i was a house painter. i used to go and paint other people's apartments and then come back home to mine and i would say why couldn't i live in a place like that. and now i do. in this san francisco office, there are about 1400 employees. and they're working in roughly 400,000 square feet. we were especially pleased that cleanpowersf offers the super green 100% clean energy, not only for commercial entities like ours, but also for residents of the city of san francisco. we were pleased with the package of services they offered and we're now encouraging our employees who have residence in san francisco to sign on as well. we didn't have any interruption of service or any problems with the switch over to cleanpowersf. this clean power opportunity reflects that. i would encourage any large business in san francisco to seriously consider converting and upgrading to the cleanpowersf service. it's good for the environment, it's good for business and it's good for the community.

one of the house house managers mention this. legislative oversight, it the authority to inquire of information for legislative purposes not to actually relate to something that legislation could be passed on. there are certain constraints on what information can be sought. slightly different if you are going under the impeachment power because then you can investigating to the specific tracks more ridley because it's relevant to an impeachment inquiry that might not need for legislative purposes. they purported to use the impeachment authority. they didn't have that authorization because the speaker's press conference if not validly give them that authorization. we pointed out the subpoenas were invalid. they did nothing to try to cure that is deficiency. in reach of the subpoena. they didn't have a vote to reissue them or anything and to say now that all oversight will be destroyed forever if you accept the president's argument is totally false. it's totally misleading because they weren't purporting to use regular oversight an

will do what this house did. chris: senator graham, thank you, thanks for joining us. always good to talk with you. >> thank you. chris: up next, speaker pelosi chose the impeachment managers who will prosecute the democrats case against president trump. congressman hakeem jeffries, the highest ranking house leader on the team joins us next. ♪. ust be why you're always so late. i do not speed. and that's saving me cash with drivewise. my son, he did say that you were the safe option. and that's the nicest thing you ever said to me. so get allstate. stop bossing. where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. this is my son's favorite color, you should try it. [mayhem] you always drive like an old lady? [tina] you're an old lady. thouwhich is breast cancer metastthat has spreadcer, to other parts of the body, are living in the moment and taking ibrance. ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+/her2- metastatic breast cancer, as the first hormonal based therap

addressed to the house managers. the house of representatives withdrew its subpoena to compel charles kupperman's testimony. why did the house withdraw the kupperman subpoena? why didn't the house pursue its legal remedies to enforce its subpoenas? >> senators, i thank you for the question. when we -- our practice in the house was to invite witnesses to come voluntarily, if they refuse, to give them a subpoena. in the case of dr. kupperman, he refused to come in voluntarily, and we subpoenaed him. almost instantly upon receipt of the subpoena, a lengthy complaint was filed in court where he sought to challenge that subpoena. interestingly and contrary to i think what you're hearing from the president's counsel here today, the house took the position that a witness cannot challenge, does not have standing to challenge a congressional subpoena. we were joined by the way in that position by the justice department, which also said that the -- that dr. kupperman didn't have jurisdiction to challenge or get a declaratory j

house resolution 755. impeaching donald john trump, president of the united states for high crimes and misdemeanors. resolve resolved that donald j. trump, presidents of the united states, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the united states senate. articles of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives of the united states of america in the name of itself and of the people of the united states of america against donald john trump, president to the united states of america, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. article 1. abuse of power. the constitution provides that the house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that the president shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. in his conduct of the office of the president of the united states, and in violation of his

house of representatives.] sip on this vote the yeas -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 228. the nays are 193. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question son agreeing to the speaker's approval. journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. nadler: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam. pursuant to the permission granted in clause -h of rules 2 of the u.s. house of representatives, th

the house. he's a target for members of president trump's legal team. >> adam schiff, who is the house management leader, has had a problem with the truth since he's been holding these hearings in the house of representatives all the way back to the mueller report. so we will -- it's not a rebuttal, but what we are going to do is attack. attack all of the misstatements. >> president trump's team will get the 24 hours to protect their defensive push up against the articles of impeachment. his attorneys are likely to bless the impeachment managers to bring forward a totally partisan case, and will likely call it a weak case. that's expected to start tomorrow it will likely be a shorter saturday session. meanwhile, minority leader chuck schumer tries to demand for more information. >> the american people, to each of their senators, democrat and republican, is asking now and will ask on into the future -- "why were you so afraid of witnesses and documents? what's wrong with getting the truth on some

heard from white house. assuming president z convinces trump he will investigate, quote, get to the bottom of what happened, unquote, in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to washington. good luck. see you tomorrow. kurt. well, those words couldn't be much clearer. assuming president z convinces trump, he will investigate, get hef wha in 2016. we'll nail down the visit to washington. that's a text 30 minutes before that call. counsel for the president would like you to think, this is just about that call. you don't get to look outside the four corners of that call. they don't want to you look at the months that went into preparing for that call or the months of pressure that followed it. but you can just look at the right now what happened 30 minutes before that call. in this text message. heard from white house. assuming president z convinces trump he will investigate, get to the bottom of what happened in 2016. if you are wondering how it seemed that president zelensky was aware of what he would be ask

housing partners l.p. for 100% affordable housing identified as sunnydale block three b. in the hope s.f. development agreement. for item 16, joint applicants of the city with fourth and full some associates l.p. for 100% affordable housing project at 2,664th street to authorize the city to assume joint and several liability. item 17 is a city with a joint applicant as potrero housing associates for 100% affordable housing. potrero block be in the hope s.f. development agreement. for item 18, the city as a joint applicant with potrero housing associates, again for 100% affordable housing, identified as potrero block be in the potrero hope s.f. develop met agreement. item 19, the city as joint applicants with the balboa park housing partners l.p. for 100% affordable housing at 2340 san jose avenue. for item 20, the city as a joint applicant with balboa park housing partners l.p. for 100% affordable housing at 2347 -- 2340 san jose avenue. for 21, this is a resolution which authorizes the mayor's office of housing and community development to submit a grant application to t

the president refused to comply with the house subpoenas before the house vote and after the house vote. the only logical explanation is the one that president trump gave us all along, he was determined to fight all the subpoenas because in president trump's view according to what he said, he can do whatever he wants. that's not what the constitutional republic entrusted to us by the founders had in mind. this argument doesn't just imply applied to impeachment, it would imply applied to ordinary oversight investigations and it doesn't just apply to the house, it would also apply to the sena. by sanctioning the president's blanket obstruction, the senate would be curtailing its own subpoena power in the future as well as the houses. and the oversight obligation that we have as we now know it would be permanently altered. i yield back. >> thank you, ms. manager. mr. chief justice. >> senator from kentucky. >> i have a question to present to the desk for the house manager schiff and the president's counsel. >> the presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted. >> mr. chief j

on the record in the house prosecution, which is what the house is in this process. it's a grand jury essentially. they make the indictment, the prosecutors deliver the case and the senate trial is supposed to be in front of the senate with what the house has found and determined. in this case the democrats are arguing that new evidence needs to be put forward and new witnesses need to come forward in the senate. we'll see if that happens. that's the debate that starts once the trial begins. opening arguments happen and then they make the vote whether to include witnesses or not. >> the children part, i mean, she really broke it down. she said in a couple of instances that my children -- she went on to explain how the constitution works. was it necessary, is it a calculation from what we know of the polling and how people have reacted, bret, that it would be helpful to break it down for the viewing public? did democrats not to get it across? did they need to take it that basic? >> she's trying to rise to the moment and try to say this is an open and shut case from th

so again, housing is the solution. housing is the answer. by making sure that these survivors, survivors of the worst epidemic in modern time can survive this crisis of housing and stay in our city, the city that they made great, is something not only the aids foundation and q. foundation is committed to, but i mayor breed as well as supervisor mandelman are all committed to. i couldn't be prouder to be part of today's announcement and can't wait for their collaboration with the q. foundation and more of our partners in the room in ensuring everyone has access to affordable housing. [applause] >> i can't even remember when i first met rafael nadal him in. it was before my hair was grey. [laughter] and he has always been such an incredibly grounded, honest, and natural communicator. of the many things i like about raphael is he has the ability to so easily put into words his values and how his policy positions connect with them and do it in a way that leads everybody else to that place. is like, this is why we believe in what we believe, and

and the house committees did, the democratic house committees. >> can we get your ponce to agencies -- response to agencies reporting earlier today -- >> yeah. have they verified the recording yet? [inaudible conversations] >> pardon? >> "the new york times" says they just handed it over to house democrats. >> okay. well, as long as it's verified, this is the kind of despicable conduct that the president engages in, the despicable kind of conduct. a lifelong public servant, a woman who dedicated her life to this country, and because she's standing for truth and won't let him break the law, he is vicious to her. no president should be like that. regardless of anything having to do with impeachment, no president should be like that and treat people that way. but he has done it time and time again. okay? thank you, everybody. >> i think what we have all seen is just four days of partisanship. this has been a very partisan process through this whole charade. if you look, i've been putting out tweets all day about what democratic senators have said in the past about bill clinton, and the

we want both the house managers and the white house defense counsel to have time to incorporate the testimony of witnesses into their presentations. that's the proper way to proceed. that's what happens at trials, to collect all the evidence at the beginning, not at the end. all we're asking is for the president's own men, his appointees, to come forward and tell their side of the story. the american people want a fair trial in the senate. the american people know that a trial without witnesses and documents is not a real trial, it's a sham trial, and the american people will be able to tell the difference between a fair hearing of the facts and the coverup. on iran. the senate will soon consider senator kaine's war power resolution, which would prevent further escalation of hostilities of iran without congressional approval. it's a crucial vote that will correctly assert this body's constitutional authority over matters of war and peace, and it is certainly timely. the past few weeks have highlighted the president's impulsive, erratic, and often reckless foreign policy, the consequences of w

there will be 6,514 units of housing when all is said and done, of which 29% will be affordable housing. for commercial there will be 5 million square feet. for office, lab, and clinical use, 560,000 square feet of neighborhood serving retail, and event center, for ucsf there is a campus where they are provided 43 acres. they will be building the .6 million square feet of developments. 550 bed hospital complex, 250 room hotel, a public library in public safety building with fire and police stations, and public schools. a little bit of context here in the map, north of mission creek is mission bay north project area. this is residential and commercial. to the south is mission bay south project area. the residential area is in the northern portion and the commercial is in the southern portion. in the center, the ucsf campus that i spoke about is located there. also in the previous slide we talked about 40,000 linear feet. that is about seven and a half miles of new roads and streets. you can see where they started to put the grid together. in addition to the streets, there's all the infra

indeed some evidence obtained by the house from giuliani's houses associate confirms that he had been representing himself in as early as may, 2019 come as president trump's personal lawyer giving his personal inning in his dealings with ukraine. this letter may 10, 2019, giuliani to zelensky says among other things, however, i have a more specific request area in my capacity as personal counsel to president trump and with his knowledge and consent, i request a meeting with you on this upcoming monday, may 13 or tuesday, may 14. i will need to know more than a half-hour of your time and i will be accompanied by my colleague, victoria, distinguished american attorney who is very familiar with the matter. please has her office le have fe know what time is convenient for you, and victoria and i will be there. >> this is evidenced recently obtained shoving efforts to get that meeting in may with zelensky. he told "the wall street journal" when he returned from his most recent trip on december 7, president trump called him as the plane was still taxing down the runway. what did you get? he

the house managers t house chose not to take steps to that. they didn't allow agency counsel to be present at depositions. they chose not to allow that at court. that's just a misrepresentation of the record and there was no attempt to have that ajust kated in court. and the reason is the house democrats were just in a hurry. they had a timetable. one of the house managers said on the floor here they had to impeach the president before the election. so they had to have it done by christmas. that's why the proper process wasn't followed here because it was a partisan and political impeachment that they wanted to get done in timing for the election. thank you. vermont. he asks the house managers, the president's counsel argues that there was no harm done that the aid was released to u and the president met with him in september and this president treated ukraine more favorably than his predecessors. what is yourresponse. >>> thank you so much for your question. contrary to what the white house counsel has said or has claimed that there was no ha

the clerk: house calendar number 68. house resolution 781. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the concurrent resolution, h. con. res. 83, directing the president pursuant to section 5-c of the war powers resolution to terminate the use of united states armed forces to engage in hostilities in or against iran. all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived. the amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. the concurrent resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the concurrent resolution, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution, as amended, to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on foreign affairs. section 2, s

build that housing. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: i wasn't here decades ago when we imposed restrictive laws to prevent more housing, but i will be here when we start build housing in san francisco and the bay area again. it is time. so here's what i want the next decade to look like. i want this to be the decade where we no longer walk by a person shooting up or a person who's shouting out of control or suffering on our streets and shrug our shoulders or turn away and wonder, what should we do? i am determined over the next four years to take in people with addiction and mental health problems so that when you encounter someone in need, you can make a call and know that person will get the help they need. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: as i said before, compassion can no longer mean anything goes. i want this to be the decade when residents and visitors to our city can enjoy every neighborhood every single day without fear of crime or unacceptable behavior. we have what we know is one of th

the house judiciary committee, all of them men, to serve as house managers. my reporting this time around is that the house speaker will name a group of people that is smaller than that and certainly more diverse. so after the house takes this vote tomorrow again, we expect it will be sometimes tomorrow, then i'm told that the articles of impeachment themselves will physically be tucked into a wooden box and physically carried over from the house floor through statutory hall, through the rotunda, past mitch mcconnell's office, over to the senate floor by the sergeant at arms. even as the house prepares to wrap up their last bit of work here in this impeachment process before they kick it over to the senate as you see there, house democratic leadership is holding a press conference and they are still pressing senate republicans to hold what they call a fair trial. here's congressman hakeem jeffries who chairs the democratic caucus. >> the senate should conduct a fair trial, a fair trial involves witnesses and documents. what is the president hiding from the am

previous house for 230 years had managed to resist. however unwise, that is their constitutional prerogative. they get to start it if they choose. but they do not get to declare that it can never be finished. they do not get to trap our entire country into an unending groundhog day of impeachment without resolution. alexander hamilton specifically warned against a procrastinated resolution of impeachment. in part, that is because our duly elected president deserves a verdict. just like every american who is accused by their government, deserves a speedy trial. but look, this goes deeper than fairness to one individual. this is about what is fair to the entire country. there is a reason why the primary did not contemplate a permanently unsettled presidency. that isn't true under any circumstances but consider especially the circumstances of recent days. even as the democrats have prolong to this game we have seen iran escalate tensions with our nation. we live in a day -- dangerous world. yes, the house majority can create this temporar

the managers have been telling you all day, house managers all day, the white house is trying to hide from the american people what witnesses have to say. they've been saying we want to bury evidence, we want to hide evidence. that hypocrisy is astounding. they've been saying let's not forget why we are here. well, we are here tonight because through due process, fundamental fairness in our constitution was thrown out the window in the house proceedings. that's why we are here because they started in a secret bunker hearing where the president and his counsel were not even allowed to participate when they are trying to impeach them. in the judiciary committee it was a one-sided circus. ranking member nunes asked to call witnesses and explained why in detail. he was denied by manager shift, ranking member coffins asked to call witnesses, denied by ranking member, excuse me, manager nadler. and that's what they call fairness? that's not how the american justice system works, and it's certainly not how the impeachment process is designed by our constitution. the house took no action on t

he's just the white house chief of staff. this was a long argument from the democrats' shorter argument from the defense counsel for the president. no reason to expect that this vote will go differently than the others, but we will be watching this closely. we are also getting word that a fifth amendment is due to come after this. we are expecting, although we won't know until we see it for sure, we are expecting that the fifth amendment to come after this roll call vote will be an amendment to propose a subpoena to the defense department, to subpoena the pentagon for documents as well under girding the impeachment scandal. i'm here on set with maia wiley, civil rights attorney, my friend chris hayes from all in. claire mccaskill, prosecutor and staff member of the special counsel's investigation. claire, let me just ask you as we watched that argument between hakeem jeffries for the house impeachment managers and the president's defense counsel, what did you make of that argument? >> you know, i've been struck all day, rache

house of representatives is live from washington d.c. thank you so much for being with us and thank you for your patients. first of all what do you make of the democrats' opening arguments adam schiff and his team seemed to carefully built their case with prepared remarks choreographed video will this make a difference. well i had the privilege of working with congressman schiff on 2 judicial impeachments some years ago and i thought his presentation today was absolutely masterful and i think it will be studied in the future by later generations as to how best to present an argument in this context i thought it was compelling i think the republicans or whistling in the dark and they can feel confident for one reason only it will take 20 republicans to cross over to go with the democrats in order to convict president trump and remove him from office by way of impeach oven pietschmann that's not going to happen or the likelihood of it happening is so remote that they can feel very confident they can say whatever they will however the real

house managers tell you they know better. this is really the theme of the house case. i want you to remember this. every time the democrats say president trump made demands or issued a quid pro quo to president zelensky on the july 25 call, they are saying president zelensky and his top advisers are being untruthful. they acknowledge what that's what they are saying. they said over the past few days. tell me how that helps. u.s. foreign policy and national security to say that about our friends. we note there was no quid pro quo on the call. we know that from the transcripts. the call is not the only evidence shown that there was no quid pro quo. there couldn't possibly have been a quid pro quo because ukrainians did not even know the security assistance was on hold until it was reported in the media. more than a month after the july 25 call. think about this. the democrats accused the president of leveraging security assistance to supposedly force president zelensky to announce investigations but how can that possibly be when ukrainians were not even aware the securit

they would talk about how the house managers were terrible about the house procedures were terrible, about how we denied due process, etc., but they wouldn't address the realities of the case. and they couldn't address the realities of the case. and, by the way, when they say that the house should have brought the witnesses by then, by now, where are the witnesses? remember, the president gave a blanket order to everyone not to testify. all members of the executive agencies. the people who testified in front of the intelligence committee were defying direct orders from the president. there are witnesses we wanted in the judiciary committee, there are witnesses adam wanted and others in the intel committee. we've gone to court for them. we've been in court for eight, nine months, since april for mr. mcgahn, for example, and we haven't gotten them. why haven't they testified? because the president has told them not to testify. they will eventually when the courts force them to. then you hear the president's counsel get up and say, well, they should have brought the evidence, they shoul

so the house had to change tactics and strategies. seven house members made presentations. they had 24 hours to make the lawyers then the senate would have 24 hours. it is down to the managers of the case representing. host: one of the managers in 1999 was lindsey graham. now senator graham. he has been outspoken on the process. altogether there are 27 members of the u.s. senate in office. is that number surprising? mr. ritchie: it is surprising that it was just 21 years ago and so many senators are new to the senate. this shows how quickly the senate seats are turning over these days. i would suspect a much larger percentage of senators in 1999 had been there in 1974. people tended to stay longer. this is a very new process for the majority of senators. for others, it is, here we go again. they've been through the process. senators have to spend a lot of time in their seats being quiet. not what they like to do. the president chooses his defense. he could defend himself but presidents lawyers have advised not to come because you do not want to inflame the situation. so the

the white house. and again, house rules actually require a minority day of hearings and that was broken. not allowed. we didn't get that minority day of hearings. we've requested it multiple times. to try to get some fairness, to elicit facts from all sides. but we weren't given that opportunity. the senate now has a case that was sent over to them by a lot of estimate -- them, by a lot of estimates it's an inadequate case, it's a weak case. the majority must acknowledge, that which is why they're holding the papers and hoping for more things. which is what this was all about anyway. seemed like every week we would hear more rumors that, oh, next week the big witness is going to come out and everything's going to be exposed and then that witness would testify under oath that, no, they didn't see a crime. no. but don't worry, next week there's going to be another one. and this will go on forever and ever and ever. it's like a groundhog's day of impeachment. and at some point i would hope the majority w

the house took no action on the subpoenas issued to mr. duffy and mr. blair because they didn't want to go to court to tell them that they were trampling on their constitutional rights. so now they want this chamber to do it for them. >> shannon: you're listening in there, that was former florida attorney general pam bondi, legal expert. been an attorney for a long time, now joining trump's legal team. making an argument there is a lot of debate tonight about witnesses, a push for more in the center, she is trying to make the case that house democrats did not afford the same thing to president trump on the health side, let's listen into the top manager here, the leader of this impeachment trial. adam schiff. >> those secret depositions you have been hearing so much about, as i mentioned earlier those secret depositions allowed 100 members of the house to participate, there are 100 members of senate. we could have had that secret deposition right here in the senate floor. but during those depositions, members of both parties were given equal time to ask

the obstruction charges secondary to the house managers case. this case -- i don't think you will see a motion to dismiss. the way things they will play out, we will see the opening argument continue on monday, maybe tuesday then we will have 16 hours of questions from senators. we cannot assess questions ourselves, i would love to go round and round with adam schiff, but the senate rules do not allow. instead we have to write your questions in the chief justice will ask questions for us. what i expect to see after that, we will vote on additional witnesses it be necessary and whether in order. that may be a close vote, we know 47 democrats will vote yes. there might be for republicans who vote with them. i do not know. >> those support romney and susan collins and lisa murkowski, and lamar? >> that's the rumor. i don't think there's need for additional witnesses, we have more than enough to reject these articles on the merits but they have not proven their case. >> and there in the motion to dismiss. >> i don't think it'll be a motion to dismis

so again, housing is the solution. housing is the answer. by making sure that these survivors, survivors of the worst epidemic in modern time can survive this crisis of housing and stay in our city, the city that they made great, is something not only the aids foundation and q. foundation is committed to, but i mayor breed as well as supervisor mandelman are all committed to. i couldn't be prouder to be part of today's announcement and can't wait for their collaboration with the q. foundation and more of our partners in the room in ensuring everyone has access to affordable housing. [applause] >> i can't even remember when i first met rafael nadal him in. it was before my hair was grey. [laughter] and he has always been such an incredibly grounded, honest, and natural communicator. of the many things i like about raphael is he has the ability to so easily put into words his values and how his policy positions connect with them and do it in a way that leads everybody else to that place. is like, this is why we believe in what we believe, and

the house case is incomplete. and i wanted to stand up, which you know we can't do, and say let's make it complete. let's bring in john bolton. >> i want to ask you about the lack, frankly. you've got some of your colleagues. angus king, and before these two new developments. but the disclosures couldn't be more calamitous for this president. the most senior national security official from inside the west wing is having his book blocked, book p.r. this is the book donald trump doesn't want you to see, wink, wink. and you've got a disclosure from the democratic chair of the house foreign affairs committee who had contact with john bolton who's a conservative's conservative about investigating the removal of yovanovitch, the v vice president was in the region, involves the president he worked for. this feels like a mushrooming scandal. >> it does and my plea to my colleagues -- and i'm not going to reveal private conversations what they said. but no matter how you're going to vote on impeachment, and you can deal wi

they made that decision in the house so what's going on no now, house managers have not proven their case and they know that. they are trying to drag us on. to play and delay and go fishing to find something from the strategy of the interest in the american people that the american people are ready to move on and i hope on saturday we vote on final judgment and find the president not guilty. >> i am ready to make my decision based on the record established in the house. the house chose not to pursue witnesses available to them. i don't want to start a precedent to do half ass in the house and expect the senate to fix it brick i have no idea what the new york times is talking about. senator lankford has suggested to make the manuscript available and let's senators go for themselves that sounds like a reasonable solution to me but however people want witnesses we will get a lot of them. the idea of calling one and one makes zero sense but what i would say that the biden connection was an appropriate there is a synonymy of that. it is baseless and the defense team with the hunter and jo

and developing affordable housing. doug has 25 years of experience generating affordable homes and leading initiatives to expand housing access. please help me welcome mr. doug shoemaker. [applause] >> i don't think i wrote that bio. it sounds better than the bio usually use. i will go with that. i also want to add our thanks. it really is an honor to have been asked by sam and mission neighborhood centers to partner with them. having started my career in the mission, i know the legacy that sam and maria and the rest of the organization have in this neighborhood. it really is an honor to be able to participate with you. we see ourselves as working in the service for the mission district. i really appreciate that, as to all of us. you are right, barbara has held onto this project. she has projects that she loves, some more than others, and this has been a labor of love for her for many years. you deserve a perseverance award as well because this project has not been the easiest one to move forward. there are lots of peo

democrats point to house rules, a house rule cannot override a constitutional privilege. those are the three principles the trump administration asserted. and it created an impeachable offense. the idea that asserting defensive communities in response to subpoenas, acting on advice of the department of justice is an impeachable offense is absurd and dangerous for our government. let me explain why. house democrats obstruction theories is wrong, first and foremost because in government of laws asserting privileges and rights to resist compulsion is not obstruction. .. the supreme court explains to punish a person because he has done what the law claims he allows him to do is a process in violation of the basic soar in for an agent of the state to pursue record of action is to penalize a person to rely on the legal right is unconstitutional. this is the principle that in the past and the clinton impeachment was recognized across the board it would be that it would be improper to suggest asserting rights is an impeachable offense. harvard law professor laurence tribe said th

when those two standards are in conflict, they may be judging the house to a standard that the house doesn't think it has to be held to. that's a real problem as we go forward. >> mika makes the point here, hans, the people who are in place and arguing for the democrats prosecuting the case and the president's allies defending them, they have to make the arguments one way or the other, right? and it's worth noting that when we talk about these big names, jay sekulow is somebody who argued and people know this, but in front of the supreme court about a dozen times and in many of the instances he came out on top. he understands the glare of the spotlight in a way that maybe we haven't seen necessarily from pat cipollone in is a public setting. alan dershowitz understands that as well and part of this is the personality piece of it based on my reporting, your reporting, the president wants to see people who he knows can mount a defense of his that is going to be televised across every single network for hours at a time for weeks -- at least days to come here after tuesday. >> really two

they are promised a white house meeting. they want a white house meeting. they need a white house meeting. they are going into negotiations with putin. they want to show strength. they can't get in the door. they see the russian foreign minister get in the door of the white house. we see the photos of the president and the russian foreign minister, the ambassador, what a great time they're having but no, the president of ukraine, our ally, can't get in the door. they are not stupid. they know what's going on. they're not stupid. that conversation i referenced yesterday when the ukrainians threw it right back in our face, when ambassador volker said to his ukrainian counterpart, you shouldn't investigate the former president, shouldn't engage in those political investigations, the ukrainian response was you mean like the one you want us to do of the bidens and the clintons? they are not stupid. by the end of august, there was still no explanation for the hold despite efforts by numerous people to seek the release of the funding. the leverage hadn't succeeded

house managers speak any moment. a number of senators, amy klobuchar obviously running for president as well, she is coming. a lot of the senators are arriving. you're watching our special coverage of the impeachment trial of president trump. we'll be back in a moment atmosphere e... when you can. but sometimes life gets in the way, and that stubborn fat just won't go away. coolsculpting takes you further. a non-surgical treatment that targets, freezes, and eliminates treated fat cells for good. discuss coolsculpting with your doctor. some common side-effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. don't imagine results, see them. coolsculpting, take yourself further. save $100 on your coolsculpting treatment. text resolution to 651-90 to learn more. save $100 on your coolsculpting treatment. have you ever wondered what the motorcade driver drives, when they're not in the motorcade? ♪ [ car engine revving ] this one drives a volkswagen passat. you wanna see something thatamazing?ing. go to hilton inst

and here's what i will tell you two houses. if you blow through these privileges because you want to impeach a president before the election and you come to the senate and you asked me to destroy the privilege, forget it. i'm not going to reward this kind of behavior so the only option available to the senate now is to recognize the privilege, and that's to end the testimony. or stop the trial and send it to court, which they should've done to begin with. i'm not going to legitimize what i think is a dangerous process here .. when your company gets investigated by the ukrainian prosecutor the same day you get on the phone to the state department and your business partner meets with john kerry. this dismissal hunter bidart did, i do not know that he did everything on the up and up. >> to answer your question, i did not say you had to commit a crime to be impeached. no crime alleged. it is up to the senate as an partial jurors to take a look at the information and make a decision whether or not to remove the president of the unit

the white house said go back to the constitution, get a full vote of the house. speaker pelosi didn't think she had the votes at the time and they proceeded. some of what you're seeing are the chickens come home to roost for the tactics and strategies decided upon by the house of representatives. >> jon karl, i want to bring you in because terry pointed out the trump team focused in hard on gordan sondland, saying that he's the only one who alleged a quid pro quo. no one, no single witness brought forward by the democrats said that president trump told them to withhold the aid or the meeting in return for these investigations. of course that's because the democrats would argue that the white house was withholding those key players. >> a couple points. that's one of them. this quote specifically jumped out to me. the democrats' entire quid pro quo theory is based on nothing more than the initial speculation of one person, ambassador sondland. that speculation is wrong. two points. one is if that's the case, it's largely because the president has blocked the testim

the house goes first. >> mr. chief justice, senator, it would be hard for me to contemplate circumstances where that would be appropriate. it would be appropriate for the president of the united states to seek a political investigation of an opponent. one of the i think most important post watergate reforms is to divorce decisions about specific cases, specific prosecutions from the white house to the justice department to build a wall. one of the many norms that has broken down in this presidency is that wall has been obliterated where the president has a firm tyly sought to invest gave his rivals. i cannot conceive of circumstances where that is appropriate. it may be appropriate for the justice department acting independently and in good faith to initiate an investigation. a process for doing that. we heard testimony about that. you can make requests under the mutual legal assistance treaty when a foreign country has evidence involving a criminal case involving a u.s. person. there's a legitimate way to do tha

there is an unusual amount, i think, for the house of sort of vitriol towards the white house. there's not exactly what you would call a match in terms of the white house's sort of language and its embellishments. but you have a place where the house actually says that the president is trying to essentially legitimize his presidency. and that suggests it was ilegitimate in the first place. >> you heard in the intro calling danger to democracy. is this a serious constitutional argument or will we see this cafeteria food fight bickering. >> we'll see some cafeteria food fight bickering but not that much bickering between the parties. it is a serious constitutional argument. a constitutional argument about what constitutes an impeachable offense. you have the house managers who are democrats basically saying that high crimes and misdemeanors doesn't mean it has to be something illegal in the law right now, but that if the president is doing something that basically throws america under the bus, then that should be an impeachable offense. you have trump said or president trump side

to the white house, neil. neil: thank you, my friend, president trump's legal team expected to file legal file, mark meredith with the president in west palm beach, florida and has the latest. >> as you mentioned president trump is in florida, brief visit, he will be heading out of the country on monday and going to economic summit in switzerland but day before the senate takes impeachment trial, lucas was talking about, the white house overnight released list of lawyers, we want to show them to you, list of 8 people that the president will have in his team, white house counsel pat, jay sekalow, ken starr, allen dershowitz. the white house put a statement late friday and they said, quote, articles of impeachment house democrats have adevelopped grave and lasting damage to our institutions and our nation, the president looks forward to the end of partisan and unconstitutional impeachment, it's really unclear how long a senate trial is going to last or what the rules for that trial e, lawmakers expect fierce deb

eastern time, that procession of the house managers from the house to the senate. why does that happen? guest: taking the last point first, i don't know that a procession is entirely necessary but it does emphasize the solemnity of theo cakes and also there's a tradition here that goes back literally centuries because this whole idea of having house managers, that is to say representatives in the lower house presenting the case for the impeachment in impeachment in the upper house goes back to british parliament and that's exactly what happened in those days, the house managers would proceed from the lower chamber to upper chamber with the articles of impeachment in hand and knock on the door and be admitted formally to have the -- that the impeachment articles are received and read and so forth and so on. so some of it is just tradition and ceremony, which emphasizes the solemnity of the occasion and i think given our current political environment is not a bad thing. as to whether or why the house votes on the identity of the managers, i suppose they might not hav

listen. >> have to enact the house and i think we will win the house. i think it really helps us in terms of the house. >> we start at 1:00 and it will be the house managers' day. eight hours uninterrupted on the senate floor to begin making their case. first we will hear it at 11:00, schumer has called a press conference. we'll find out what that's all about. lastly, rumors that there may be caffeine shortages in the coffee kiosks around here because they can't have it on the floor. not sure yet but we've got a long way to go. >> sandra: on capitol hill, thanks. brad blakeman is here, former deputy assistant to george w. bush. josh cross hour , from the national journal, and leslie marshall, dominic. good morning, welcome. first, you know what i was going to do. so it to this moment. chief justice john roberts, you just heard griff jenkins recognize it. he took a moment to admonish both sides for what he was hearing throughout the evening. >> i think it's appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the house managers and the president's council i

house has been boarded up. three arrest. live in westwood, ktvu. >>> police are investigating to homicides that they believe are unrelated. one man was found who had died, and investigation continues. another man was shot and killed early thursday morning in hayward. it happened at a house party at a rental, and police are searching for a motive. the police found the man dead at the scene. the neighbor said there was a car around the time of the shooting. when the shooting started, several people jumped out of the window at the home. >> i am very upset, we are going to talk to the city so it will not happen again. that is not safety at all. >> i am concerned with the crowds that may be coming in here. there was a shooting in clarinda, and one here. that concerns me. >> the shooting comes less than three months after the shooting at lorenzo with in an air b&b house. five people were shot and killed. air b&b has said there were to be no parties and quiet after 11:00 at night. >>> the police department is pushing

in a lot of ways the house intelligence committee, the house judiciary committee put out before the house voted on the articles of impeachment, but interestingly, it also demonstrated that house democrats may want to draw on new evidence, documents provided by lev parnas, an associate of the president's personal lawyer, rudy giuliani. that's new evidence that republicans could resist bringing to the senate floor, but it's clear that's something house democrats are interested in, and of course, fred, this meeting is taking place against the backdrop of this bitter feud in the senate over whether to call witnesses in the senate trial. that's something you're going to hear lawmakers debate for the first time, really, on tuesday afternoon when the senate trial gets underway. >> and, margaret, another ongoing debate is the whole issue of allowing witnesses. democrats will be continuing to make the case, as many of them did, on the talk shows today, this sunday. and then there are some republicans who certainly seem to be intimating that they are open to the idea of witnesses. >> fred, that's r

knowing not which way it goes on september 24th press the speaker declared at a press conference the house was conducting an impeachment inquiry however to the contrary to the speaker's decree that she knew that we were all of a sudden impeachment inquiry the house did not authorize the impeachment inquiry until october 31st by adopting h.r. 660 it is just said just a moment ago that the speaker has been leading the fight for a fair trial in the senate i wish the speaker had been leading for a fair hearing in the house instead of trashing our rules for those 71 out of 78 days from the time it was announced at a press conference to the time we finished the president was not permitted to participate in these meetings think about it 71 days out of 78 in which we actually did something on impeachment is not presented to the ability to cross-examine fact witnesses present counter-arguments no due process at all in those 71 days when presented with the opportunity when it came to the judiciary committee instead of the judiciary committee stepping up and actually acting like the usually committee

word of the committee's investigation spread quickly through the white house to the nsc. morrison recalled seeing and discussing the letter withnsc staff. lieutenant colonelin members about the investigation. the same day there were efforts me for the president's hold on security assistance away from the white house. duffey sent an email to elaine mccusker that contradicted months of email exchanges, stating falsely that omb authorized dod to proceed with all process necessary to obligate funds. duffey was attempting to shift all the responsibility for the delay onto the pentagon. mccusker replied, and i quote, you can't be serious. i am speechless. now all of this, including omb's efforts to shift blame to the pentagon, the white house's effort to create a cover story for the hold on security cover-up. it started with the white house's lawyers' failure to stop the scheme after the july 10th meeting was reported to them, continued with attempts to hide the july 25th call summary, and escalated with the white house's illegal concealment of the whistle-blower complaint from