michael barbaro

From The New York Times, I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.” Today —

archived recording (nancy pelosi) The question is on the adoption of the resolution.

michael barbaro

— 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.

archived recording (nancy pelosi) Those in favor, please say aye. archived recording Aye.

michael barbaro

Julie Davis on what that phase will actually look like.

archived recording (nancy pelosi) Those opposed, say no. archived recording No.

michael barbaro

It’s Friday, November 1.

archived recording Washington, D.C., is once again at the intersection of history on this Halloween morning, October 31, 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. House.

michael barbaro

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?

julie hirschfeld davis

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.

michael barbaro

Right, because what they have been doing has not been public.

julie hirschfeld davis

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.

michael barbaro

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?

julie hirschfeld davis

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.

michael barbaro

In other words, these Democrats are already on the diving board. They might as well just leap into the pool.

julie hirschfeld davis

That’s right. There’s another reason, though.

archived recording 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 moneymaking opportunities.

julie hirschfeld davis

There’s been revelation after revelation, bombshell testimony, that have produced some really damaging information about the president —

archived recording 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.

julie hirschfeld davis

— and really confirmed some of the underlying aspects of the whistle-blower complaint that started all this about his pressure campaign on Ukraine. And that is what the public has 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, O.K., well, if you want an official vote, here’s your official vote.

archived recording [GAVEL SLAMMING] The House will be in order.

michael barbaro

O.K. So that brings us to Thursday morning. Give us the scene inside the House.

julie hirschfeld davis

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.

archived recording (nancy pelosi) For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts seek recognition?

julie hirschfeld davis

And then she yields to Jim McGovern, who’s the chairman of the Rules Committee —

archived recording (jim mcgovern) Madame Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House resolution 660 and ask for its immediate consideration.

julie hirschfeld davis

— which is the committee that has drawn up this resolution laying out the impeachment rules.

archived recording (nancy pelosi) The clerk will report the resolution. archived recording House calendar number 52, House resolution 660.

julie hirschfeld davis

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.

archived recording Upon recognition by the chair for such purpose under this paragraph, during any hearing designated pursuant to paragraph one —

michael barbaro

Right. And I was watching this, and this is pretty dense stuff.

archived recording Notwithstanding clause 2J2 of rule 11 —

julie hirschfeld davis

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.

archived recording — 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.

julie hirschfeld davis

They’re saying, we recognize that this is going on. Here are the rules for the coming impeachment proceeding.

archived recording One, the chair of the permanent —

julie hirschfeld davis

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.

michael barbaro

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.

julie hirschfeld davis

Right. And this is a very different case, where you have an allegation that actually was initially sent. The whistle-blower 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.

michael barbaro

Right. These rules reflect what House Democrats believe is a reality, that if the Trump administration won’t investigate the whistle-blower’s complaint, won’t investigate this call with the president of Ukraine, then we will.

julie hirschfeld davis

Right. And also, an acknowledgment 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.

archived recording (jim mcgovern) Madame Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. —

michael barbaro

O.K. So once these nitty-gritty guidelines are laid out, what happens next?

julie hirschfeld davis

So what happens next is a very passionate 45-minute debate —

archived recording (doug collins) This is a dark day, and a cloud has fallen on this House.

julie hirschfeld davis

— between Republicans and Democrats over this resolution. It’s not about the chapter and verse of the parliamentary details. But it’s really about the impeachment inquiry itself.

archived recording (steve scalise) 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 — archived recording Gentleman’s time’s expired. archived recording (steve scalise) — you’ll see bipartisan rejection of this resolution. archived recording Gentleman from Massachusetts — archived recording (steve scalise) And I yield back the balance of my time.

julie hirschfeld davis

So the Republicans say that this process has been broken from the very beginning. It’s tainted.

archived recording (jim jordan) Trying to put a ribbon on a sham process doesn’t make it any less of a sham. archived recording (debbie lesko) This impeachment process is a total sham.

julie hirschfeld davis

You’ve been conducting these hearings in secret.

archived recording (debbie lesko) The resolution continues — the closed door meetings that blocks entry to members of Congress and prohibits the president’s due process rights.

julie hirschfeld davis

You’ve not been fair to us, and you’ve not been fair to the president.

archived recording (liz cheney) — so far. 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.

julie hirschfeld davis

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 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.

archived recording (michael mccaul) 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.

julie hirschfeld davis

They’re also basically saying that —

archived recording (devin nunes) 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.

julie hirschfeld davis

Let’s be honest here, Democrats, you have wanted to get rid of President Trump since he was sworn in, since he was elected.

archived recording (devin nunes) 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.

julie hirschfeld davis

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 —

archived recording (kevin mccarthy) Why do you not trust the people? Why do you not allow the people to have a voice?

julie hirschfeld davis

You have no right to come in here and start this process that essentially nullifies an election.

archived recording (doug collins) 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.

julie hirschfeld davis

And finally, Republicans said that 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.

michael barbaro

And Julie, is that true? I noticed several of these House Republicans saying —

archived recording (tom cole) 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.

michael barbaro

— 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?

julie hirschfeld davis

It is accurate for 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.

archived recording (jim mcgovern) Madame 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.

michael barbaro

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.

julie hirschfeld davis

Right. So the Democrats are trying to make a very somber case about this being not a political process but really, their duty as people who have taken an oath to the Constitution.

archived recording (jerry nadler) 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.

julie hirschfeld davis

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 —

archived recording (hakeem jeffries) We don’t work for this president or any president. We work for the American people.

julie hirschfeld davis

— to dig into what happened and uphold the Constitution. And this is, they’re saying, the only way to do it.

archived recording (hakeem jeffries) We have a constitutional responsibility to serve as a check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch.

julie hirschfeld davis

They also really take aim at the way the president and Republicans have targeted the witnesses so far who have appeared behind closed doors.

archived recording (james clyburn) 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.

julie hirschfeld davis

These people are serving their country. They’re upstanding people and essentially defending the nuts and bolts of what they’re learning here in this inquiry.

archived recording (mark desaulnier) After today, there are no more excuses for those who want to ignore the facts and instead — of 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.

julie hirschfeld davis

So essentially, trying to make it really hard to dismiss the revelations that have come out so far and promoting their own role in having brought that all forth. And as the debate is wrapping up, Speaker Nancy Pelosi gets up to speak.

archived recording (nancy pelosi) I thank the gentleman for yielding. And Madame Speaker, thank you for the recognition.

julie hirschfeld davis

She has a placard next to her of the American flag.

archived recording (nancy pelosi) 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.

julie hirschfeld davis

And she talks about the legislative branch and what their role is.

archived recording (nancy pelosi) And the genius of that Constitution was the separation of powers. Any usurping of that power is a violation of our oath of office.

julie hirschfeld davis

And clearly, the case that she’s making is that impeachment is a constitutional endeavor.

archived recording (nancy pelosi) 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.

julie hirschfeld davis

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 wraps up, and she says, what is at stake is nothing less than our democracy.

archived recording (nancy pelosi) And that is how we will honor our oath of office. I urge an aye vote and yield back the balance of my time. archived recording Gentlelady yields back.

michael barbaro

Julie, 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.

julie hirschfeld davis

I think what we saw was two parties 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 talking past and around each other about what is really going on here.

archived recording I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I yield back my time, and I move the previous question of the resolution.

michael barbaro

So once these speeches are all done, what happens next?

julie hirschfeld davis

So after all the speeches are over, there is a procedural vote, where Republicans essentially tried to block the resolution from coming up altogether. And that fails. And then it’s time for the big vote.

[music]

julie hirschfeld davis

Guys, I’m getting called by the desk. I think I’m —

michael barbaro

Are you going to —

julie hirschfeld davis

I might have to jump.

michael barbaro

O.K. You think you’ll be able to come back in? And we probably —

julie hirschfeld davis

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.

michael barbaro

O.K. Cool.

julie hirschfeld davis

O.K.

michael barbaro

Bye. We’ll be right back. So Julie, what happens in his vote?

julie hirschfeld davis

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.

archived recording (nancy pelosi) The question is on the adoption of the resolution. Those in favor, please say aye.

julie hirschfeld davis

And she essentially asks for the yeas and nays.

archived recording Aye. archived recording (nancy pelosi) Those opposed, say no. archived recording No.

julie hirschfeld davis

And then Republicans ask for a roll call vote.

archived recording Madame Speaker — archived recording (nancy pelosi) Resolution is adopted. The gentleman — archived recording On that, I would request the yeas and nays.

julie hirschfeld davis

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.

archived recording (nancy pelosi) This is a five-minute vote, colleagues. A five-minute vote.

julie hirschfeld davis

The whole gallery at this point is filled with members of the public who are there to witness this historic vote. And —

archived recording (nancy pelosi) 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.

julie hirschfeld davis

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.

michael barbaro

And who are those two Democrats? And were they expected to oppose it?

julie hirschfeld davis

The two Democrats were Collin Peterson, a congressman from Minnesota, and Jeff Van Drew, who’s from New Jersey. Collin Peterson has 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. Collin 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.

michael barbaro

So this is as partisan and party line a vote as you can have in Congress.

julie hirschfeld davis

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.

michael barbaro

So now that these rules have passed in the House, and the impeachment inquiry is operating in this new phase, under these new guidelines, what does that actually look like?

julie hirschfeld davis

The hope is that they can move very quickly to public hearings. And those would feature some of the witnesses we’ve seen appearing behind closed doors, like Ambassador Bill Taylor, who is the top diplomat in the Ukraine, Fiona Hill, Gordon Sondland, and there is 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 being bent in the interests 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.

michael barbaro

It sounds like this is going to be a type of congressional hearing we’re not really used to seeing.

julie hirschfeld davis

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.

michael barbaro

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.

julie hirschfeld davis

Right. They would then have formally charged the president. And the impeachment articles would move to the Senate for a trial.

michael barbaro

Julie, if you are the House Democratic leadership, I wonder, does what happened on Thursday look like a pretty successful strategy that’s finally come to life? Or is this just a massively risky political wager for the Democrats that could end up jeopardizing their majority in the House, make it impossible for them to retake the Senate, and maybe even complicate their chances of winning the White House?

julie hirschfeld davis

I think it is a massively risky endeavor for Democrats. But I also think 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.

michael barbaro

So Julie, how should we think about the significance of what ended up happening today in the House of Representatives?

julie hirschfeld davis

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 is 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.

michael barbaro

Right. It feels like, in a way, there’s no going back, at this point.

julie hirschfeld davis

That’s right.

[music]

julie hirschfeld davis

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.

michael barbaro

Thank you, Julie.

julie hirschfeld davis

Thank you, Michael.

michael barbaro

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 —

archived recording (katie hill) 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.

michael barbaro

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 a 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.

archived recording (katie hill) 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.

michael barbaro