you know what we get next when the vote begins. >> on that i would request the ayes and nays. >> those favoring a vote by ayes and nays are order. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote, colleagues, a five-minute vote. >> bill: we're now on the clock at 11:22 east coast time in washington, d.c. based on the current composition of the u.s. house, you need 217 votes for the resolution to pass. what is in the resolution, the resolution lays out the framework for how democrats will conduct over the next
several weeks or beyond that the jurisdiction they've given various committees in the house. after they complete their investigations, they will then hand their report to the house judiciary committee headed by jerry nadler the democrat from new york. when it begins you'll be under what would be considered an official impeachment inquiry. as we wait for the vote here we'll watch them add up and martha i was thinking as dana was talking about how the president will handle this process. you could get a split screen between washington, d.c. and public hearings and the president in columbus, ohio, in madison, wisconsin, perhaps, atlanta, georgia, he could go to the heart of the country and take his message to the american people. that is something this country has never seen, a split screen such as that. >> in the prior impeachment efforts it was in the second
term of a united states president. this is going to be quite the scene as you point out, bill, as we watch an election unfold with this in the background. maybe sometimes in the foreground of this. one thing i would say about the narrative that the white house seems to be sort of moving to and the president tweeted about this yesterday is that he was encouraging republicans to stick to the substance of the issue at hand rather than the process that they've focused on so much. they don't like the closed-door process. substance goes to what i discussed with the secretary of state last night mike pompeo who is now talking about the fact he wants everyone to understand the united states under the trump administration has given far more in lethal aid to ukraine. when the obama administration opted for mres and blankets senator john mccain fought against that policy. what are the brass tax of what the relationship is with the
trump administration with ukraine. how much aid did they get? although the president clearly asked for tin vest gaitions to be opened. according to the testimony pushed for it and said we'll investigate biden and burisma and it never happened and released weeks later. the narrative will move around as they continue to make this more public and to put their own spin on it as they head out there. >> bill: we thought there were four or five democrats voting against it. two have so far. jeff van drew, the democrat from new jersey is a no vote. so, too, is colin peterson, a democrat from minnesota. that district peterson has been the congressman there for a number of years but that district, juan, was won by president trump by 31 points. colin peterson just voted no a moment ago. as you watch this. the independent we believe is
amash who left the republican party and filed as an independent. that's the vote there. 220, 221. you only needed 217. this resolution has now passed with a little less than four minutes to go in the voting there. two vote no on the democratic side. this is a partisan vote we're watching unfold here. >> no question. the president was gathering people at the white house. trying to enforce the republican line much like the democrats have been pushing nancy pelosi as we've heard my colleagues discuss was taking temperatures especially of thoefs who are in districts that were won by president trump in 2016. what you have to keep in mind again is that there are a swing here in terms of the moment. what we're seeing is that there is overall support for an impeachment inquiry in terms of public polls. again, that's polarized. republicans saying we're not
for it. democrats and to some extent a split among independents. independents rising say we're open to this. this morning the a.p. poll had the president's approval rating at 42%. it is not shifting. it is not going up or coming down. in the polarization we see today it's locked. and as we go towards actual hearings -- i guess now as this is passed, bill, as you say, we're looking at the intelligence committee hearings beginning in mid-november. the political impact of that is tremendous for democrats. there is a political primary process about to get started, actual voting getting start evidence in iowa caucuses and the like. the base, lots of arguments over everything from healthcare, dana was discussing that. to education. how we pay for infrastructure and the like. does that get obscured by what is taking place in washington that's a counter in some ways to the potential rallies that will be held by the president
because the democrats on stage are clearly in support not only of impeachment but removal. >> bill: chris wallace, your thought on this as in a moment we'll welcome our viewers across the country. >> it's very dramatic. as somebody who covered washington for 40 years as they called the vote i have to say that i could feel it. feel goosebumps. what we're talking about here they've been conducting the investigation for a month now. this is a formal vote by the house of representatives, yes completely party line, to conduct an formal impeachment inquiry into the president of the united states. a moment in history. we'll have some more but you cannot overstate how dramatic this is and what a decision the democrats have made to pursue this course. it could have political downsides or upsides.
and maybe i'm an optimist. i like the think there is a certain amount of feeling on both sides what they think the constitution calls for. you can have a difference of opinion what that is. this is the constitution and the constitutional processes in action. it's a dramatic moment. >> bill: thank you, chris. 232. back to the house speaker nancy pelosi. >> the nays are 196. the resolution is adopted without objection. the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. >> bill: let's pause for a moment allow our viewers across the country to join coverage in progress from new york as we watch the developments on the floor of the house. something we've had an eye on for the past 90 minutes. we'll pause now for our fox stations to join our coverage here on the fox news channel. we've been watching the debate.
2 hours 15 minutes go it began. to nays on the board from the democrats. what it could mean in a moment. first let's pause. >> bill: this is fox news coverage of the house vote on formalizing the impeachment inquiry. i'm bill hemmer in new york. a moment ago the resolution passed largely along party lines. the resolution will spell out the format for which democrats will carry out in committees that will then produce the report to the judiciary committee. there is expected to be public hearings expected to begin in two weeks' time. with me today chris wallace, bret baier, dana perino, martha maccallum, juan williams. we'll begin with you, bret. >> this is the formal process and the impeachment inquiry. now the rules have been set. now the public hearings can begin. now the public will see and
judge for itself what it makes of the evidence that has been gathered behind closed doors in these depositions. this was a bit of calling the hand of the republicans who have been arguing about process for some time. now they'll have to argue about the substance of the ukrainian call and whether there was quid pro quo holding back funds to look into political efforts by the president against his political opponents. it was also an effort on politics and it's interesting to see the vote come down really along party lines. that likely will be the way it goes forward. >> bill: thank you, bret. chris wallace you were reflecting on the history we're watching here. you remember 1998. we're nowhere close to that yet but the train is moving in that direction toward public hearings. >> what a difference, though. i also remember back in 1973 or 74 when the house voted 74 when the house voted to begin impeachment proceedings. the vote at that time was over 400 votes in favor of the
inquiry. not impeachment which is where we are now. just a couple dozen against. there was a bipartisan agreement at that time even though obviously the impeachment of richard nixon was a big deal. a bipartisan agreement it needed to go to that kind of investigation. here you see the party divisions holding. all the democrats with the exception of two voting for this inquiry. all of the republicans i think with no defections voting against it. this city is still polarized despite the efforts of democrats in their closed-door hearings to try to build a case against the president. it will be interesting to see what happens when we have open hearings and the american people get to judge and conceivably to put pressure on their representatives that there is a case against the president or no there isn't. but the democrats have cast their dye now and this is going to roll out over the next two months. >> bill: thank you, john roberts is live from the white house with the initial reaction
from the president in the west wing. what do you have there? >> good morning. just got instant reaction from the white house on this. a statement from the press secretary who said the president has done nothing wrong and the democrats know it. nancy pelosi and the democrats unhinged obsession with this illegitimate impeachment proceeding does not hurt president trump, it hurts the american people. instead of focusing on pressing issues that impact real families like reducing gun violence, passing the usmca free trade act, improving healthcare, lowering prescription drug costs, securing our southern border and modernizing our aging infrastructure the democrats are choosing every day to waste time on a sham impeachment. with today's vote speaker pelosi and the democrats have done nothing more than enshrine unacceptable violations of due process into house rules. speaker pelosi, chairman schiff
and democrats conducted secret behind closed door meetings, blocked the administration from participating and have now voted to authorize a second round of hearings that still fails to provide any due process whatsoever to the administration. the democrats want to render a verdict without giving the administration a chance to mount a defense. that is unfair, unconstitutional, and fundamentally unamerican. we should point out, though, that in the procedures that were laid down at least in the bullet points of the resolution it does provide for the president and his counsel to cross-examine witnesses, bring their own witnesses and view testimony and have people present at the hearings whether open or behind closed door. there seems to be some disagreement on how much due process is afforded the administration on this point. >> bill: thank you, john thanks for that. back to our panel. dana perino and juan williams and martha maccallum.
>> i'm skeptical that the democrats can be successful having a disciplined communications strategy. if this is going to happen across six different committees. because you will have -- a lot of egos and personalities involved. nancy pelosi is good at keeping people on the same track but when you have six different committees all trying to do this process i think you'll probably see a lot more leaks and then republicans will be skeptical about the leaks. likely to be infighting amongst democratic staffers and i will add this. we are less than 100 days away from the first votes in the democratic primary that will happen in early february of next year. and this process that the democrats are embarking on right now in the house is going to have huge consequences for whoever emerges as the nominee. this is going to take up a ton of oxygen. not able to talk about a lot of other things and so the lacklusterness of the democratic primary up to now probably continues. it takes all that time and
attention away from how they would contrast the democratic party and that eventual nominee as the contract to president trump and he has just tweeted it is the greatest witch hunt of all time. what you'll end up seeing is people will conflate the mueller investigation with this impeachment process and the republicans will likely say this is what the plan was all along from the very beginning. and they will have all of this discipline and all this money and all these ways to communicate directly to their voters and the democrats i just don't see how you can do this across six committees with the democrats. >> bill: martha now. >> just to build on what dana was saying. this is the beginning of the republicans and the president sort of cracking the door open and having a little bit of more say and influence on this process when you move to the public hearing part of this equation. i would look for the campaign to be the place that handles the reaction to this impeachment hearing more than anyplace else. this is going to be the narrative that they have tried to unseat this president since
day one. it has taken on a number of different iterations from the day the mueller investigation ended this was the beginning of this whistleblower and phone call conversation and that will be the way the white house wants to portray this throughout. >> bill: thank you, juan williams. wrap this up now. >> i think that from the democrats' percent per respective they're giving the president what he asked for. you'll hear people speak about that phone call who were involved with the phone call. you will have the opportunity for the public to make some decisions. and i what we've seen in the polls. we've seen the public in favor of the inquiry and some instances removal. among democrats there is no argument. in these partisan times democrats are completely in support of this and in fact
have questioned why nancy pelosi and the democrats haven't been more aggressive in going at what they see as a rogue president. so i think for the democrats they see this as revving up their base. i don't see they'll necessarily have a problem. the problem would be it conflicts with the primary and caucus agenda as we have a political campaign going on on the democratic side. >> bill: thanks to all of you. appreciate the coverage and commentary. to repeat not a single republican voted for it. two democrats voted against it. the resolution that just passed only applies to the house. it is just a format for how democrats will proceed from here. there will be public hearings, the schedule yet to be determined and so too are the witnesses for those hearings. please stay tuned to the fox news channel and this fox station for continuing coverage on this story. until then i'm bill hemmer in new york. >> bill: our coverage continues now on cable. i bring in my colleague julie
banderas sitting with me watching this unfold. now we have the official resolution julie that has passed. >> julie: certainly the public will now be able to be privy to the information. the transcripts. we're waiting for those of the closed-door meetings that the republicans wanted to be part of and haven't been. we should hope to see those soon as well. the public is now going to be seeing all of this on their television screen very soon. >> bill: our panel is back. bret, as you are watching from the west coast continuing your book tour. congratulations on that. you were watch the nats game seven. when you think about the level of polarization we've seen in your hometown of washington, d.c., this drives the wedge deeper. >> i think you're right. we haven't seen this level of partisanship in quite some time.
worth pointing out behind closed doors these meetings have included republicans and they have had some chance to cross-examine some of these witnesses even though we don't have the transcripts of the cross examination. we have the released opening statements that we've seen that have raised a lot of eyebrows about what they're saying. we don't hear the cross examination. there have been republicans in those rooms. the argument has been you need to open it up further. now this sets the table to do that. these public hearings will be must-see tv because democrats will try to make the case to the american people that is where the political case has to be made. as we're getting ready to go into this primary and caucus season it will be fascinating to see as dana mentioned earlier how much the presidential candidates focus on this very effort and whether they really try to sell themselves as solving other problems instead of impeachment.
>> bill: march of this year by nancy pelosi. i'm not for impeachment unless i have bipartisan support. she got none of this. >> she didn't want this vote. that was, of course, during the mueller investigation, special counsel investigation. she didn't want to go down this path. i think she was against impeachment and felt all the reasons that have been cited here. there are certainly some negatives that republicans are going to say they are only interested in trying to overturn a duly-elected president. not trying to solve the country's problems. there are a lot of things that she knew but once this came out for the whistleblower, then the transcript, i think she felt -- it's an interesting thing. there is a political downside for democrats doing what they're doing. also a political downside for their not doing this. so much of the base was so energized and so outraged by what i'm talking about the democratic base now about what this president had done and the failure of democrats in the
house to address it that i think she felt that it would in the end -- it was one of those things. the only thing worse than doing it would be not doing it. i think she felt this was the best political and thought it was the responsible thing that she should do under the constitution. >> julie: i want to go to martha. you mentioned earlier about the fact the president has a chance to address this to the american people. what better place to do that than on the campaign trail and he is most effective at the rallies. because of this measure it outlines what republican lawmakers and the president have when it comes to moving forward in this process. >> as i said you'll hear the continuing mantra of witch hunt, witch hunt, witch hunt and one thing to keep an eye on here is the scope of this investigation because it opened the door in the rules that they laid out to also bring in some of the leftover baggage from the mueller investigation as well and releasing the
transcripts from the grand jury investigation of that. i think that's an interesting move. i have think it is one that democrats might want to be a bit careful on. it kind of feeds into that melting pot scandal theory that republicans are going to continue to push. it is all about taking down this president. the mueller investigation is over, the mueller investigation had its findings. this is a separate issue that prompted nancy pelosi to open it. the suggestion on that phone call the president was trying to get an investigation begun in the ukraine against his potential opponent. so i think they have to be very careful. if they believe that was the thing that pushed them over the edge towards this impeachment proceeding they better stick to it. >> bill: thank you, martha. hang on here. jim jordan says it's a charade. a shameful partisan stunt. we heard him on floor of the house. the final vote is in.
did you know that feeling sluggish or weighed down could be signs that your digestive system isn't working at its best? taking metamucil every day can help. metamucil supports your daily digestive health using a special plant-based fiber called psyllium. psyllium works by forming a gel in your digestive system to trap and remove the waste that weighs you down.
metamucil's gelling action also helps to lower cholesterol and slows sugar absorption to promote healthy blood sugar levels. so, start feeling lighter and more energetic by taking metamucil every day. at humana, we believe your healthcare should evolve with you. and part of that evolution means choosing the right medicare plan for you. humana can help. with original medicare, you're covered for hospital stays and doctor office visits, but you'll have to pay a deductible for each. a medicare supplement plan can cover your deductibles and co-insurance, but you may pay higher premiums and still not get prescription drug coverage. but with an all-in-one humana medicare advantage plan, you could get all that coverage plus part d prescription drug benefits. you get all this coverage for as low as a $0 monthly plan premium in many areas. and humana has a large network of doctors and hospitals, so call or go online today. find out if your doctor is part of the humana network
and get your free decision guide. discover how an all-in-one humana medicare advantage plan could save you money. there is no obligation, so call or go online right now. >> bill: there will be a lot of reaction based on the vote we just watched together. a little bit now i mentioned part of this jim jordan statement. the republican from ohio. his statement says democrats have been trying to impeach the president since day one of this congress. now a year before the next election democrats are moving to undo the will of the american people. he continues americans will see through the democrats' desperate attempt to legitimize adam schiff's sham inquiry. the vote 232-196. well above the 217 threshold needed to pass this resolution. the votes break down the following way. democrats 231 yea, republicans
yay 0. democrats also picked up an independent amash, as i mentioned from michigan. the republican nays, 194. the final tally there. nancy pelosi, chris wallace, nancy pelosi did cast a vote. we are not sure whether she would or not. she voted in the affirmative. a question whether or not she would sit this one out. my guess is had she done that she would have been the target of a lot of criticism right now. >> traditionally speakers do not vote unless their vote is needed. they don't go down to the floor and vote. her vote wasn't needed. she wasn't the 217th vote to put it over the top. i think ultimately she decided she wanted to. i don't know she would have gotten criticism for not voting but i think her feelings about donald trump are so strong rightly or wrongly she probably couldn't resist voting to continue this impeachment inquiry. >> bill: how did her calculation change in the past
10 days do you think? >> i think a lot of it to have this vote? >> bill: yes. >> i think a lot of it had to do with those 31 members. the 31 house democrats who won in 2018 in districts that donald trump won. some of them by wide margins in 2016. a month ago they didn't want this vote because they felt it was going to jeopardize their chances that it was going to be a tough vote either way if they voted for it that was going to tick off a lot of the moderates and more conservative people. and if they didn't vote for it then that was going to tick off a lot of their democratic base. it seems that the impeachment inquiries. we have just heard the opening statements, the leaks from both sides were sufficient that again this isn't impeachment. just an impeachment inquiry to continue the probe that a lot of them with the exception of those two who didn't vote for
it felt comfortable taking this step. >> bill: bret, bring you back in here. mark meadows, the republican from north carolina was with us three hours ago. what he was talking about unable to characterize exactly what is being said during these witness depositions and interviews. there was one that started at 8:00 this morning. tim morrison is behind closed doors. as you well know some of these interviews can last eight and nine hours into the evening. what mark meadows described to us the stories don't line up. and if he is right on that and you have public hearings and you give the administration the authority also to bring in their own witnesses you are taking a big political risk whether or not you can poke holes in the story and a thread you can draw that get these facts together. >> we have not seen it. >> bill: if he is right it's a big risk. >> yeah, we haven't seen that cross examination. the chris's point, two of the democrats who voted against the
inquiry, not the impeachment, the inquiry from going forward. jeff van drew from new jersey, south jersey just released a statement saying today i voted nay on this resolution. without bipartisan support i believe the inquiry will further divide the country. tearing it apart at the seams and will ultimately fail in the senate. however, now that the vote has taken place and we're moving forward i will make a judgment call based on all the evidence presented by these investigations. my hope is we're still able to get some work done to help the american people like infrastructure, veterans benefits, environmental protections. immigration reform. reducing prescription drug costs and strengthening social security. one of the two democrats who voted against the inquiry. it is interesting to see the statement that comes out that says just by the inquiry it is going to tear the country apart. a different perspective. >> julie: i want to ask you about the ethics complaints filed by 40 conservative groups
against pelosi. that she weaponized impeachment proceedings. would any of that need to be proven? would that information need to be in the hands of democrats i guess to proceed in these inquiries and these people testifying in the investigation as a whole? >> as chris wallace pointed out early. the constitution is pretty clear that impeachment lies with congress and specifically the house of representatives to start out with. and it is also vague as far as what that means. so there is a lot of leeway that is given to house leadership in how they want to do it. it hasn't been done this way before but they have the roadmap in the constitution and everything that is laid out in government. >> bill: bret, thank you. back to dana and martha here in new york. the reaction is fresh.
i imagine today it might be a bit of a tidal wave yet to come. >> i was also thinking i think chris wallace mentioned the 31 democrats who are up for reelection in 2020 and they won in districts where trump won some by 8 or 10 or 12 points. polling them was something. i also wonder about what we don't know. secretary rumsfeld used to remind us the unknown unknowns. i wonder if speaker pelosi and perhaps adam schiff, if they know that they have some more information coming. this is -- the testimonies will continue. now they will be a little more public. i wonder if they felt like they had a stronger hand to play and that that was one of the reasons they wanted to get this vote because -- i don't think they are in a rush. they want to try to get it done they said before christmas. it might not work. i just wonder. watch for that. i also think about what andy
mccarthy of national real view and one of our fox news contributors wrote this weekend that republicans ought to be looking for some sort of off ramp. will there be something they can say if other new information comes on board and it makes it harder to argue the substance, is there an off ramp they can say we didn't like the phone call but it is not impeachable. let's try to move on. if they are only full bore on process and not prepared for the unknown it could be tricky. >> bill: doug collins republican from georgia ranking member of the house judiciary committee. if we get to that point he would be the one to oppose jerry nadler. his statement reads the resolution isn't about constitution, it is about control. not about fairness, it's about winning. not about finding the facts, it's democrats shredding procedure in order to stack the deck against the president they hate. end quote there. i have a minute left and i'll give it to you. >> this is what we have been hearing from steve scalise and
doug collins. we've seen steve scalise comparing it to a soviet-style operation. clearly the message that republicans want to get out there is that the process here is one that is unfair to the president. that will be the part of their argument. if this keeps moving forward and if you get to a trial on the senate side that's what this will come down to. is what you heard on that phone call, the question about potentially investigating biden and burisma, is that an impeachable offense? then you go forward from there and say what was the outcome of that? people across the country will have to ask themselves what they think about that. whether or not they feel that that was sort of trump being trump as we discussed before and he is always going the try to get something that will give him a little more of an edge here or there. it appears that within weeks of that it was sort of talked into a different position. let's go ahead and release the aid money, let's not make it
contingent upon anything. that's the measure that americans across the country will have to be convinced of or convinced otherwise. >> bill: thanks, martha. to chris, dana, martha, juan and bret, to all of you, thank you for your commentary and input. happy halloween. get a break here. back with a final word. and once you refinance, the savings are automatic. thanks to your va streamline refi benefit, at newday there's no income verification, no appraisal, and no out of pocket costs. activate your va benefit now. one call can save you $2000 every year.
>> bill: just to complete the circle on the house with them on the go, jeff program tells us that for members did not vote today. whether it's significant, it's difficult to know, julie. one democrat did not vote, three republicans. with the 232-196 final tally, it appears those oats were not even necessary. >> julie: a right paid to democrats, in fact, with the only ones that voted against it. nonetheless, this is a partisan vote. the question is, what happens when this eventually, if it does to make it to republican-controlled senate? can act as i've legs? >> bill: we sat here at 845
this morning not knowing what would get. for the audience at home, thanks for being patient with us as we bobbed and weaved in and out of that was procedure. the resolution is passed and we will see what we get necks. >> julie: in the week that we should expect the public hearing. >> bill: have an awesome halloween with your kids. >> julie: happy halloween. >> bill: bye-bye. >> on this boat, the yeas are 232. the nays are 196. the resolution is adopted without objection. the motion to reconsider is laid up on the table. [gavel] >> harris: house democrats just passed the resolution formalizing their impeachment inquiry into president trump. now we await reaction from top house lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle. you are watching "outnumbered." i'm harris faulkner. here today, melissa francis. fox news contributor, katie pavlich. former ohio senate democratic minority leader, capri cafaro. and in the center