get much chance to say much on the house floor. that s why you have to have a rule to govern the parameters of debate. 283 members of the house spoke on impeachment with president clinton in 1998. they spoke over two days. here you have a six-hour rule. the republican from oklahoma in the rules committee late last night asked for 12 hours of debate. they might go with four. halfway where the republicans wanted six hours. and then later today probably this evening even though they will consider both articles of impeachment together in the debate, they will actually have distinct votes on both articles of impeachment. the obstruction of congress and abuse of power. this will probably play out here for the next 15 or 20 minutes and then if there is no more tactics then they ll get to the debate on the rule. again, that s the debate to set up the debate, julie. julie: chad pergram, thank
i raise this point of order for failure to disclose the waiver class 2j1 of rule 11 and rule 13 which requires the rules committee to specify their report in a waiver of a point of order against a measure under consideration. madam speaker, this underlying resolution violates clause 2j1 of rule 11 which entitles the minority to have the ability to call witnesses to testify during at least one day of hearing on any given measure. this was not afforded to the judiciary committee minority members during consideration of the articles of impeachment. despite numerous requests by the minority s members. i raise a point of order against consideration of the rule and the underlying resolution for the violation of minority rights and the denial of this evidence to be put into the record and for this hearing which the house rules require, which was not complied with and was denied. i would urge the enforcement of this rule. gentleman from louisiana seeks to raise a point of order
trump. a motion to adjourn offered by andy biggs, republican of arizona and one of the leaders of the freedom caucus. it will be defeated. we don t anticipate the house to go out of session. but what would be the order of business next if there is no more delaying particular tactics is to go to debate the rule. the copy of the rule. this is what the house of representatives has to put into play and has to first debate and then actually vote on before they consider almost any piece of legislation or in this case articles of impeachment. the rule establishes how you are going to play the game that day. how much time is going to be allocated for debate. what if any amendments are in order. looking at this, the key here is provision 3 which says there will be six hours of debate and also this is what we call a closed rule. if it s an open rule or somewhat open rule they allow some amendments and maybe some other opportunities for the other side to try to change the articles of impeachment
proof of that offense, as an old jury trial lawyer, you have to have convincing evidence in order to persuade people that the egregious act got committed. i m completely on board with that. my beef with this from the beginning has been that when you look carefully at this. i take what ken said because we ve all heard it for weeks now. i understand what they say the theory of how serious this was. but i think when you scrutinize what happened here, what happened here is nothing. at the end the ukrainians get their defense aid, zelensky doesn t have to promise to do any of these investigations, and you can t impeach a president over having a dirty mind. he has to have done something really egregious. bill: we re moving toward the rule that will introduce the resolution. i saw steny hoyer, we can drop in or squeeze in a commercial break.
bill: 10:00 in the new york city and 10:00 in the nation s capital. the motion to table the resolution put forward by kevin mccarthy of the republican party out of california. his motion will fail clearly. after that point we will move to introduce the rule that will set up debate that will take most of the day today into the early evening hours tonight. want to bring in two veterans of these matters. ed rollins and doug schoen here in new york. you re working on behalf of michael bloomberg, doug. how does this affect democrats voting on this today. what is your sense based on polling or people with whom you ve spoken. based on all the above, bill, what we re seeing is that this is not helping the democratic party. when you look at swing states