tv MSNBC Live With Hallie Jackson MSNBC October 31, 2019 7:00am-8:00am PDT
whether or not speaker pelosi votes. it's tradition the speaker doesn't often votes but on a day like today i would think she would want to lead from the front. >> we'll see. it seems like unprecedented times. hagar, felipe, congressman, thank you so much. we'll hand off to ari melber. ♪ good morning. i'm ari melber reporting live from nbc headquarters with coverage of today's events on msnbc. the breaking news coming out of capitol hill, lawmakers in the house about to take their first ever formal votes on how to proceed with the impeachment inquiry of president donald trump. this new resolution maps out the blueprint and rules of the road
for what democrats say is the next public phase in this impeachment probe. now many are expecting a party line vote today. lawmakers will vote on these ground rules which includes moving the closed door depositions of all of these key witnesses into public hearings. we've seen squabbling over this process. we're expecting in our special coverage to hear from speaker nancy pelosi. that could be as soon as within the next 15 to 20 minutes. for weeks she has said this formal vote is not legally or constitutionally required but that's true and she changed course in part after much pressure from republicans and the president about the process. pelosi and democrats launched their investigation after the whistleblower sounded an alarm about a july phone call about president trump and the president of ukraine. house democrats are focused on trump's efforts to push ukraine into what they say is an unconstitutional abuse of power. the investigation of domestic political opponents and conditioning it all on military
aid. the president and his allies insisting nothing wrong with that call and there wasn't a quid pro quo or whatever happened is typical foreign policy. because this is our special coverage i'm thrilled to tell you about some of the people and experts leading us off this morning. nbc chief white house correspondent hallie jackson. msnbc's garrett haake on capitol hill. nbc news correspondent heidi presswhat in washington. jeremy bash, former chief of staff at the cia and department of defense. john meech m, presidential historian. bob costa, reporter and msnbc analyst who has been leading coverage of this has been reverberating in the past hour. joining me here at our headquarters former u.s. senator chair mccaskill, pulitzer prize winner eugene robinson from "the washington post" and barrett burger a prosecutor in the southern district of new york. good morning to everyone. thrilled to have you here. feels like a big prime time evening as well. i want to go right to the hill,
garrett, what are we going to see next. >> we're going to continue to see this debate play out over the next hour or so and could see extended remarks from speaker pelosi and house minority leader kevin mccarthy as we refer to as magic minutes one minute of time afforded to the leaders that can stretch on as long as they see fit and then i expect to see a largely party-line vote this morning. democrats have managed to bring some wayward democrats who had not yet supported the impeachment effort back into the fold on this, in part by playing up the idea that this is, in fact, a process vote, not a conviction, not a vote on a specific article of impeachment. just the next step on the road. several democrats who opposed or not supported the inquiry have come out in favor in part by saying they are in favor of opening this up and see this process open up to the public. republicans by and large have remained in lockstep on this saying this does not go far enough to expand rights for them
and the minority and the president of the united states. if i had to place a bet my analysis on this is that you're more likely to see perhaps one or two democrats vote with republicans against this resolution, than you are to see republicans cross the line and vote for it at this stage. democrats will at some point make a moral argument, make a patriotic argument perhaps to get republicans to vote for whatever they produce in this process, but on this pure process vote here, i expect to see both parties largely staying within their lanes. >> how many votes will we see? >> this is i think a three-vote series. usually the second vote will be the main vote on the actual resolution here and then a motion to recommit. you could see some other process votes take place here as republicans might try to gum up the works and delay this. given that everyone i've talked to at least on both parties expect this resolution to pass, republicans could slow this down but it may not be worthwhile to throw up a bunch of procedural roadblocks when the house is scheduled to go out today and
nothing clarifies the mind of lawmakers like the prospect of going home early on a thursday. >> garrett, you've given us some of the numbers and some of the rules. my last question for you briefly, is the vibe. does it feel heavy, significant, momentous there today or does it feel like any other day on the hill? >> it has a bit of a unique vibe to it, i will say. the debate is just getting started. there's still more empty seats than full ones in the house chamber. i was over there a few minutes ago. there's a lot of additional media and lawmakers kind of loitering around waiting for their moment. it does feel like we're on the cusp of something unusual here. >> fascinating to get your ground view and please stay near the floor and your camera we will be coming back to you throughout the special coverage. we turn to the white house, where chief correspondent hallie jackson is reporting for nbc and msnbc news. what are you hearing? >> so different vibe. it's interesting ari, hearing you and garrett talk about the vibt on the hill with the
potential for this moment. president trump is behind closed doors and unless something changes that is where he is going to stay. nothing on his public schedule. white house officials have been cagey on what he is up to and how closely he is watching. based on what i've seen from this president over last three years we know he will turn in today the whip counter in chief, watching closely if any republicans to the point that you were making with garrett end up flipping over and voting with democrats here, despite the fact that it seems unlikely. >> thank you. i'm going to come back to you shortly. congressman adam schiff who has been the leading face on the intelligence committee for this probe is speaking. let's listen in. >> as evident in the july 25 call record and the events that 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. with 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 firsthand. 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. madame speaker, i urge passage of the resolution and yield back. >> gentleman from oklahoma. >> thank you, madam speaker. >> we have been listening to the beginning of this debate today
on the first ever house floor vote on a resolution to provide for rules for the potential impeachment of the sitting president donald j. trump. that was adam schiff making a brief but forceful case. we're going to keep an eye and bring you into the room as soon and whefb never we see a significant action. i want to bring back our panel. speaking with hallie jackson from the white house who nimbly stepped aside as we went to the house floor and let you continue your thought and give yours view of how the white house is dealing with what continues even as this public floor vote goes on today, there are key people who typically work in the building you're in that are reporting to private depositions. >> right including tim morrison on capitol hill today. he is the outgoing top adviser to the president on issues related to russia and this is going to be a significant deposition different that morrison is somebody on that phone call between president trump and the ukrainen leader, only the second person who has a firsthand account, firsthand
knowledge of that conversation who is going to be talking with the house investigators. you have the prospect of somebody else coming in, john bolton, the former national security adviser who might have quite a bit to say. he and the president butted heads over issues not just this one, with other witnesses testifying that bolton repeatedly raised concerns about rudy giuliani's interactions with ukraine. his lawyer told nbc news he does not want to voluntarily testify but that left the door open to, a subpoena, which these other witnesses have had, have been brought before congress under subpoena. we're still waiting to see questions on that. you asked about how the white house is handling this. i have to tell you same as they ever were is the answer. before this vote went down and we knew that speaker pelosi would take the vote to formalize the rules i have been asking democrats, the white house is telling me, sources are saying to me hey, and saying it publicly too, we believe -- toss it back to you. i see speaker pelosi on the floor. >> tranquilly provides to the common defense, promote the
general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our prosperity do ordain and establish this constitution of the united states. it goes on to immediately establish article i, the legislative branch, article ii, article iii 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. it's that that we take the oath of office, we gather here on that opening day with our families gathered around, to proudly raise our hand 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 solemn, 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 impeaches the president of the united states. unless his actions are jeopardizing our honoring our oath of office. so i'm grateful to our committee chairs for all of the careful and thoughtful investigation they have been doing as this inquiry has proceeded. 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 ensures transparency, advancing public disclosure of deposition transcripts and outlining the procedures for the transfer of evidence to the judiciary committee to use in its proceedings. it enables effective public hearings, setting up 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 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 coming witnesses and more. and contrary to what you may have heard today, we give more
opportunity to the -- 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's what the inquiry will investigate and 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. that is what this vote is about. what it's about, is 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 this flag, so many have fought and died for this flag which stands for our democracy. when benjamin franklin came out of independence hall, we heard this over an 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? 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. when we have a president who says article ii 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? 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, when to write our founding documents and thank god they made them amendable so we could always be expanding freedom and the genius, again, the genius of that constitution was the separation of powers. any usurping of that power is a violation of the -- of our oath of office. so proudly, you all, we all
raised our hand to protect and defend and support the constitution of the united states. that's what this vote is about today. we think the times founders, the times have found 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 established a country contrary to that principle, honoring the men and women in uniform who fight for our flag and freedom and our democracy. and honoring the aspirations of our children so that no president, whoever he or she may be in the future, could decide that article ii says they can do whatever they want.
again, let us honor our oath of office, let us defend our democracy and 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, eplur bus unum, from any one, they didn't know how different we would be but they knew that we needed to always be unifying. hopefully as we go forward with the clarity of purpose, the clarity of procedure, a clarity of fact, a clarity of truth, it's 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 ] gentle lady yields back. >> we have been listening to speaker nancy pelosi on the house floor speaking ahead of this floor vote creating the rules and blueprint for the potential impeachment of donald trump and the speaker we hear from often spoke in grandeur terms, quoting benjamin franklin, thomas payne, the founders saying it brings her no joy to do what the house is now on the precipes of doing. historic day, certainly in the view of the woman in charge nancy pelosi. i want to turn to our panel, we've been hearing other comments from the house floor and senator mccaskill with me in
our headquarters. what type of speaker did we observe? a former colleague of yours. does seem like a different day to her. >> well, this is really strategic. i would disagree a little bit with the opinions that say this is because of the pressure of the republicans put on the democrats about process. i don't think that's what this is at all. i think this is very smart people in the house of representatives realizing they now have the evidentiary witnesses that are credible, that are not partisan, that can get in front of the camera and explain to the american people how serious this is. i think this is about taking the facts to the american people. we've seen support for impeachment growing marginally. the country is about 50/50 now. i think nancy pelosi and adam schiff, who we got to remember is a prosecutor, and a real prosecutor by the way, one that was actually in the courtroom, not one who just, you know, shuffled paper, he actually now
has heard these witnesses -- by the way with republicans in the room, and he now knows he has factual witnesses that will be very powerful to the american people and i think that's what this is about. >> yeah. >> moving it into a public process where the people of america can take a look and go, holy cow. those folks who really care about our country are tremendously worried about what this president has undertaken. >> you mentioned congressman schiff we saw speak on the floor noticeably before speaker pelosi is a former prosecutor and presented impeachment caseses to the senate before. to your committee. >> yes. >> congressman shift in that role as house management for the impeachment of a federal judge. >> he was the lead prosecutor in the impeachment of a federal judge out of new orleans and i was the judge. we had the majority in the senate then. my co-judge was orrin hatch. i new from opening statement this guy had been in the courtroom and as an aside, ari,
and for barrett, i have -- you have no idea how fun it was to rule on hearsay objections. >> i bet. >> to finally get to rule on a hearsay obtsion. but in all seriousness he did a remarkable job in that trial, he was very competent and i think he sees this as a prosecutor, that he now has the evidence that he can take to the jury, which is the american people, in a very public way. >> and gene, put this in the context of washington, it's not an insult to the house floor that we're watching to observe that many days what is discussed there has no wider impact. today what is discussed is this resolution, which everyone agrees if it passes has huge impact. >> it does have huge impact because it sets us on a process that the nation is only gone down this road four times, right. i was able to sit down with speaker pelosi on monday.
i heard a preversion of the speech she gave. senator mccaskill is right. she is convinced that the house does not need to have this vote and, in fact, she rejects any suggestion that this is because of pressure from republicans in the house. i think she's sincere on that. it's about public sentiment. she often quotes abraham lincoln as having said and i will paraphrase because i don't get it exactly right but public sentiment is everything with it you can do anything, and without it you can do nothing. and she does believe, based on the witness testimony they've had so far, that it is time to present the facts to the
american people because they are so stunning, that the fact record here is so stunning, not just the transcript of the phone call that president trump had with the ukrainian president, but the entire context of this rogue parallel foreign policy that was not in the interest of the united states. but was in the interest of donald trump's political fortunes and in the interest of smearing a former vice president, may be his opponent in the next presidential election. and they think they're ready to make the case. >> that's interesting of your reporting of speaking with speaker pelosi very strategic about how she sets things up. barrett, a former federal prosecutor, mentioned watching the house floor right now, we are seeing a debate over two things, is there enough evidence to go this far, you don't just begin an impeachment against any president, most never get to the point we're at this morning, and
two, how do you set up rules that are fair which is a highly debatable thing. your view of what we're seeing on the floor? >> this part of the process is most similar in the criminal system to the part of a grand jury which as we all know happens in secret, but that doesn't mean that there aren't rules and procedures for how that works. so i think right now, what they're doing is sort of shedding sunlight for the american people on how things have worked in the past and how it's going to be going forward when we get to see what's going on. i think weig i think what's going to be most useful for the next stage when bringing this to the public is the order of how we've learned about the events and how the public has been made waufr aware of these things is not the order they actually happened. things have come out in drips and drabs and learned about the whistleblower complaint, but we ultimately learned much happened before that. i think the most important part about this next phase will be to present a more compelling narrative for the public.
they can see how each of these witnesses plays into the bigger sto story, the role they've played, i don't know we've been able to see it in a comprehensive manner and that's part of the next phase. >> another one of our washington experts, heidi prisbola working her sources through the news circle heading into this morning and heidi, what are you hearing from your sources and who are the republicans to watch as pelosi drives this out to the floor, that puts pressure on those who have to decide where they stand. >> i am in touch with a number of my house leadership sources on and off of that floor this morning, and what we are witnessing here is a democratic party that is really closing ranks around their leader and around this process, even some of the most endangered democrats are expected to vote for this, spare a few. the real question in their minds at this moment is whether they
will get any republican support for this. i can tell you from my sources that the members that they are watching who may be most likely to break, although they have no idea at this moment if it will actually happen, are those retiring republicans, republicans like justin amash of michigan, like will hurd of texas, those are the guys, francis rooney, for example, of florida, those are the guys they are watching and they do not expect any republicans who expect to come back and set foot on that floor in the new congress to vote for this. that's for a number of reasons, ari. they may actually get more support, they think, for an actual impeachment vote than this for a number of reasons. number one, a lot of those republicans haven't seen any of the evidence that's been laid out in these closed hearings and their main argument really has been process and in my meetings over the past couple of weeks, ari, with some of these moderate republicans, even they have been griping about the process
arguments. their votes are not needed for this to succeed and this inquiry to go forward and they know that very well. but why are the democrats so comfortable with having this as a party line vote, which it may very well be? because according to their own internal polling, which we obtained about a week ago, ari, even in some of the most competitive battleground districts and states, there is a lot of support, majority support, for holding this inquiry. there is not majority support at this moment for an actual impeachment vote, but there is majority support for going forward with this process and that is why you see the speaker and other democrats stressing the need to have this inquiry and to have it in a very transparent way and comparing this to previous inquiries and how those were run out of the house. >> fascinating. heidi reporting from washington, thank you. coming back to you. i want to tell viewers what we're looking at.
you've seen the split screen washington moment it is all happening live. we see on the house floor the different visual aids brought by different members of the congress. we've seen them go back and forth making the case for and against moving forward on the impeachment probe. on the other side of your screen you see speaker pelosi, that is also live, she spoke on the house floor and then went directly to her lectern to brief reporters. she's going to finish this briefing and there will later be a press briefing by members of the key committees on the democratic side as well and all of that bundled together with the dramatic house floor vote on this resolution to provide for the rules for the potential impeachment of president trump. so it is by all accounts a busy morning on capitol hill and i say that without even getting to the next piece of news from "the washington post" and bringing in bob costa we rely on, bob, your colleagues have another one that
would be the headline if not for this drama, i'm going to read from "the washington post" white house official expected to confirm diplomat's account that trump appeared to seek quid pro quo. not a headline the white house likes and it suggests again more corroboration, bob, of people going into these private depositions, that parallel track happening in addition to the floor vote right now. tell us about that story which you and your colleagues have been reporting out as well as the other depositions. >> when ambassador taylor stepped forward recently he made his point to congress that he believed there was a quid pro quo that was explicit in private deliberations inside the administration. it's been underscored not only by lieutenant colonel vindman, but mr. morrison coming from the national security council to tell congress what ambassador taylor said in his explosive testimony is accurate. so that's a data point for house democrats and house republicans to digest as they move forward with this process. what you're watching on the
house floor is also a test for house republican leader kevin mccarthy. not just a moment for speaker pelosi. mccarthy is being watched by the white house. will he keep republicans in line, moderate from the philadelphia suburbs and elsewhere, retiring republicans mounting by the numbers because they're so weary about their chances in 20, a test for the gop as they look on and wonder what are the political stakes and standings of the party. >> we're going to dip in. we've heard from the speaker and leader of the intelligence committee and see the leader of the judiciary committee which would ultimately handle any potential impeachment, listen to congressman nadler. >> struggle with russia, investigate his or her political adversaries. i support this resolution because no person, republican or democrat, should be permitted to jeopardize america's security and reputation for self-serving political purposes. i support this resolution because after a fair and thorough inquiry, the
allegations against president trump aif found to be true woul represent a profound offense against the constitution and the people of this country. i support this resolution because i believe it is the duty of this house to vindicate the constitution and to make it crystal clear to future presidents that such conduct, if proven, is an affront to the great public trust placed in him or her. i support this resolution not because i want the allegations to be true, they sadden me deeply, but because if they are true, the constitution demands that we take action. i support this resolution because it lays the ground withwowitgroundwork for open hearings. the american public and the house must see evidence for themselves. i support this resolution because we must overcome this difficult moment for the nation. this resolution is necessary to ensure that our constitutional
order remains intact for future generations. i support this resolution because we have no choice. i yield back. >> gentleman from oklahoma. >> we have been listening to house judiciary chairman nadler speaking in support of this effort to pass a resolution in providing rules for the potential impeachment of the sitting president. those rules we've been studying, what they do is basically make the intelligence committee the clearing house for all factual allegations against the president and make the judiciary committee the final arbiter of whether and how to impeach. the person we heard from chairman nadler will have a major seat at the table if this proceeds. speaker pelosi is speaking about different topicses in her press conference we're not going back to that unless she makes more
news. we're keeping an eye on everything for you. bob, ask you about the other bombshell we haven't had time to get to, reporting about the alleged cover-up and how this very significant piece of evidence and transcript was handled. what can you tell us? >> they are under scrutiny about how they handled the transcripts from president trump's calls with president zelensky and other foreign leaders about why the white house is sequestering them away inside of the west wing and what has been omitted from the memos and other documents that have been released to congress in the public. and you're going to -- expect mr. morrison and other officials who plan to testify in the coming weeks to be asked about not just what was on those transcripts and what could be on them but the conduct and the possible behavior of those within this west wing and how they put it all away. >> thank you as always for your reporting. i can tell you our experts are on set with us. we're looking at chairman eliot engel from foreign affairs, also
touches on this inquiry. i want to bring in historian jon meacham to this conversation. i'm told among other details that distinguishes this morning from most other mornings on capitol hill, the speaker intends to preside directly over this vote in her constitutional role of authority running the house but she, of course, doesn't usually physically literally do that. your view of those kind of details and what we're seeing in the eyes of history this morning? >> right. that's exactly what the democrats are trying to do, is frame this as a historical moment where we determine the future course. the word crisis which we overuse, actually was popularized by hip poc cra tease, a medical term about the moment in a disease where the patient either lived or died. what the speaker is doing is saying this is a moment where our democracy lives or dies. she quoted thomas payne earlier,
another thing payne said was tyranny like hell is not easily conquered and i think one of the things that people need -- of the popular folks who need to make up their mind about whether they want to support this or not out in the country is, do we want a president who builds walls at the border, but won't build a wall around our elections. it's a question of national sovereignty in many ways. and my own sense is, for all of our nuanced conversations, for looking at the constitutional niceties here, i suspect that this is going to come down to president president trump's defiance versus nancy pelosi's vision of democracy. i think what we saw mulvaney say the other day about get over it, is going to be the president's position. just guessing here, but it's based on now four years of watching him.
i think he's going to say, yeah, we did it. i did this. i was trying to find dirt on somebody and there was dirt to find. what are you going to do about it. so the question about truth that the speaker was talking about is going to be, which truth do we value more. a bombastic president who is largely lawless or a system that served us so well for almost two and a half centuries. that's going to be the existential question going forward. >> stay with me. want to turn to jeremy bash who has held the unique position that is so in demand for expertise right now at the intersection of law, what is allowed, and national security and foreign policy, what is the interest of the united states, a role you played at the pentagon and cia. broadening beyond the details of the resolution which we've been covering, i'm curious your view of the larger stakes because today is an inflection point the of the congress moving towards a
public position that something was deeply wrong and dangerous about the president's ukraine plot as alleged. >> i've sat on the house floor, ari, for many debates about house resolutions but none quite like this. in some ways, important ways, this vote today is a dry run for impeachment. it's a way to test the cohesion of the democratic caucus and put republicans on notice that they're going to have to ultimately defend the substance of the president's conduct. they're not going to be able to just take refuge in process claims they're not getting equal time or able to call witnesses. this resolution is going to lay bare that the process will be fair, equal, open and transparent, and at the end of the day the republicans are going to be faced with a very simple question, are you okay with a president of the united states asking a foreign leader to get involved in a u.s. election, yes or no. that's going to be the question presented. i think in the last couple days, ari, democrats are feeling more confident because they've seen
the way the republicans and the white house have vilified lieutenant colonel vindman, a wounded combat veteran, current serving army officer a ukraine expert who explained why he was so disturbed by the president's conduct and why he went to the white house counsel and it follows on other efforts by republicans to vilify people like ambassador bill taylor himself, member of the 101st airborne served in vietnam, devoted his life to service, serving republicans and democrats, and he was highly disturbed by the president's conduct. >> jeremy, you raise important points we want to get into and i mentioned you, of course, have the experience as counsel, i want to bring in another of counsel here at msnbc, professor mur fri nyu law, former clerk for judge sotomayor at the time and weigh in on what jeremy raises the question of fairness, this is a constitutional process, this is the only time the constitution is treating as
a potential defendant. the rules the house could pass, basically say, we are going to treat the president with a lot of fairness and options, including melissa, the right to send his lawyers down and lodge objections and ask questions in the ensuing process. break that down for us. >> the constitution doesn't provide for the rules of the impeachment inquiry. not a lot of precedence to follow here, just andrew johnston and bill clinton, and so the procedures that the house have outlined in the resolutions are pretty standard based on what we saw in the clinton impeachment. the president will have certain due process rights, but not full due process rights. this is sort of in keeping with the idea that this part of the inquiry is akin to a kind of grand jury investigation where there are limited rights for criminal defendants. there will be some rights but there will also be opportunities for the house democrats to check the president's ability to stonewall on such issues like
subpoenas. even as the white house can call its own witnesses or subpoena certain witnesses they cannot have free reign if they don't cooperate with the process itself. that's an important check on what has been a really obstructionist process on the part of the white house. >> jeremy? >> yeah. i think that's right. i mean if you look at the resolution that we're analyzing, what it says is that republicans will have the right to equal time. they will be able to question the witnesses for the same amount of time as the democrats in the majority and they will have the right to subpoena witnesses and gain concur rance of the chairman, the democrats for those subpoenas. they will have the right to subpoena documents and other evidence for the inquiry. and then at the end of phase one where they're gathering the evidence in public, then the congress will refer this to the judiciary committee again for impeachment consideration. it's a very carefully laid out, elaborate, fair transparent process that at the end of this, and i suspect this will sort of all come to a head probably by
the end of november, early december, will have several articles of impeachment for the full house to consider. >> senator mccaskill, your view on that given something we touched on earlier, you're one of the few people in the country who has actually sat in the senate and heard from members of congress, managers of an impeachment, it was not for president trump but for a federal judge, but that process? >> yeah. i think the important thing to remember here is that this is not the trial. this is a preliminary step. it is going to be public hearings. and like the private meetings, the republicans are going to be in the room and they're going to be able to ask questions, big difference, though, is the rule that is in this resolution allowing the chairman and the ranking member to give 45 minutes of time. >> yeah. >> to the staff counsel. >> let me have you walk through this. we will put on the screen getting right into the heart of what the resolution does, and your party, the democrats, have pointed out in the details th r
they're affording the president potential protections and rights. you see that go beyond even some of the past processes, including, for example, we mentioned this, that he can send his lawyers, rudy, send jay sekulow to ask questions during the house process. >> by the way, that's much different than a grand jury because we don't let defendants' lawyers in the grand jury room to listen in or ask questions. so there is an added layer of due process for the president in this. but what i'm really interested in, is the fact that they figured out doing five minute increments for people questioning fact witnesses is very difficult for the public to follow. if you get 45 minutes, a skilled courtroom lawyer will 45 minutes to question a witness, you're going to be able to lay out the narrative of facts that is so important to this consideration. by the way, the cross-examination for 45 minutes. the people will be able to see
is this cross-examination phony, are they really -- do they have a point here or are they just gining up political partisan b.s. like they mostly have been doing so far within the confines of these public hearings. so i do think it's going to be interesting. i think that the 45 minute increments will allow people to understand more of what's going on and by the way, this is devin nunes. this is not tom control, but devin nunes one of the most ardent pro-trump member of the house, going to get 45 minutes a shot to try to take out these witnesses. i wish him luck. i have a feeling the witnesses are going to be incredible. >> the senator raises this -- i want to bring it to our prosecutors here -- many, many lawyers have observed -- i think we're going to jump in and listen. republican leader mccarthy on the floor. >> are we gathered to debate the
critical national security issues regarding china, our iran? 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 works for the people, but 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 but abusing its power to discredit democracy. 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 predetermined the president's guilt, they have never accepted the voters choice to make him president, so for 37 days and counting, they have run an unprecedented, 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 rights 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 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 undue the last election it's 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
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 with the majority. you have failed in that promise. that speaker said impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's 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 by partisan animosity. instead of real demonstrations of inknnocent or guilt the sham impeachment by democrats have proven hamilton right. and betrays the speaker's own words. i know emotions are high. i know members would even run for positions of chair simply on 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 of 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? do you have the right to have a voice? or only the words that you agree with? you agree with? you may get elected in a primary, but in a general election,a you're 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 youso 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, that we believe and know we can do better, that we believe the speaker when she said about cooperation, we believed her when she cosaid, 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. >> minority leader mccarthy on the republican side giving his rebuttal to several democrats. you may notice he went longer than several of the chairs. mccarthy and pelosi have magic minutes so they can go longer. underon the rules he spoke abou what he views as the pollicization of impeachment, about democrats running to be
chairs simply for the impeachment of president trump. her finished with a halloween flourish. >> i kind of feel sorry for these guys in a way. what have you got? it was process first. well, nowce there's going to be very open process. it's going to be frankly giving the president more due process than d previous impeachment proceedings. then they saiden hearsay. that's gone. we have first-person accounts. they try to say it's a leftist conspiracy. yeah, right. lieutenant colonel, veteran, deck ratednt in the army who carries shrapnel in his body from iraq, that guy is doing the left wing bidding. they havele tried to keep findi something to avoid defending the president based on the facts. mccarthy today is doing the same thing.s he's trying tome find some way distract from the facts that are sost powerful. we know that the president tried
to use a foreign government for hisor own political purposes. that's impeachable. they can't really get their arms around that. they're going to continue to try toon distract and defend on any basis they can. if it wasn't so lame, i could really work up some sympathy for them. i tried to hold back. >> tell us what you really think, claire. i just wanted to point out one thing which is we're going to talk about theic political contt because we have to, right? that's the way it works. we'll talk about democrats and republicans and how many and this and that. we really ought to step back occasionally andy look at that shot of the house floor and realize this is our government. this is the constitution. this is the house of representatives that is voting on how to potentially take action against the president of
the united states. history will record what the house voted today, what the speaker of the house said, how the house leads this inquiry. and ultimately, if it does lead to impeachment, how the senate decides this president's fate. it's -- so there's the political, but also the real. there's also the constitutional. keep that in mind. >> let me say a little bit about the constitutional part. i thought what was really interesting is wewh have representative mccarthyin layin out all the talking points we're going to see over and over again. why are we doing this now? this is a way to get around thea election? why don't we let the political process play itself out. without recognizing, if the politicaliz process has been tainted by foreignca interventi, the people will not be heard. i think the one thing democrats have to press on this is this is not a process for the president, not a process for congress. this is a process for the
people, and thea people have bv stymied in other parts of the political erprocess, and this w created by the founders to allow them anotherto avenue to have their voices heard. >> eagle-eyed viewers will note, when you look at the screen here, weave just had the gaveling of the end of this firsten part of debate. we're moving towards, as reported, this t series of vote. the first vote willof be a bit a congressional throat clearing. it will not be the vote on the actual impeachment resolution. within minutesmp after that, we expect them to turn to this event, barrett, which is the vote on the actual rules for the potential impeachment. >> rules matter. it's actually -- this is not something that's just procedural and we should write it off. the rules for this procedure could not be more important, not only for the substance, but also to reassure the public that what they are seeing here is a fair process, that there is due process, that the president and
hisoc supporters will have a chance to be rsheard, to have witnesses that they think can support their case come forward. i think theom rules could not b more important because you have to have faithse in the integrit of this process if you ultimately wanted to have the resultsto you're hoping for. >> that brings us back to the point senator mccaskill was making. viewers who see things sometimes say why did the hearing go that way? why was it so short? why was it so full of sound bites? i've talked to voters who say, why do all politicians say at the end of the commercial, i'm whoever, and il, approve this message, likeve it's some sort habit. there's a rule that makes you do that, and there areyo rules tha give you five, minutes back an forth.mi as you know,ba under the procedures of congress, that's rule 11. what these rules do that congress is preparing to pass any moment today would suspend that rule 11, as you said, and put in place a different rule that allows for longer and deeper aquestioning, more like what we'd see in an
investigative context and, as you wereve saying, for professionals to do some of that. does that mean in your es view, do youur see that as some democrat politician saying, i'm going to give up this precious tv time and handci it to someone most americans have never heard of, today only. this hearing only to get to the facts. >> i don't think the members ari real excited about rule 11 going out theul window because they a believe -- every member of congress believes if they can just get a shot at the microphone, they will be the star.he it's having to do partly with the personality of people who run for office. pot-kettle here. >> you're letting us in here on that truth. >> absolutely, absolutely. >> and it takes a lot, perhaps more than people would like to believe in the best day of what we hope fores our government, i takes a lot. but you're saying it has hit that point. >> let me say one thing that will be very interesting here. we've talked about i the presidt being able toed subpoena
witnesses. there is one caveat to that. one, everybody has to agree that those witnesses -- in other words,e the majority has to approve those witnesses. watchtn for the republicans to y to get witnesses to come in that are unreasonable. what they're going to want to do is set up schiff for an accusation that, ffoh, he's not letting us hear our witnesses. so this will be a little tricky back and forth. because they're going to try to make this look like it's not fair. they mayit do that by trying to subpoena witnesses that have no business in the hahearing. ibu think that's a trick that ti could try to pull. the othertr thing that's importt here is that the chairman of the judiciary committee has the right toju deny access or questioning by the president if they are t not complying with legal subpoenas from congress. so this is another conflict that we can predict, that there will be a t back-and-forth about
whether or not the president gets as much due process as they these rules setss out based on s willingness tose provide information. because so far, the only people that have testified, have done so in defiance of the white house, not infi cooperation wit the white house. it will be interesting to see how those i two things play out the republicans are going to do everything they can to make it look unfair. >> this is straight out of the playbook. this is more tinkering and tweaking procedure without ever getting to the p substance of t underlying allegation. this is just more of the same, like what's wrong with the th procedure. there are so many procedural irregularities. did you pressure foreign government to give you dirt on joe biden? that's what people want to know about. >> that'sto exactly what people want to know about. >> so once we hear publicly from a string of witnesses who say just that, basically, that that happened, oh, yeah, it happened. i saw it. i heard it.
does the white house then begin to participate and actually defend itself a on the substanc? or was does it do? is it all bombast all the time until we get to potentially an impeachment vote. >> i want to delve deeper into that point and also tell our viewers here, as we're at the top of the 11:00 hour on the east coast in washington, you're watching msnbc's special live uninterrupted coverage of what all agree is a historic day on capitol hill.c this is the preparation for a house vote on resolution 660, providing for the rules for the potential impeachmentth of the current president donald trump. what you see on your veen is a countdown that will result in proceeding to thatsu vote. so the current count you see on your screen has not yet arrived under the house procedure on the phone. what i can tell you, in a matter of moments when you sigh this count run down,u within the ne nine minutes, we