philip bump, and michael d antonio. good to have all three of you. philip, in terms of what today was, no surprise, but what does it tell us about what is likely to be true every step of the way? yeah. i mean it tells us exactly what you pointed out, which is that the democrats and republicans are at loggerheads. we saw absolutely no real discussion this afternoon, this evening of what the articles should contain. there was no sort of nuanced discussion of i think this point isn t made as effectively. you saw some concerns about what might be in there but beyond that, it was a lot of people giving speeches that were really political speeches and focused at highlighting the divide between the two parties. sensenbrenner is an interesting one to bring up because if you want to do a little touch of homework, look at what he said during clinton versus today. yeah. i mean i think, though, that that s going to be in short supply to your point. tomorrow there s going to be a lot of amend
mr. swallow. votes no. mr. raskin votes no. miss deming votes no. mr. correggio votes no. ms. scanlan votes no. ms. garcia votes no. mr. negus votes no. miss mick bass votes no. mr. stanton votes no. ms. dean votes no. ms. mcardle powell votes no. ms. escobar votes no. mr. collins votes i mr. sensenbrenner votes aye. mr. gomer both i. mr. jordan votes he asked. mr. buck votes aye.
security. we do not take this lightly. we take it very seriously. i beg to differ with my dear friend as one who was here for the impeachment proceedings in 1998 along with my colleagues mr. sensenbrenner and others. let me be clear of the distinctive difference that we had then at that time. for the american people, the special prosecutor was an independent statute that allowed both during the nixon proceedings and mr. starr to have an independent process of investigation. the congress was not privy to any of that investigation. at all. they proceeded, they were not interfered with, as mr. mueller was by the d.o.j. because he was an employee of the department of justice and his
precedent we have indicates that a point of order does not lie to delay consideration of articles of impeachment finally, past judiciary committee practice and precedent don t support the gentleman s point of order. last year a number of other members and i sent then chairman goodlatte a minority day request. the chairman never responded to our request and never scheduled a hearing. i don t believe a single member of that majority argued in favor of us being allowed our hearing. then chairman sensenbrenner scheduled a minority day hearing but cut off witnesses, shut off the microphones and lights and ended the hearing while members were seeking recognition to speak. again, no one in the majority argued in favor of protecting our rights. no committee practice or precedent supporting the gentleman s point of order. i do not sustain the point of order. mr. chairman. what purpose does the
there were some quite a few depositions that were private. but there was a lot of public testimony it wasn t before the judiciary committee, it was before the senate watergate committee. as you ll recall the president s counsel, john dean, appeared and testified there was a cancer on the presidency and a number of other revelation that there was a recording system in the white house. all of that happened in the senate. and the fact that it happened in the senate didn t mean that the judiciary committee didn t know about it. the whole country knew about it. and took notice of it. there is only a few members of this committee that were on the judiciary committee during the clinton impeachment. i was one of them. ms. jackson lee and mr. nadler were as well as mr. sensenbrenner and the gentleman from ohio. we had a report from mr. starr.