Well that to restore order against the widening protests over a few price rises and rationing his warning came as riot police clashed with demonstrators in Tehran and other cities the un human rights chief Michelle Bachelet says she's extremely concerned that the situation in Bolivia could spin out of control following the departure of the former president ever morale is she warned that the excessive force used by the security forces during recent protests was dangerous at least 9 people were killed in clashes with the security forces in Cochabamba on Friday can disappear towns the details the regional ombudsman Nelson Cox said he expected to see the death toll rises he said more than 100 people have been injured and that the majority had bullet wounds Mr Cox accused the security forces of attacking protesters and said they had followed internationally recognized protocols on crowd control world news from the b.b.c. The New York Times is published internal documents leaked to the Chinese Communist Party that expose party directives behind the detention of as many as a 1000000 ethnic we girls and other Muslims in Sion Jiang the Chinese leadership Jinping is quoted as telling party members to use the organs of dictatorship to show absolutely no mercy in the fight against what's termed terrorism and separatism. Us congressional committees of hard evidence from the White House budget official as they continue their impeachment inquiry into President Trump marks and they gave evidence behind closed doors in Saturday a Democrat Representative Eric Swalwell said Mr Sunday's evidence has been very useful he cooperated and answered all of the questions that we have and we're learning more about this investigation and actually as a former prosecutor what is remarkable about this investigation is that it has almost entirely driven by witness accounts or all witness accounts the administration has refused to turn over any electronic communication. We have been severely limited but because people have come forward and produced information we learn more the British government and armed forces have been accused of covering up illegal killings by British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq an investigation by the b.b.c. In the Sunday Times of spoken to 11 British detectives who say they found credible evidence of war crimes the investigators say evidence of torture and murder was disregarded the Ministry of Defense said it rejected the unsubstantiated allegations of a pattern of cover ups the British prime minister Boris Johnson acetyl the conservative candidates in December's parliamentary election avowed to vote for the deal he negotiated with the e.u. For exiting the bloc he said the voters could be 100 percent certain that if he wins a majority he will deliver Bracks int b.b.c. News. On the Media is all about pretty broad. And civil liberties we do a lot on that the show is about technological utopia and creepy dystopia law and law breakers low hundreds of Mainly though on the media is about an hour play spend it with us. To an in for on the media Sunday mornings in a here on Jefferson Public Radio. For only the 4th time in history the u.s. House of Representatives began hearings on impeaching a sitting u.s. President Wednesday began the 1st round of televised testimony the questions presented by this impeachment inquiry are whether President Trump sought to exploit that allies vulnerability and invite Ukraine's interference in our elections whether President Trump sought to condition official acts such as a White House meeting or u.s. Military assistance and Ukraine's willingness to assist with 2 political investigations that would help his reelection campaign and if President Trump did either whether such an abuse of his power is compatible with the Office of the presidency anyone familiar with the Democrat scorched earth war against President Trump would not be surprised to see all the typical signs that this is a carefully orchestrated media smear campaign while much of what we heard on Wednesday was already known to those closely following the impeachment inquiry it was the 1st chance for the public to see and hear from 2 long time government civil servants who were involved in Ukrainian foreign policy it was unexpected and most unfortunate however to watch some Americans including those who allied themselves with corrupt Ukrainians in pursuit of private agendas launch attacks on dedicated public servants advancing u.s. Interests in Ukraine in my opinion those attacks undermine us and Ukrainian national interests and damage our critical bilateral relationship Bester Stalin called President from and told him of his meetings and gave. The member of my staff could hear President Trump on the phone asking Ambassador Solomon about the investigations. As are Solomon told President Trump the Ukrainians were ready to move forward. Following the call with President Trump the member of my staff. Asked investor Solomon what President Trump thought about your great. Song responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden which Giuliani was pressing for that aide referenced by Taylor is now testifying Friday afternoon behind closed doors today marks the 2nd day of televised impeachment testimony next up Marie of on a bitch well respected u.s. Ambassador to Ukraine until May of this year she was fired by President Trump because as she sees it she was impeding his and Rudy Giuliani's personal agenda this is politics with Amy Walter from the takeaway. Who we learned Palmer I don't know says. So what did we learn this week and what will be learned today and will make any difference to the American people joining me to discuss Anita Kumar White House correspondent for Politico and Katie Benner Justice Department reporter at The New York Times thank you both for being here and you know I'm going to start off with you and you could if you could help us understand how the White House is responding to this what they thought about this week thus far and what you think they are going to do going forward well thanks for having me after sort of a few weeks where it felt like they had not much of a message or they had about 20 messages they sort of hone the message a little bit after hearing what came out Wednesday and and important to note that they actually have sort of a rapid response to the to the hearings which they which we hadn't anticipated in which sort of surprises because sometimes they're all over the place they're going to continue to do that through all these public hearing so they have a group of staffers responding in real time which include some wires so that they can refute some of the legal implications but the message they're sort of turning out since Wednesday has been as you've heard it they call it hearsay sort of an. Game of telephone when you're a little kid where one person told one person who told one person and it's not exactly accurate and so they don't have 1st hand information about President Trump and what he did at least that's what they're saying Now obviously if if we hear that they do over the next week or so that they'll have to change that message the other thing they're saying and this they push really hard on Wednesday is. That this is all about whether Ukraine got aid foreign aid from the United States but they did get the foreign aid and so they're saying well how can this be true what you're saying we gave them the aid that we were supposed to they got that money and in fact they're a little digging President Obama about it they're saying Well President Obama didn't give all the things that Ukraine asked of though those are kind of their 2 strategies going forward and Katie what I think a lot of folks noticed after the hearing earlier this week was that Speaker Nancy Pelosi came out to the press and she said that this devastating testimony cooperated evidence of bribery using the bribery word it's she said I'm saying what the president is mid to and says it's perfect it's perfectly wrong it's bribery in the constitution she said bribery is attached impeachment proceedings this is the 1st time we've heard the b. Word mentioned why did she do that so I think there are 3 reasons why this is a really significant shift in rhetoric from the speaker the 1st is that quid pro quo a word I clearly cannot even say a term I can't even say is something that is incredibly wonky and I don't think it's going to bring a lot of the American public along when you're trying to make a case for moving the president you know we all means this for that. Sort of implies a bribery scheme it implies a deal that is somehow if not unlawful very shady and we usually see quid pro quos and things like settlements around sexual harassment. Bribery cases but clearly the word bribery is just more easily understood and people have criticized the use of put pro quo saying that it doesn't really capture what happened because it implies that Ukrainians were going to get something great too and the accusations being made by the Democrats right now is that Ukraine was not going to get anything great they're going to get exactly what they were promised and it was being held against them which is a little bit different from everybody making out well in a deal the other thing is that there is a criminal statute against bribery so that is a crime and it's something that I think the Republicans keep shading in saying none of this rises to the level of a crime trying to ignore the fact that impeachment is not a criminal proceeding they do keep keep bringing it back to the idea of whether or not the president committed a crime she is basically saying with the word bribery that he could have and then 3rd to your point bribery is one of the things mentioned in the Constitution as an impeachable offense we know that impeachment the Constitution is very vague there are a lot of rules around the procedures for it it's sort of a high crimes and misdemeanors offense but it does specifically say let me say that you can be removed. On impeachment for and conviction of treason bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors so by speaking directly to the Constitution she's also making a stronger argument why you used the term bribery and not something like extortion . Is your point that because bribery is actually in the Constitution it makes a that makes more direct link than a term like extortion Absolutely absolutely and bribery again is something that I think the American public can really understand easily and this is a political procedure she is trying to make her case not just to the house which will drop articles of impeachment if they find this case convincing the cases also of them being made to the Senate but really to the voters who are going to decide in 2020 what happens to President Trump. Needed there was not a whole bunch of new information that came out on Wednesday from the testimony of Kent and Taylor but one thing we noted was Taylor mentioning the fact that an aide of his overheard a conversation. We're going to hear we may we're not going to actually hear about that. Firsthand because this is a closed door testimony where this aide is going to talk to Congress but there is also some new information coming out about a member of the executive branch who's going to talk to Congress again behind closed doors someone in the Office of Management and Budget and budget where Mick Mulvaney was leading that agency can you tell us what to expect out of that and is it is this a big deal I think it's really significant for 2 reasons why in the White House and the president has said federal employees basically he doesn't want them cooperating and so any time someone comes forward. Like this who is not sort of a career appointee but someone else who works directly for him or directly for his for his acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney I think it's significant the other reason that it's significant is the one thing that House Democrats say they don't have every piece of information on or at least they they hadn't as of this week is exactly who stopped this aide or halted any way stuff delayed the foreign aid from going to Ukraine so why is it the president wasn't make moving any who wasn't at the Office of Management Budget What day was that still a Bill little bit unclear so the circumstances around the money part is unclear and this is the 1st person at o.m.b. That's coming forward and as you mentioned Mick Mulvaney the acting chief of staff actually the director of the Office of Management Budget still and so I think that's very significant because this is someone who's pretty close close into the White House into the executive branch and the and the president well that seems to be the real issue here right Democrats still trying to to fill in some of these gaps one is who actually made this decision to hold off on delivering this aid and how involved was the president in this and the 2nd is will there be 1st hand. Discussion of you know somebody who will come and say I heard 1st hand of the president saying these things we still don't have that right yeah I mean there's only still some and unanswered questions and you're hearing some people who are saying. That you know while the House Democrats are moving very quickly and they've moved very quickly and they hope to get this wrapped up at least the house part by the end of the year that they're moving forward without all the answers to every question and some people are saying well is that too quick maybe we need to have all that information 1st to make a better case but if you do that you you go into next year and we're already you know well into the presidential election when you get to people saying why are you going through this when he can just stand for reelection in the mirror can people can decide so it's a it's a tough balancing act and so they I feel like the House Democrats are getting some answers as they go which is a little bit risky right. Katie what would this look like assuming this does wrap up as Democrats had hoped it would by the end of next week the testimony piece the Judiciary Committee then starts to weigh in and write of articles of impeachment theoretically for a vote in the house before the end of the year. But do we know what those articles of impeachment will include now that we're hearing terms like. This is suggest that the articles themselves there's going to be debate over what should be included and what shouldn't you know so we are getting a sense for what the articles of impeachment might look like clearly bribery put that on the table I think we got a sense for it when Mick Mulvaney came out how to press conference saying that the g 7 to be held at one of times resort suddenly I'm all humans kind of came to the surface again and then of course. You know obstruction of Congress and obstruction of Congress is work and then there's a 4th that's a possibility and it's one that did Judiciary Committee itself had been working on before we knew about a whistleblower before we knew anything about Ukraine they had been working on an article impeachment perhaps around accusing the president of obstructing of obstruction in the course of the miller investigation the Russian investigation that was very controversial as we all know judiciary may not have gotten very far on it it didn't seem like the speaker thought that was a really strong case certainly while Jerry Nadler the head of the Judiciary Committee would come out and talk about this possibility he wasn't getting a lot of public support from the rest of the Democrats so I do think there will be some debate behind the scenes about what exactly they are going to put to the Senate will it include something that controversial or not right Anita Kumar White House correspondent for Politico Katie Benner the Justice Department reporter at The New York Times thank you both for joining me Sure thanks thank you. You're listening to the takeaway call us at 8778 my take or tweet us at the takeaway. Support for j.p. Comes from our listeners and from Highland architecture architecture specializes in the sustainable design of wineries commercial buildings such as restaurants and hotels and residential buildings including multi family housing and custom homes Highland architecture is licensed to practice architecture throughout Oregon and California and is on the web at Highland architecture dot com You're listening to southern Oregon University's Jefferson Public Radio. My name is here and I'm a talent or again and I donated my. Name for all the paper I really like to the poor Public Radio and Public Service and I kept hearing on the radio people donating their cars but I thought well I can do that if the great way to help that donate your car today. Or call it for 4 j.p. Our auto That's 844-577-2886. This is politics clip Amy Walter from the takeaway. So with all this talk of impeachment and how the televised testimony will play with those watching from home or from their smartphones I thought would be a good idea come to somebody who watches polls for a living Kristen Soltis Anderson is a pollster an official on insights and a columnist at The Washington Examiner I asked her if we could expect the televised testimony to move the needle I don't expect these numbers to move a great deal unless there are witnesses who bring forward information the pretty dramatically changes what the public already thinks about the situation on issue after issue people have made up their minds about President Trump one way or the other and so you see despite a new cycle that constantly feels up and down and a bit crazy poll numbers around this president tend to be pretty stable so on something like impeachment you did see instant pretty significant movement in numbers around impeachment shortly after Speaker Pelosi announced that the house would be looking into an inquiry but a lot of that movement was coming from Democrats sort of coalescing around their their party leadership's changed view on the issue Republicans did not budge that much independent somewhat but folks have now those lines have really leveled off they've they've made up their minds and there were some fresh polling that actually came out this week from navigator research which is a Democratic polling coalition and they studied this issue in it and what could possibly change people's minds they find that slightly more than half of Americans support impeachment but among those who don't there's about 23 percent of America who's never going to budge and another portion think look I may think that what the president did was wrong but we're too close to an election I don't think this is the right process there's. Really just a very small I believe it's about 12 percent slice of the public that says I could change my mind on this with new information so there is a chance that if any of these witnesses bring forward some kind of testimony that's really just a block buster something that dramatically changes what we know about who did what and when it's possible that that 12 percent could go from opposing impeachment to supporting it but at the moment they're stored it still sort of in that skeptic category where they just haven't heard enough and what they've heard has not persuaded them that what the president did rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors we know that the national numbers also mask what's going on in the States and especially some of these battleground states and I don't know if you've seen any more recent polling but we saw in polling that came out in the last couple of weeks that in some of these battleground states like Wisconsin or Pennsylvania that support for impeachment is actually lower than what it is nationally that's right I think the things that are the biggest threat to Republicans and President Trump in some of those states are things like health care particularly if they're not running against Elizabeth Warren come next November it's things like the economy if it has begun to cool off if issues like trade are still unresolved tariffs are still hurting American farmers there are many other issues that pose much graver threats to Republicans and Trump when you look at the electoral college or when you look at things like the ability to control the House in the Senate which that to me is the most interesting geography of all it's not even necessarily you know the presidential level battleground states but it's these places where you have say a Cory Gardner in Colorado or you've got you know Democrats who are in some of these seats that trump won and they were able to pull off a victory in 2018 by not really be over. Really running against Trump so much as running against things like Republicans want to take away or preexisting conditions if they're on the record supporting impeachment that may be something that the folks at the n.r.c. See the Republican Congressional Committee who runs and supports these congressional races is pretty happy about so Christine there is a very strong possibility that for the 1st time in history and impeach President will be running for reelection I'm not yet convinced that it will be a significant deal unless the numbers change significantly and no longer just line up with kind of what we're already seeing in things like ballot tests or job approval numbers you know if you've got about 47 percent that oppose impeachment you've got about 40 some percent that approve of the job trumps doing in national ballot tests he tends to come in just north of 40 percent I mean this these numbers are pretty consistent no matter how you slice it so it's possible that if the impeachment number something does jar them loose and you wind up with only 30 percent of Americans opposing impeachment that that does become you know to the extent that it correlates to some of those other big numbers that those numbers sag as well but for the moment they're also closely bunched together that I still think barring any big shift I mean the things where President Trump is the most vulnerable I still firmly believe our health care if he's not running against Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and the economy if it slows down and those are the 2 big things I think much more so than impeachment that are going to drive people's ultimate decision at the polls you know better than anybody Chris that that just voting for the in Korea itself in a campaign ad will be for impeachment so my sense from talking to a couple of those Democrats is they are going to make the case yes that we just we need an inquiry we need to need to make sure we're tracking down any malfeasance on the part of a. Any president but they also are really leaning back on I was sent to Washington to uphold protect the Constitution and that's what I'm doing this isn't a personal vendetta against the president this is about my commitment to upholding my constitutional oath we'll see if voters make that same distinction it'll be interesting to see if they have a little more wiggle room on this because if you voted to send if you were say somebody who maybe loosely supported the president but maybe has become disillusioned you're one of these voters who sort of changed position one of the you know fabled suburban women voter that you may even if you somewhat You don't love impeachment you may be willing to give a little bit of latitude to a Democratic member who does vote for it I think the worry is if Congress doesn't really do or accomplish anything else so you went to Washington to try to change things and instead the only thing Congress did really was impeach the president does that then sort of suggest look voters keep sending different parties to Washington because they keep wanting change and every time the change shows up nothing actually changes Congress doesn't actually do things things still feel like gridlock they still feel like division if you're somebody who put your name on the line to impeach the President are you just continuing more of that partisan division or can they spin it as we're just here to be good governance and hold people accountable battle be the debate they're going to be facing Kristen Soltis Anderson thank you again for all your help in walking us through this of course thank you for having me Amy Kristen Soltis Anderson is a pollster at echelon insights and a columnist at The Washington d.c. . Support for the takeaway comes from at last whether it's keeping thousands of people on the same page you're managing projects from start to finish at last even work to unleash the potential of all types of teams with collaboration software more at at last in. Support for j p r comes from our listeners and from Royal Stanley of Oregon Pacific financial advisors while Stanley's most important responsibility as an advisor is educating and helping clients achieve the goals they've set for themselves through comprehensive planning and prudent investment choices dedicated to helping people plan for their future while Stanley serves as a financial planner for retirees as well as those just beginning their careers securities offered by United planners financial services more at o.p. F.a. Dot com j p r as a community service of southern Oregon University Southern Oregon University is dedicated to feeding the intellectual curiosity and human potential of every student while creating a life time of economic opportunity and rewarding careers learn more at s.o.u. 80 you. It's politics with Amy Walter on the takeaway during times like these it's always a good idea to check in with a historian so I called up Professor Barbara Perry the Presidential Studies director at the University of Virginia's Miller Center I started off by asking her to talk to me about the differences in how Americans are responding to the prospect of an impeachment today and how that compares to the past given that we've had 3 of these now in my lifetime and yes I am getting older but it doesn't seem like I've been here that long and we don't have it in my lifetime and that's and Corey's impeachment inquiries and then if you also think about the fact that we have heard conversations about impeachment even when we haven't gone to an impeachment inquiry so you had people bringing up on the Democratic side possibilities of impeachment of George w. Bush or you obviously had people believing that Barack Obama was illegitimate president and maybe people would even go as far as to think about impeachment. I think of if we're talking about the emergency and crisis situation used to be on the wall of a school or a hotel or a public building where you'd have those fire alarms and it would say break glass in case of emergency and you would break the glass only if you were going to pull the fire alarm but that was to keep it protected so people would just lean up against it and have the fire alarm pull or it would be harder to do so what I would see is this metaphor is that particular if we talk about the incumbent president who talked about breaking the China or we say throwing the chessboard up in the air but the glass has been broken it seems every day now by someone on one side or the other and I think you also hit the nail on the head to say it is this 1st of all the polarization that we face today that yes we came through the polarized sixty's but we still had the Cold War consensus that held us together somewhat in the period of Nixon and so. So that finally when things got so bad and the smoking gun was found on the tapes the people in his own party said Ok the line has been crossed so that's one big difference the other is 247 media which we did not have in those days that's made a huge difference social media has made a huge difference the fact that we just know that this is the possibility now that can happen relatively speaking every few years means that it doesn't take on the gravity as you say that it did for Nixon when we hadn't had an impeachment inquiry for 100 years do you them believe as some Republicans are saying right now that Ok Well guess what it's just a matter of time Democrats are going to have a president and we have a Republican House get ready for another impeachment I do worry about that as someone who studies presidential history and other parts of my scholarly life study the Constitution and the Supreme Court and Congress I do worry about that because if you go back to the founders and you look at what they said in their debates in Philadelphia about impeachment particularly several who were most important obviously Madison because he's known as the father of the Constitution because he wrote a good part of it the fact that Edmund Rand often Richmond was a key player in the debates for ratification in Virginia before the ratification itself and then George Mason as well the 3 of them particularly those Virginians were arguing about what this impeachment clause should be and they themselves said 1st of all we don't want to situation where this can just be used as a routine matter where the president is always at the beck and call of Congress because impeachment is hanging over his heads they didn't want it to be easy they wanted it to be hard and unusual and they didn't want it to be routine and normalize they did worry about foreign influence we should say that was one of their main concerns was foreign influence over the president but they didn't. Want it to be used simply when Congress disagree politically or ideologically with the person sitting in the White House we have to take a quick break more with Professor Barbara Perry in just a moment. At 8778 might say to comment on any story well give us your thoughts on any topic or so we're on Facebook and Twitter at the takeaway let us know what you think and thanks for listening. We are living through exceptionally partisan times we have a Republican in the White House a Democratic led House a Republican Senate and a nation mulling impeachment all this got me thinking that there are more barriers to getting things done in d.c. So I wanted to talk to Professor Barbara Perry about the growing singular importance of the executive branch scholars and I think David Mayhew a political scientist not that long ago relatively speaking maybe 10 or so years ago did a tally of all of the major pieces of legislation that had been passed when there was divided party governance So the good news is at least there has been precedent for that but we've been discussing the increased polarization 1st of all and that's going to make that harder so even though we have a precedent for that and we shouldn't lose hope that someday perhaps we could go back to it I think that it's unlikely that in this polarized era however long this lasts that we will go back to that and then I think you have to think in these terms if you have Republicans who are in charge of at least the Senate or maybe both houses of Congress who have run on in recent years an anti government platform and an anti government action platform it makes it that much harder to have a Democrat in the White House who believes in activist federal government going to a Congress that has constituents who don't believe in governmental action so it's just as easy for them to do nothing in fact it's better for them to do nothing because that appeals to their constituents so I think as long as Republicans and conservatives hold to that view that government is bad and that government which governs least is the best there won't be a lot done between the 2 branches of government and therefore the way we've been headed in our presidential power structure really going back to Woodrow Wilson but obviously really taking off. With f.d.r. You will see more and more governance through executive orders rather than through what the founders hope would be that balance between the 2 branches of government so as we move through this process of impeachment What do you think the most important factors are for us to be paying attention to in other words this is isn't important as to what the House and the Senate do or is it about what it says about the presidency I focus of course on the latter as someone who studies the presidency but obviously I'm paying close attention to what's happening in the House and the Senate because that's going to determine the outcome of the process but I do think that as those of us who are members of the public who care about our constitutional structure and care about the presidency as an institution as an office that what I am concerned about is that we're entering a new phase of the presidency as as an office and that particularly as it relates to the facts that are being gathered about this current impeachment inquiry would be as we do here at the Miller Center oral histories we've gone all the way back to the Ford administration doing oral histories of both presidents and those who serve them usually the top 100 senior people in administration and over that 40 years now of gathering this material we have seen it firsthand by the descriptions of all the people who participate careful systems particularly in foreign policy that are meant to work to the benefit of America the United States as as a nation and the American people and so I think that's what I'm paying closest attention to about the presidency as an institution 1st how this president relates to the people via this direct communication of social media which is very. Much beyond what the founders had intended and 2nd the process or lack of process and making decisions particularly in foreign policy because we have found that those presidents who have governed most wisely are those that have good people in place who have good systems in place and they follow them for the good of the nation and the good of the American people. Professor Barbara Perry is the Presidential Studies director at the University of Virginia's Miller Center Up next my conversation with an expert on the Senate rules former Senate parliamentarian Alan from. The Center for Investigative Reporting n.p.r. This. People are dying in your hospital of overdoses you should know how many there are. We bring you the best investigative reporting true stories impact over the airwaves every single week. Because there's always more to the story. Tune in for reveal Sunday morning at 10 Jefferson Public Radio. Welcome back to politics with Amy Walter from the takeaway Pietschmann proceedings are under way in the House of Representatives and articles of impeachment are all but certain to land in the Senate at some point. The Senate rule in impeachment is stated in the Constitution quote the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. Now impeachment trials do happen in the Senate but only 2 in the history of the United States involved a president President Andrew Johnson in $868.00 and President Bill Clinton in 1990 Nixon resigned before the House sent impeachment to the Senate I worked through 5 different trials actually 6 different trials 5 judges and President Clinton that particular experienced voice belongs to Alan Froome and parliamentarian emeritus of the United States Senate think of him as the Senate's referee. He's the rules guy and he was there in 1909 when the impeachment trial for President Bill Clinton took place although not exactly as a parliamentarian I was 2nd chair at that time and by that he means he was senior assistant to Robert I served during the entire trial except for 4 or 5 days after January 15th which is a day which will live in infamy in my life that was the day of the Harken point of order the president's lawyers may very well try to weave a spell of complexity over the facts of this case they may not pick over the time of a call or parse a specific word or phrase of testimony we urge you to distinguish jurors in this case not to be for use. And Mr Chief Justice I object to the use and the continued use of the word jurors when referring to the Senate sitting as triers a trial on the beach where the president United States Senator Harkin without any consultation stood up and made a point of order that the house manager Robert Barr of Georgia was referring to senators as drivers and that that was inappropriate there will be no jury to stand between the judges who are to pronounce the sentence of the law and the party who is to receive. Or to suffer I was completely taken aback regular jurors of course are chosen to the maximum extent possible with no knowledge of the case not so when we try and peach regular jurors are not supposed to know each other not so here regular jurors cannot overrule the judge not so here regular jurors did not decide when a trial is to be ended not so here. I think the framers of the Constitution meant us the Senate to be something other than a jury I looked through all of the materials available to me at the desk in an attempt to formulate a response or advice to provide for Chief Justice Rehnquist who was presiding as he had to over the trial during impeachment trial senators may not engage in debate and I was doing whatever I could to formulate an answer at which point Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire stood up and made a 2nd point of order objecting to the fact that Senator Harkin was engaging in debate I would ask as a parliamentary point whether is appropriate to argue as to the proper reference as I understand it if his motion is not debatable as I understand so I now have 2 points of order to deal with. I finally determined that I could find no basis on which to advise the presiding officer to sustain Senator Harkin's point of order I turned to the chief justice and told him that based on my quick research I see no basis on which to sustain the point of order of the senator from Iowa I think you may state your objection certainly but not argue out of Jervy view is that you may state the objection and summaries of rope but not argue it. In for neither And so I turned to speak to the Chief Justice I gave him my advice and my advice was not to sustain Senator Harkin's point of order I then turned around facing front facing the chamber waiting for the chief justice to rule presumably based on my advice so he rejected a Republican point of order and sustained a Democratic point of order the chair was of the view that the senator from I was objection is well taken that the court of the Senate is not simply a jury it is a court in this case and therefore counts or should refrain from referring to senators or cures presumably on my advice because I had turned to speak to him to give him advice and I then turned and faced forward and for the most part when a senator is unhappy with a ruling from the presiding officer the senator naturally assumes that the the basis for that ruling was not the individual in the presiding officer chair but was the parliamentarian on duty and Senator Lott wanted no no waves whatsoever during the Clinton impeachment trial Suffice to say Senator Harkin rocked the boat and waves spread out hither and yon and Senator Lott came out and immediately adjourned the trial and their former chief justice pursuant to the previous consent agreement I have to manage to set the senator's band of government under the previous order without objection. So ordered and there after a number of Republican senators came running down to the desk to express their dismay at what I had just done and there after word came down to my office from Senator Lott that I should perhaps not not take any more shifts during the trial and so. I had a bit of a of a holiday from floor shift during the trial great memories there from Alan Freeman former Senate parliamentarian we have to take a quick break when we get back from and explains the do's and don'ts of the impeachment trial process in the Senate. And we've been hearing from many of you saw it with Dawn from Denver on the question of the 1st day of the impeachment. Whether changed my mind or not no I was for impeachment before inauguration I saw him on t.v. So you know. Cowell said Dave her Merican movement Hi this is Lisa in Murray Kentucky. Most of my friends really aren't paying attention at all to the impeachment hearing what's going on in Washington is just a complete disconnect with what's going on in America Hi this is Linda Riordan from San Francisco. My friend Sarah I've been quite down anytime we talk about the possibility of impeachment before the public hearings now since the public hearings she's rather happy when I talk to are about impeachment so this is made a great difference in her belief in it and the possibility of positive change and just generally her looks thank you very much by. Hey everyone if you like what you hear if you have tips for stories or if you just want to connect with us tweet us at the takeaway or give us. Call that 8778 my take. Support for j p r comes from our listeners and from Michael and Suzanne Brian Michael and Suzanne Brian express their appreciation for the lively exchange of intelligent ideas and opinions provided by the Jefferson exchange Michael Bryant attorney at law has been providing legal services related to personal injury for over 45 years in the road Valley if you'd like to learn more about Jefferson Public Radio visit us online at w w w i j p.r. Dot org. Every day j.p. Feeds your curiosity with news that transcends soundbites are fact based journalism helps you understand complex issues you know none of this would be possible without your direct support listener contributions pay some of the bills but business underwriters also play an important role in making great public radio possible for our region learn how to become a j.p. Our underwriter at the i j p.r. Dot org or call 187826191. Back now in politics with Amy Walter if you're just joining us I've been talking with Alan Freeman Freeman is the former Senate parliamentarian he was there during the Clinton impeachment trial serving as the senior assistant to Senate parliamentarian Robert does one thing to know about the Clinton trial Senators Trent Lott and Tom Daschle the Republican and Democratic leaders at the time were determined that the Senate be dignified in the handling of the proceedings so a great deal of the structure for the trial took place by unanimous consent I asked for him and if you thought things would be as smooth and bipartisan as they were in the 1900 well we've yet to see white smoke signaling and a coup by a moment involving the leadership I try to be optimistic about about the Senate and the Senate's unique role in our constitutional system and the way the Senate protects its minority and so even though to this point I'm not aware that that there is a. Consensus between its leaders to work together I am hopeful that that will that that will emerge you are hopeful but given what we've seen over these last few years it's hard not to be a little pessimistic right I'm not betting a lot of money on this Ok Ok I got it so let's go to the actual rules of how this process would look in the Senate there are actual rules and procedures for how this works yes the Senate adopted a set of rules for the conduct of impeachment trials. They did this for the trial of Andrew Johnson in 1968 and that body of rules has remained relatively constant since then there have been some tweaks between 868 and in 1906 the last time these rules were modified. There are 26 of them and to a certain extent much like the Senate standing rules they defy a normal person's understanding of exactly what it is they mean if you like I will walk you through a couple of them he had give me a couple where it's not quite clear what this is supposed to mean or it could be open to different interpretation Well let me start with what is clear because there's so little of that. But what is clear has been recognized by Mitch McConnell the majority leader and as a matter of fact there was a memo that Senator McConnell. Made public a month or so ago and it was a memo written by Bob. My predecessor a Senate parliamentarian and it was written to a man named Howard Green and Howard Green was the secretary for the Republican Party the highest ranking party staff member in the Senate and that was done just before the 1906 trial of of Harry Claiborne a federal judge who had been impeached and Bob was laying out as best he could some of the ground rules for the conduct of impeachment trials and so this was a memo from the Senate parliamentarian to the secretary for the majority and basically that said that according to rule one which says when the Senate is notified that the House has appointed a impeachment managers to conduct an impeachment against anybody that the secretary of the Senate shall immediately immediately shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment and so the very 1st rule impeachment rule is mandatory shall immediately. And the 2nd rule when manages an impeachment shall be introduced at the bar of the Senate it's set or etc. Articles shall be exhibited so here we have the very 1st 2 rules making at least the beginning of a trial mandatory so the idea that they can for example there was a there was some thought that you can simply dismiss the charges by majority vote in the Senate well motions to dismiss are that's to a certain extent the $64000.00 question and we'll discuss that in a moment or 2. These 1st couple of rules and rule 3 as upon such articles being presented to the Senate the Senate shall at 1 o'clock afternoon on the day following such a presentation or sooner if ordered by the Senate proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day Sundays excepted after the trial shall commence unless other or otherwise ordered by the Senate until final judgment shall be rendered so rules 12 and 3 appear to make at a minimum the beginning of the trial mandatory. And by that I mean receiving the House managers listening to the articles and then proceeding to consider the articles so all of that is mandatory if the rules are to be followed and this was the import of the memo from Bob of the parliamentarian at the time to Howard Green the state secretary for the majority party things do get a little less clear thereafter there is also talk of something called the 2 thirds loophole we know that in order for president to be conflicted 2 thirds of the Senate need to agree and so that 67 senators Well let me let me stop you there yeah and so explain what that means well it's nice to look at the Constitution every now and then I try not to make a habit of it. But the vote required for conviction on impeachment is 2 thirds of the members present it's not 2 thirds of the entire membership it's 2 thirds of the members present and so you do have a sliding scale necessary to convict and impeached official explain that to us because what you're saying is if in the United States Senate a vote is taken and 10 senators are not there for whatever reason now the threshold for 2 thirds is lower right because now instead of 100 senators you have 90 senators it's 2 thirds of 90 set of 2 thirds of 100 but has that ever been applied in the Senate the normal requirement on a vote is a majority of the senators voting a quorum and being present. And in the Senate you can only vote yes or no it's a binary choice in a trial you can only vote guilty or not guilty. So bear with me here it is theoretically possible in the Senate on a normal question let's say the passage of a bill 10100 senators show up on the floor 97 of them say they are present they don't say yes or no you have 2 senators who say yes and one senator who says no that's a sufficient number of to be 2 thirds on a regular bill let's say where the standard requirement is where the standard requirement is a majority of those voting a quorum being present so you you have to voting yes and one voting No $2.00 to $1.00 is a majority the $97.00 are simply present that's the extreme example of of the normal formulation for determining if a question passes it's a majority of those voting a quorum being present however things are different with respect to the language of the Constitution when it comes to convicting on impeachment here it says you must have 2 thirds of those present. So those who are present if they simply say they are present and that's not a vote of guilty or not guilty if they simply say they are present they go into the denominator from which 2 thirds must be found so a senator who comes to an impeachment trial and doesn't vote doesn't vote guilty or not guilty but simply says I am here is in essence voting not guilty. Because the Constitutional language requires 2 thirds of those who are present to vote guilty Ellen Freeman is a former parliamentarian of the United States Senate. That's all for us today thanks so much for listening this is politics with Amy Walter on the take away. Our Public Radio. On behalf of all of us here at j.p. Our thanks so much for supporting our public service mission your support helps us create and sustain the news and music programs we provide each day one of the ways you can ensure that j.p. Remains a vital organization for future generations while supporting your own lifelong values is to include the j p r foundation in your will or trust Please take a moment to learn more at i.j. P.R.'s org or call us at 18726191. You depend on j p r to bring you the latest news and information from around the world you can help us do that by subscribing to Jeff no the only Internet service provider that directly supports j.p. Or your Jeff net membership helps us underwrite the army or programming you rely on just that gives you remote access multiple email accounts spam and virus protection and 247 local technical systems stay on top of global news and information and sports entertainment and all of our expanded online programs connect to your world with Jeff net and help us bring great public radio to southern Oregon and Northern California learn more at Jeff net dot org or call 866 Jeff net this is the news and information service of southern Oregon University's Jefferson Public Radio 12 30 am k s j k talent at 9 30 am k g I Grants Pass also heard in the road Valley 102.3 f.m. News of the region the nation and the world. When it isn't the growing the hunger so deep it hurts the blood no one told her about the blood the split lip scrapes the bloody noses motherhood this week on selected shorts she was a child of anxious not proud of we were poor and could not afford for her the soil of easy growth. I'm Kate Burton and you're listening to selected shorts from p.r.i. The program that brings you great short fiction Red live on stage at Symphony Space in New York City. Where thinking about mothers and motherhood on this show with the help of the memoirist and essayist Mary Karr and the novelist Celeste as guest curators as you might expect from these strong women there are no hall mark moments they are both moms and they chose works that acknowledge that mothering is complicated our 1st story is Danielle last a wren's looking for a thief read by Heather burns it was introduced at Symphony Space by Celeste. Looking for a thief reminds us that mother is a greedy bloody Herculean or maybe Sisyphean effort to raise a human being who can survive this world that we've brought them into as I write my own quote unquote domestic stories looking for a thief is one of the models I keep in my own mind it's the truest portrait of modern motherhood that I've seen that paradoxical condition in which you might pack a tent in your trunk your skate plan even if you'll never use it in which resentment for what you have to do and deep gratitude for what you get to do somehow co-exist now we'll hear Danielle last Arends looking for a thief read by Heather burns. The boys are setting up a tent in the dining room Margaret in the kitchen can hear the chairs squeaking and moaning against the floors Wesley's exaggerating grunting as Matthew directs the boys to push after she puts the chicken in the oven she goes to check on memory in seeing her hands in the sink beforehand and indeed.