this case? we re ready. we re ready to peel back the curtain and find out, as i say, get the stuff that they ve been hiding. to get the internal documents from the manufacturers? exactly. you know, one thing s clear, rachel, they ve done everything they can so far to prevent us from seeing their documents. and their e-mails and their marketing strategy. so it just kind of begs the question, what are they afraid of? and so i think we owe it to certainly the families and i think the public ought to see these things and make up their own minds about whether this is something that s acceptable for the community or not. lawyer for the sandy hook families, david great to see you my friend. thanks. keep us appraised. we ll be right back. stay with us. ack. stay with us the way they subscribe to movies. we don t follow the naysayers.
i must disagree with david because his arguments have been tried and rejected twice by the supreme court. and i think they would do the same on the contrary. david let me finish. a similar argument was launched in united states v nixon to prevent the president from being subject to subpoena. it failed. it was tried in clinton v jones. it faltd. the constitutional trajectory points to the president being subject to the same laws as the rest of us. that s the idea of america, david, please. this is rhetoric. you know perfectly well that in 2000 oc looked at the supreme court cases, the very ones you mentioned, both paula jones case and nixon case, and concluded that the supreme court were using the exactly same paradigm. but the particular position president, subpoenaing certain documents against the
december 19th. when the speaker brought down the gavel, it was a very quiet moment in the chamber. the house had passed two articles of impeachment against president bill clinton, whose popularity was at an all-time high of 73 percent. the house impeaches, but it s the senate that actually holds a trial and decides whether to convict or acquit. the president s fate would now be in the hands of the 100 united states senators. i remember the expression on the senators faces, when they realized, oh, my gosh. the house has really done this. they ve really impeached him. we re going to get this thing. and the senate sits as a jury of 100. the chief justice of the united states sits as the presiding officer, and the house impeachment managers are denominated by the house come over and they serve as the prosecutors. the house managers, are recommended by the chair of the judiciary committee, in this case, henry hyde. the 13 house republicans,
after days of argument and secret deliberations, a senate vote finally shot down the idea of calling live witnesses. the motion is not agreed to. the senate approved a motion to authorize depositions from three witnesses monica lewinsky, clinton friend vernon jordan, and white house aide sidney blumenthal. we were all still in a state of disappointment. it was not a climactic day for us as house managers. february 12th is the goal for ending the trial, unless, of course, something new and explosive emerges from the depositions. the white house hopes and predicts that will not be the case. house managers hope that it will. on february 6, 1999, portions of the videotaped depositions with house managers were played in the senate chamber. for the first time, the world was able to hear from the players themselves, including president clinton s friend vernon jordan. were your efforts carried out
the so-called impeachment trial managers, have the job, in the senate trial, of making the case for the removal of the president. as they prepare, each is expected to focus on different pieces of evidence in the case against bill clinton. while the house managers built their case, it was up to the senate to decide how things would actually work. a crucial decision is whether to take direct testimony from witnesses. most of our managers believed that we should be allowed to present the evidence, present witnesses, and make a case, but it s ultimately the decision of the senate. there are many unanswered procedural questions. there s a lot of details when we would meet, would we hear from witnesses, would there be witnesses cross-examined? the only senate trial of a president was 130 years ago, when andrew johnson was acquitted. they didn t keep the records of how the trial was conducted, so there literally was no manual, no set of rules for how you conduct a trial of a sit