The Daily - A Vote on Impeachment

Episode Date: November 1, 2019

The House of Representatives voted to begin the next phase of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump — one which will be open to public scrutiny. Two Democrats in the House broke ranks and voted against the resolution, which outlined rules for the impeachment process. That was the only complication to an otherwise clean partisan split, with all House Republicans voting against the measure. The tally foreshadowed the battle to come as Democrats take their case against the president fully into public view. Today, we discuss what the next phase of the inquiry will look like. Guest: Julie Hirschfeld Davis, the congressional editor for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: House Democrats decided they now have enough confidence in the severity of the underlying facts about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine to open the inquiry to the public, despite the risk that doing so would further polarize the electorate. This is a timeline of the events that prompted the impeachment inquiry.Here’s how Democrats and Republicans voted on the impeachment rules resolution.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today. The question is on the adoption of the resolution. The House of Representatives took its first vote to begin an impeachment inquiry into President Trump, launching a new phase of the process directed at the public. Those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Julie Davis on what that phase will actually look like.

Those opposed, say no. No. It's Friday, November 1st. Washington, D.C. is once again at the intersection of history on this Halloween morning, October 31st, 2019. The U.S. House getting set to do something it hasn't done in nearly 21 years, and that is begin the official impeachment process in the U.S. Julie, for weeks now, we have been talking about an impeachment inquiry, and we have been covering that impeachment inquiry. So what was being voted on Thursday, and why was it being

voted on? So what was being voted on Thursday was a resolution to essentially just lay out the rules for the impeachment inquiry that's underway and allow the Democrats to take this into the next phase, which is going to be a public phase of their investigation. Right, because what they have been doing has not been public. Right. And when the Democrats launched their investigation about a month ago, they did not take a vote. And they were pretty clear that they didn't feel like they had to take a vote. The Constitution doesn't require one. House rules don't require one. And privately, they felt like politically,

it might not be the easiest vote for some of their members to take. So they had been going along, taking private depositions, collecting their facts. So this was the first time that the full House was actually going to go on the record on the inquiry itself. And why, though? Because if the rules don't require it and they were adamant that they didn't need to do it, why would they subject members to such a vote? Well, there were practical reasons and political reasons for doing this now. The practical reason is just there are some nuts and bolts things that they have to do in order to be able to take this inquiry into a public phase. Politically speaking, though, the public has really,

in many ways, if you look at the polls, come around to this idea of having an impeachment inquiry. There's now a majority in support of the inquiry itself. And many of the more moderate Democrats who had been worried about a backlash from their constituents if they signed on to something like this have already come out in favor of the inquiry. So voting for it is not really advancing them beyond where they already are at this point. In other words, these Democrats are already on the diving board. They might as well just leap into the pool. That's right.

There's another reason, though. In a closed-door meeting, hearing, Marie Yovanovitch told investigators President Trump wanted her out, and his attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and unnamed contacts wanted her out of the way of their money-making opportunities. There's been revelation after revelation, bombshell testimony, that have produced some really damaging information about the president. Bill Taylor sending shockwaves through Capitol Hill,

telling Congress multiple administration officials informed him that President Trump personally blocked military aid unless Ukraine agreed to announce investigations into the Bidens. And really confirmed some of the underlying aspects of the whistleblower complaint that started all this about his pressure campaign on Ukraine. And that is what the public has sort of embraced as the reason for the inquiry. But Republicans have, from the beginning, been just railing against Democrats for running this secret process where the public can't see or hear for themselves what's transpiring. Republicans keep saying it's illegitimate. This is really a fake inquiry. You haven't voted on this. So at this point, Democrats were ready to call their bluff and say, OK, well, if you want an official vote, here's your official vote.

The House will be in order. OK, so that brings us to Thursday morning. Give us the scene inside the House. So on Thursday morning in the House chamber, we see Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, ascend to the dais at the front of the chamber where I don't remember having seen her since she became Speaker in January. For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts seek recognition? And then she yields to Jim McGovern, who's the chairman of the Rules Committee. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up Post-Resolution 660 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Which is the committee that has drawn up this resolution, laying out the impeachment rules. The clerk will report the resolution. House calendar number 52, House Resolution 660. And the House parliamentarian starts to read it. And so everyone in the chamber at this point can hear what it is they're going to be voting on. Upon recognition by the chair for such purpose under this paragraph during any hearing designated pursuant to paragraph one. Right, and I was watching this,

and this is pretty dense stuff. Notwithstanding clause 2J2 of rule 11. It is pretty technical. It is full of resolves and different sections and technical legislative language that refers to different rules of the House. But the gist of it is that essentially they're validating this inquiry that they acknowledge is ongoing. To whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power

to impeach Donald John Trump, president of the United States of America. They're saying, we recognize that this is going on. Here are the rules for the coming impeachment proceedings. One, the chair of the permanent... And there's going to be a report that gets issued by the House Intelligence Committee. There are going to be public hearings that go on. And so essentially what they're doing is they're deputizing themselves as the House of Representatives, the House Intelligence Committee in particular, to be the fact finders in this investigation.

In past impeachments of sitting presidents, what we've seen is they get a report from somewhere. They get some investigative material, and that becomes the grounds for whether they're going to consider articles of impeachment. But in this case, the House itself is the fact finder. The House Intelligence Committee is charged with coming up with the information and giving it to the Judiciary Committee and carrying on this process where they're going to decide whether this is worth impeaching the president or not. And if there are going to be articles of impeachment, what they should say. Right. In the past, there has been an independent investigator that actually was appointed by the executive branch, something around the president, like a Ken Starr in the case of the Clinton impeachment or like a Robert Mueller in the Russia investigation. That's where the report

would come out, not Congress. Right. And this is a very different case where you have an allegation that actually was initially sent. The whistleblower complaint that started all of this was referred to the Justice Department at one point, and they declined to investigate it. And so clearly, Democrats have made the decision, they made it a month ago, that they were going to be the ones to investigate it, and have now essentially made themselves in charge of putting together a report like that on their own. Right. These rules reflect what House Democrats believe is a reality that if the Trump administration won't investigate the whistleblower's complaint, won't investigate this call with the president of Ukraine, then we will. Right. And also an acknowledgement that it's not enough for them to just investigate it to

their own satisfaction. They actually have to produce a document that they can show the public that explains, if they do decide to go forward with impeachment, why they're doing it. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma. Okay, so once these kind of nitty-gritty guidelines are laid out, what happens next? So what happens next is a very sort of passionate 45-minute debate. This is a dark day and a cloud has fallen on this house. Between Republicans and Democrats over this resolution. That's not about, you know, the chapter and verse of the parliamentary details, but it's really about the impeachment inquiry itself. This is the United States of America. Don't run a sham process, a tainted process, like this resolution ensures. It ought to be rejected, and I think you'll see bipartisan

rejection of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time. So the Republicans say that this process has been broken from the very beginning. It's tainted. Trying to put a ribbon on a sham process doesn't make it any less of a sham. This impeachment process is a total sham. You've been conducting these hearings in secret. The resolution continues the closed-door meetings that blocks entry to members of Congress

and prohibits the president's due process rights. You've not been fair to us, and you've not been fair to the president. No matter what my colleagues say about this legislation, no matter what my colleagues say about the process they've been engaged in to date, it is absolutely the case that it has been a secret process that has denied rights to the minority, that has involved leaking selectively things that the majority would like to have leaked, in which rights have absolutely been denied, and they cannot fix that.

They cannot fix what has been a tainted record and a tainted process by now suddenly pretending they're opening it up. And there's no way now to go take a vote on the House floor and just wave a magic wand and make it fair, because it's not been fair from the beginning. It's not been legitimate. And now at the last second, you're trying to sort of cloak it in this cloak of legitimacy, and it's just not going to work because this is a sham process and it can't be remedied.

Speaker Pelosi claims she wants to establish rules and transparency. You cannot make your game fair by allowing the opposing team onto the field at the two-minute warning. They're also basically saying that... It's clear that since the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives, they have always intended to transform the Intelligence Committee into the Impeachment Committee. Let's be honest here, Democrats. You have wanted to get rid of President Trump since he was sworn in, since he was elected. First, they insisted that the president is a Russian agent.

Then they claimed he's a money launderer and a tax cheat and a fraudulent businessman. And now they've decided they don't like the way he talks to foreign leaders. This is just one more effort to essentially undo the results of the 2016 election. You didn't like them and you are trying to reverse the will of the people. And Kevin McCarthy, the Republican leader, even says, Why do you not trust the people? Why do you not allow the people to have a voice? You have no right to come in here and start this process that essentially nullifies an election. come in here and start this process that essentially nullifies an election.

The curtain is coming down on this House because the majority has no idea about process and procedure. They're simply after a president. I yield back. And finally, Republicans said that, you know, these rules, they don't give the president a fair shake. They don't give Republicans the same rights even that they've had in previous impeachments. And therefore, we would never vote for them anyway, even if we thought that this was a legitimate thing to do. And Julie, is that true? I noticed several of these House Republicans saying, The process laid out in the resolution before us

is different from the process used for both President Nixon in 1974 and President Clinton in 1998. — That the rules set forth on Thursday were not as robust for the minority party as rules put in place in the Nixon and the Clinton impeachment processes. Is that right? — It is accurate for now insofar as the House is in an investigative phase of this inquiry. Now, insofar as the House is in an investigative phase of this inquiry and in the House Intelligence Committee, there is no right for the president to defend himself. There's no right for his counsel to ask questions.

But as soon as this moves into the realm of the Judiciary Committee and they're actually considering articles of impeachment, that is when a lot of these rights and responsibilities that are outlined in the rules kick in. And so Democrats say, and if you just look at the procedures from today and from back then, they are very similar. The Republicans do have the right to ask for subpoenas of witnesses and testimony to ask questions. And yes, it is the case that the Democrats, as the majority party, have more say over that process than the Republicans will. But the rights are really there as soon as they get into the phase of this process that is impeachment articles against the president. Madam Speaker, I get it. My friends on the other side of the aisle want to talk about process, process, process. But it's interesting that not one of them wants to talk about the president's conduct. And that

speaks volumes. And what's the case, Julie, that the Democrats are making? They have, of course, written these rules, and they're very much in charge of this process. Right, so the Democrats are trying to make a very kind of somber case about this being not a political process, but really their duty as people who have taken an oath to the Constitution. 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. This is the way they're going to defend the Constitution and that they have to hold the president accountable, that it's their role as the House of Representatives. We don't work for this president or any president. We work for the American people. To dig into what happened and uphold the Constitution. And this is, they're saying, the only way to do it. We have a constitutional responsibility to serve as a check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch. They also

really take aim at the way the president and Republicans have kind of targeted the witnesses so far who have appeared behind closed doors. Some dedicated public servants have demonstrated their patriotism to this great country by coming forward and testifying and giving us the information as they know it. These brave patriots have been called career radical unelected bureaucrats.

They've been called that by a group of people who Thomas Paine would call summer soldiers and sunshine patriots. These people are serving their country, they're upstanding people, and essentially defending kind of the nuts and bolts of what they're learning here in this inquiry. After today, there are no more excuses for those who want to ignore the facts and instead defending the Constitution. And there are no more excuses for those who turn a blind eye while the president pressures foreign actors to interfere with our democracy.

So essentially trying to make it really hard to dismiss the revelations that have come out so far and kind of promoting their own role and having brought that all forth. And as the debate is wrapping up, Speaker Nancy Pelosi gets up to speak. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and Madam Speaker, thank you for the recognition. She has a placard next to her of the American flag. I proudly stand next to the flag, and I thank the gentleman from New York for providing it for us, this flag. So many have fought and died for this flag, which stands for our democracy.

And she talks about the legislative branch and what their role is. And the genius of that constitution was the separation of powers. Any usurping of that power is a violation of our oath of office. And clearly the case that she's making is that impeachment is a constitutional endeavor. And this constitution is the blueprint for our republic and not a monarchy. So what is at stake is our democracy. What are we fighting for?

Defending our democracy for the people. What we've been hearing from Republicans throughout this debate is the political aspect of impeachment, which is undeniable, but she's really trying to spotlight the constitutional nature of this process and trying to get people to focus on that. And so that is essentially the case that she makes. And she kind of wraps up and she says, what is at stake is nothing less than our democracy. And that is how we will honor our oath of office. I urge an aye vote and you'll back the balance of my time. I wonder what struck you about all of these speeches at this moment in the day,

Democratic and Republican, probably something like two dozen or so of these speeches at this moment in the day, Democratic and Republican? Probably something like two dozen or so of these. I mean, I think what we saw was two parties sort of talking past each other, and that was the most striking element. And to me, it just really spoke profoundly of what we are about to see unfold here as the impeachment goes public, that you are going to have this real battle with the Republicans and Democrats, both in their partisan corners, in many ways kind of talking past and around each other about what is really going on here. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I yield back my time and I move the previous question of the resolution. So once these speeches are all done, what happens next? So after all the speeches are over, there is a procedural vote where Republicans essentially try to block the resolution from coming up altogether. And that fails. And then it's time for the big vote. Guys, I'm getting called by the desk. I think I'm... You're going to turn?

I might have to jump. Okay, you think you'll be able to come back? Yeah, I do. Well, let me just go upstairs and see what's happening, and then I might be able to come down in like 10 minutes. Okay, cool. Okay. Bye.

Bye. We'll be right back. So, Julie, what happens in this vote? So, when it's time for the vote, Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, goes up to the rostrum in the front of the House chamber. It's very unusual for the Speaker of the House to actually preside, especially during a vote. The question is on the adoption of the resolution. Those in favor, please say aye.

And she essentially asks for the yays and nays. Aye. Those opposed, say no. And then Republicans ask for a roll call vote. Madam Speaker, on that I would request the yeas and nays. They ask for the actual yeas and nays by electronic vote. So essentially what happens is the back wall lights up with red and green lights next to all the names, and you can see in real time how they're all voting.

This is a five-minute vote, colleagues. A five-minute vote. The whole gallery at this point is filled with members of the public who are there to witness this historic vote. And... On this vote, the ye who are there to witness this historic vote. And... On this vote, the yeas are 232. The nays are 196.

The resolution is adopted without objection. The motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. The resolution is passed. And as it turns out, no Republicans decide to cross party lines. They all vote no. And only two Democrats oppose it. And who are those two Democrats? And were they expected to oppose it?

The two Democrats were Colin Peterson, a congressman from Minnesota, and Jeff Van Drew, who's from New Jersey. Colin Peterson's been in the House for decades. Jeff Van Drew is a first-term Democrat from a very conservative district in southern New Jersey. And he had signaled before the vote that he was going to be a no. He's been very much against impeachment. He's said that Democrats shouldn't even be talking about it. It's a waste of time.

He'd rather talk about policy. And so it was pretty clear that he was going to oppose this. Colin Peterson is also a pretty conservative Democrat. He interestingly voted in favor of opening the inquiry into former President Bill Clinton back in 1998. But he was one of the two to vote no today. So this is as partisan and party line of vote as you can have in Congress. That was, I think, what Democrats expected it to be. But it was also a necessary exercise, I think, because now they can move forward and actually put this impeachment inquiry

into its next phase. So now that these rules have passed in the Ukraine, Fiona Hill, Gordon Sondland. And there's a national security official who is still in the White House, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, and they think he would make a really compelling figure to take people through what this pressure campaign on Ukraine looked like and the ways in which foreign policy was kind of being bent in the interest of achieving President Trump's political goals. This is going to be very substantive questioning in long rounds by staff investigators who are essentially

trying to press to get the clearest possible account of what transpired. It sounds like this is going to be a type of congressional hearing we're not really used to seeing. That's right. And I think the hope for Democrats is that people are really going to sit riveted and watch every moment because they have been reading and hearing about these accounts for now several weeks, but they haven't gotten a chance to really hear and see them firsthand. And so it's really important for Democrats to have these people describe what they saw on camera in a way that the public can understand. And then also so that they can draw up this report that they're hoping to present. And then at some point, they will draw up articles of impeachment.

They're actually already being debated and deliberated over now. What would that look like? And there would be an official vote in the Judiciary Committee to send those to the full House sometime in early December, they're hoping, by late in the month. But that's obviously a lot of moving parts, a lot of boxes to check before they can get to an actual vote on impeaching President Trump. And that is just the House process.

When that is wrapped up, it sounds like by the end of the year, it then would head to the Senate. Right. They would then have formally charged the president and the impeachment articles would move to the Senate for a trial. Julie, if you are the House Democratic leadership, I wonder, does whatake the Senate, and maybe even complicate their chances of winning the White House? it's one that they concluded over these many weeks was inescapable, that they have gotten to a point

where their members, Nancy Pelosi and almost all of her rank and file, feel that the public is behind having an impeachment inquiry, that they're not doing their jobs and shirking their responsibilities if they don't do it, and that at the very least, if they can't convince any Republicans to join them in supporting this, which it certainly looked from today like they won't be able to, that they can at least persuade the public that there was some misconduct here, that there was some unpresidential behavior here. And if President Trump is not removed, that they will at least have made their best possible case for why he shouldn't be president. So, Julie, how should we think about

the significance of what ended up happening today in the House of Representatives? Well, it was really a historic vote. It was only the third time in modern history that the House has voted on an impeachment inquiry. And it really did put the House on this path to impeach the president to actually pass articles of impeachment. There's very little chance now that the House Democrats will ultimately opt out of bringing articles of impeachment against President Trump. And so it's put them on this road to a very significant process. Right. It feels like, in a way, there's kind of no going back at this point. That's right.

On paper, this was a vote about setting rules for considering articles of impeachment if the House decides to do that. But in reality, it was a vote that makes it very clear that the House is going to bring articles of impeachment against President Trump. And the only real question is whether he'll be convicted in the Senate. Thank you, Julie. Thank you, Michael. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today.

In testimony before impeachment investigators, the National Security Council's top expert on Russia became the latest official to describe a quid pro quo in which the president withheld U.S. military aid in order to pressure Ukraine's president to investigate Trump's rivals. The expert, Tim Morrison, described a conversation in which Trump's ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, explained that the military aid to Ukraine would not be released until Ukraine committed to investigating Democrats. That testimony now corroborates a central claim in the impeachment inquiry. And.

This is the last speech that I will give from this floor as a member of Congress. I wasn't ready for my time here to come to an end so soon. It's a reality I'm still grappling with, and I will be for a long time to come. the reality I'm still grappling with and I will be for a long time to come. Representative Katie Hill, a freshman Democrat from California, resigned from Congress on Thursday in an emotional speech from the House floor. Hill had faced a House ethics investigation into allegations she had a sexual relationship with a member of her congressional staff, a violation of congressional rules. Hill has denied having a relationship with the congressional staff member,

but has acknowledged a separate relationship with a member of her campaign team, a relationship that was the subject of graphic leaks to the news media that Hill said originated from her husband. To the thousands of people who spent hours knocking doors in the hot summer sun, who made countless phone calls, who sacrificed more than I could ever know to give everything they could in every possible way so that I could be here, I am so, so sorry. So, so sorry. The Daily is made by Theo Balcom, Andy Mills, Lisa Tobin, Rachel Quester, Lindsay Garrison, Annie Brown, Claire Tennesketter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon-Johnson, Brad Fisher, Larissa Anderson, Wendy Dorr, Chris Wood, Jessica Chung, Alexandra Lee Young, Jonathan Wolfe, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Thank you. MJ Davis-Lynn, Austin Mitchell, Sayer Kavedo, Monika Evstatieva, and Dan Powell.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnik, Michaela Bouchard, Stella Tan, Lauren Jackson, and Julia Simon. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you on Monday.