House Impeachment Managers Sit Down with CNN’s Anderson Cooper

Hello, welcome to ac360, a special report. I'm Anderson Cooper, I was in Washington for two weeks and we watched seven Democratic House

managers

make a case to convict President Donald Trump on two counts of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, from which they alleged the president withheld military aid. Ukraine and offered a White House meeting for Ukraine's new president-elect, all in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into President Truong's political rival, Joe Biden, and his son Hunter. We were watching history in the making. These seven

managers

presented their arguments only in favor of the third

impeachment

in history.

The trial was full of ups and downs for both sides, new evidence came to light, supposedly from former national security advisor John Bolton, as well as published recordings of the president. by a former associate of Rudy Giuliani, but a vote was held to call a new witnesses failed despite the support of two Republican senators when it came time to vote to convict or resign there was another surprise Republican Senator Mitt Romney voted with the Democrats on a charge of abuse of power in the end the president was acquitted of both charges his seven House managers Adam Schiff Jerry Nadler Val Deming Sylvia Garcia Jason Crowes Olaf Gran and Hakeem Jeffries are speaking tonight as a group for the first time since the president was acquitted, first of all, when you assume that everyone got newspapers when they woke up today and saw this.

I wonder when you saw the headline. I just saw it here for the first time. That you thought? What do I think now? Yes, I believe he has not been exonerated. What do you mean it's difficult to get an acquittal without a fair trial? This was the first

impeachment

trial in American history where we had no witnesses or documents and I think the American people realize that, because they know that as we sit here now there are thousands of Americans walking into courtrooms from all over the country and they will be sworn in and they will be jurors in trials and they will listen to witnesses and documents and they will wonder why Washington and Donald Trump should be any different and of course the answer is that it shouldn't and they understand that when the president says this It's a victory, he's been exonerated, you're saying no, this is exonerated, he hasn't been exonerated and this is the first impeachment trial in American history in which a senator from his own party voted to convict the president. .

We also knew that, given the nature of the Republican Party, which has become a complete follower of the leader, no matter what, they were never going to vote, no matter the evidence, they were never going to vote against the president, no matter what. what will happen. the evidence of that and we saw that you believed that going in, oh he absolutely believed it and then there were discussions that maybe we shouldn't do it because given the nature of the Republican Party they were never going to convict no matter what, but we had to do it because We had to set markers, you had to say that this behavior cannot be normalized, these types of things that this president has done cannot be done by him or by future presidents, you had to vindicate the Constitution, so we did it. and the fact that for the first time in American history there were people, senators voting to convict the president of their own party, was very, very important.

In fact, I thought a conviction was possible because our evidence was so strong and the activity involved. he was so wrong that you thought there would be more republicans willing to do it. Well, I was hopeful and I think what's interesting is that many of the senators said they thought what he did was wrong, we made our case, they just didn't want to vote. to remove him, so some of them hope that he will be punished and his behavior will improve. I hope, I mean the Gallup poll taken before the final vote showed a forty-nine percent approval rating among independents, it went up five points, I mean, it did this, but the impeachment backfired on the Democrats, going back to the acquittal part, I would consider it fake news because we didn't have a fair trial and I think of Robert Muller's words when he said if he could exonerate the president he would, but he couldn't exonerate. the president the evidence was again overwhelming against him many senators said we proved our case the evidence was clear and convincing and overwhelming the president is not the narrator today and you know in terms of the polls we were there to present the best case to the Senators and to the American people, I think we did, the fact that again Senator Romney, Senator Romney, was not siding with the Democrats or against the president, he was standing up for what he believed was right: defending the state of law and protect and defend the Constitution I am deeply religious, my faith is at the heart of who I am.

I take an oath before God because it is of enormous importance. I knew from the beginning that being tasked with judging the president, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I would make. I have ever faced I was not wrong mr. Romney Mr. Romney is guilty and that is why I believe that, although the numbers did not turn out as we would have liked, I believe that the people of Senator Ron Lee Romney, from a clear message not only to the American people but also to his fellow senators, also to German Shepherd, It was counterproductive, no.

I feel optimistic coming out of this trial, which may be counterintuitive, but the fact that senators and, in fact, a small number showed the kind of courage that they showed, senators like Mitt Romney, obviously, but also Jones, Joe Manchin and others, I think, lived up to the trust. The founders put it in our ability to have self-government that we could rise to the occasion and that's why I feel optimistic about the future. I think what Mitt Romney did in particular shows that one person can change the course of history. He will give strength to others who will learn that you can stand up to this president, you can even disagree with the leader of your party and be an example of courage for others.

I know I think in the future when we have difficult votes when they are asked to put country over party, we will see their example, so you know, I find the end of this trial with the surprise that it took the turn that it took with that vote brave, you said you faced your own party. voting is harder than facing the opposing party, well, you know, I think it's an aspect of political courage that is rarely understood by the public, but is understood by all elected officials and that's when they ask you to disagree with your adversaries. that's easy, when they ask you to disagree with your friends, it becomes very difficult.

Mitt Romney doesn't always have friends in the Republican Party today. I think he has millions of friends across the country and I think he has friends within. the Senate chamber who respect him and probably look at him with some envy because he had the courage to do what perhaps they did not do. Do you think other Republican senators wish they had done what Mitt Romney did or could have done? I address that speculation, but I think Impeachment was never about poll politics or personality disagreements with President Trump; it is about the precious nature of the Constitution;

In fact, as you know, George Washington observed in his farewell address to the nation that the Constitution is sacredly binding for all that it means to anyone and everyone. Since the beginning of this effort led by Chairman Schiff and Speaker Pelosi, we have been trying to vindicate the notion that in the United States no one is above the law, not even the President of the United States of America, Senator Vote Romney confirmed that sacred principle and there are millions of Americans, tens of millions of Americans across the country, who will be grateful to him in that sense and history will be grateful for the effort that Democrats and a Republican and others across the country have undertaken. .

Is there anything that can stop the president? from calling Rudy Giuliani and saying hey, you know, opening an office a couple blocks from here and then going back to Ukraine and asking Solinsky to announce the investigations. Biden, let's go to China, see what they can do, let's take a tour, just travel. throughout Europe and the rest of the world and launch investigations. Is there anything stopping you from doing it well? According to his lawyers, he can do that and more and he can do whatever he wants to get re-elected. Using our taxpayers' money as long as you think it's in the public interest, I mean, I think it's a very outlandish Lone Ranger view, but essentially it was that the argument is correct and if a president does something that he thinks will help him to be chosen from the public. interest that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment and I think that if he has it, if he surrounds himself with people like that who allow him to do what he wants, he will do what he wants and that is the danger because it is about the impact having our say in the 2020 election will have on our flight as voters and if you are seeking help from a net foreign country or more than one foreign country, any help from any foreign person means you are interfering with my free right I have my opinion, it diminishes my vote, it diminishes my role and it is contrary to the Constitution and everything we believe, it simply puts a dagger in the heart of our way of life and who we are as a country.

Herman, you were there during Watergate The Watergate hearings are the Republican Party very different than it was then in terms of its disposition, because in the end it was the Republicans who went to Nixon and said, look, this is, you don't have my vote, Barry Goldwater and others, well, you know. I remember Caldwell Butler, who is a Republican from rural Virginia, a very conservative man who was a big fan of President Nixon and ended up voting to impeach Nixon, but he said something - this is an exact quote, but something in the sense that this is in We, this is up to the Republicans to clean up and we never heard that in the House, but I think we heard from Senator Romney a statement of principle that the oath counts more than your party and that was inspiring to me now that it is receiving.

A lot of pain from the president on this, but I think when you do the right thing, when you honor your word and ultimately look at the facts, you will never worry about doing that and we didn't see enough of that. this time, but I have tremendous faith and confidence in our country and I know that voters will consider a variety of factors this fall, but one of the things that people care about is our Constitution, but in our country it is not based on our system. on checks and balances and having an equal branch of government that is willing and able to push back, it is, but there is a consequence that the voters themselves can meet through this failure of the system itself to function, this time there is I think there is a very fundamental difference between the Republican Party today and the one in 1973-74, during the Watergate affair, there were brave individuals like Caldwell Butler and Larry Hogan, who came out in favor of impeaching the president when the majority of Republicans voted to support the president. but when you remember, the Supreme Court ordered the tapes to be unsealed and the smoking tape came out as soon as the smoking tape came out and it revealed certain facts that all the Republicans said only if I had known about it a week ago.

I would have voted to convict the president and Barry Goldwyn, they all went to the president and said, "You're done, you didn't get a single vote." What was revealed on that tape was insignificant compared to what is absolutely proven now, and yet most of the Republican Party now refused to act, they were perfectly prepared, and to allow this kind of unconstitutional theft of a electorate becomes a stolen election when Trump's plane is worse than what Nixon did. Oh, much worse congressmen, Demings, you have a career in law enforcement. Chief of police in Orlando, you said that, I'm paraphrasing, that we hold police recruits to a higher standard than this president is held to, in addition to the physical requirement, what is the highest standard that must be met? a police recruit? so, the president of the United States right now, let me say this, what has been most shocking to me during this experience as a former law enforcement officer is that, as a law enforcement officer, when we present strong evidence we expect a conviction, not There is no one but me. or I believe in a person and I'm going to follow them off the cliff whether they're guilty or not, the fact that the senators didn't just ignore the evidence and then when they thought there was an additional witness who could come and testify or present evidence against the president, they refused to hear that witnesses, witnesses and evidence are the strength of a case, so when I think about the young police recruits as police chief when I hired them, one of the things that I wanted to make sure that they clearly understood that what was being advocated was, but the culture of the agency had toremain sincere that corruption could not reside in this place and we always expected them to be truthful, honest and treat people with dignity and respect.

Think about those qualities that the senators simply protected. person who is not sincere, who is not honest, who tried to cheat and makes fun of disabled people and people of color and separates families a police recruit from a police recruit a young police officer new to the department had done what the president did or she would have been fired John Bolton I wonder what you all think of the way John Bolton has handled John Bolton of this witness. I wonder what you all think of the way John Bolton has handled this. He has handled Wiggins' chess pieces.

Juan Pablo to his counsel after the senators rejected his testimony to see if he would be willing to present an affidavit under oath that would still be valuable during the trial even if he was not going to come to testify if he was not going to come to prove an affidavit when the affidavit and he refused now, he will have to explain at some point why he is willing to put this in a book, but not in a sworn affidavit. He's also doing each other's tracks, which also drops a bit of a commentary. If you know.

It is quite inexplicable but, frankly, it is more inexplicable that when he was willing to appear before the Senate, the senators did not want to listen to what he had to say and for those centers and there were some who said we did not want to pay attention to listen to John Bolton because basically the

house

proved the president was guilty even without him and we should let the voters decide they couldn't explain why they don't want the voters to know all the facts. Did Bolton's lawyers explain to him why he would do it? not even submit an affidavit not that I know of no nor why would I distinguish between testimony in the House and in the Senate it was a mistake not to quote him I knew he had indicated that he would not respond to us there is nothing it is a response from Torsen no, if we quote John Bolt would be in the same place with him nine months from now since we are with Don started today, which is that we still wouldn't have a final court ruling and the other thing I will say is that if we had done what The president wants you to believe , and it's a difficult argument for them, that the

house

should have gone to court when they were in court saying that the house is not allowed to go to court, but still, if we had taken the year or two years. go to court to try to force this testimony the senators the republican senators made it very clear that they would not care they already believed that the present is guilty we had already proven it with the evidence we have today if we were to prove it in a year and a half A As of now, with different evidence, there is no indication that there would have been any difference, but we would have run the risk of moving forward with these elections without the country knowing of the president's misconduct, without any effort being made to protect the integrity of our elections so I think I'm very comfortable with the decision that we made and the fact that we were able to prove the case even without these additional witnesses because the testimony that we already had is pretty overwhelming so when John Bolton's book comes out and have all the details it contains.

I mean, do you still want me to testify? Are there still warning rumors of German ads about him? Do you want to call him to testify? Do you want me to testify? We have not made any decision in this regard. What we wanted to do is go through the palette that just ended and then make a decision about the next steps and we will have to weigh the need to validate and vindicate the oversight power of Congress, on the one hand, with the continuing imperative that has always been our first priority and that is doing the business of the American government. people and our political agenda to make sure that people have access to health care and good jobs, so we will have to make that balance.

It was interesting Mitt Romney asked the lawyers a question during the trial, essentially: remember what? It was the day the president decided to withhold aid and how that was conveyed. The president's lawyers couldn't answer that question and to me that was extraordinary to think only on a historical basis, we have no idea really of the day-to-day timeline. I mean everyone did the best they could to rebuild and they were able to find a lot of information, but they are left with the president's, his lawyer can't say, oh yeah, I was honored that they didn't say it's not necessarily them. they couldn't say they wouldn't say we have to assume that the records that we requested that would show exactly that they had possession in some way they don't want Congress to see them they don't want the country to see them doesn't mean they haven't checked to see if those documents will ever come out. well, this is part of a larger problem which was actually article 2 of the impeachment of the impeachment not only did they try to hide every piece of evidence that could have a bearing on the president's misconduct the president sent a blanket order that no one from the executive branch should prove the fight before Congress no one should respond to any subpoena no one should give any information they called it absolute immunity which is nonsense now that means besides the fact that you are trying to cover up presenting evidence of their own misconduct it means that they are trying to make sure Congress doesn't have information about what the administration is doing.

Congress cannot function without information. It is our job as a co-equal branch of government to oversee what any administration does. do to find out what they're doing in child care or what they're doing in health policy or whatever and react to it and propose legislation to address it. The refusal to allow information to Congress is basically a declaration that we are going to govern without Congress and we are going to have to only have an executive dictatorship or evasions, that is what they would do in this case the evasions have worked and that is why we had the second article of impeachment to impeach him for abuse of power by trying to effectively eliminate any role from Congress by denying all information to Congress.

If it was a forever job, though yes, a couple of things are clear and I gathered from Senator Romney's question number one that he was really interested in getting to the facts. He asked legitimate questions about topics. I wanted to learn more about him, he wasn't trying to make political statements and you know I honor the way he did it. The second thing is that the truth will come out, whether it comes out and Ambassador Bolton's books are emailed in the future. You know, testimony from other people who were involved in this or some future releases from the administration, people will know that the Senate decided they didn't want to know the truth when it mattered most during this trial, but it will eventually come out.

Oh, it's There's a discussion about trying to go after the document, subpoena the documents and have it go through the courts and I mean it's not something that's in the public eye and it doesn't take away from the candidates that are running for president in the election campaign that they are you know they are not going to be asked about it all the time, it seems to me that you know that there is a discussion going on, as Adam said, but make sure that we in the majority of the House of Representatives continue to do what's right for the American people, focusing on reducing healthcare costs and implementing a real infrastructure plan to fix our crumbling bridges, roads, tunnels, airports, mass transit system, improve the lives of everyday Americans like we've been doing.

Since day one we passed over 400 bills 275 of them are bipartisan in nature maybe the Senate will start doing something about the legislation that is sitting there in a graveyard, at the same time we have this oversight responsibility as a separate and co-equal branch of government to continue, you know, follow the facts, apply the law, be guided by the Constitution. present the truth to the American people, all of this is unfolding in the context of a target who has executed, in regards to the Ukraine extortion plot, a cold-blooded cover-up that was largely exposed, but there is still information that They are withholding and we'll see what happens in that context, but as managers have repeatedly said, the truth will eventually come out.

Was it a mistake not to accuse bribery? I send a question to the desk. Senator Collins' question is for the managers of the house. The House Judiciary Committee report accompanying the articles of impeachment stated that the president committed criminal bribery as defined in 18 USC Section 201 and honest services fraud as defined in 18 USC Section 1346, but these crimes are not mentioned in the articles of accusation. alleged in the articles of impeachment constitute violations of these federal criminal laws, and if so, why were they not included in the articles? Was it a mistake not to accuse bribery? that there were several legal analysts that you know it's easy to look at someone else's case and say what they should have charged but who raised the question of why not actually charge them with bribery which would have been a real crime that might have satisfied some Republicans who They said that there is no crime, well, the Republicans who said that there is no crime are in ignorance.

The bribery was charged in the facts exposed in the charges. abuse of power, which is what the impeachment of the first article was, it is the main crime and not , I am not against the Penal Code but it is the crime that is the main crime for which a president can be impeached, is what the drafters meant behind high crimes and misdemeanors, but they would have discussed whether it complies with the section of the code, they would have said what you knew in the minds of the founders and why that is a reason not to cite bribery.

I'm saying no, the reason for not citing it is because we've always cited abuse of power, that's what high crimes and misdemeanors mean if you read the notes from the Constitutional Convention and then cite the facts in this case, it was brought by the Republicans. . they're saying he's trying to have the two things he's trying to do now, it's very different through the use of power and like a bribe can't take a bribe, it's no different than Nixon and really any of the procedures impeachment is a very high crime. and the lesser crime is abuse of power and then there are elements that may or may not be a crime.

In this case there was probably a crime of bribery, but that crime is not cited, that has been the pattern. The Republicans continue to move the goalposts on my Colleagues are absolutely right, it wouldn't have mattered, let's see where we started, the call was perfect, we did nothing wrong, but then we got off the call, it was perfect, we did nothing wrong and we certainly didn't there was quid pro quo and then it was fine. The procedure of the houses was screwed because they violated or did not give us due process and then it was oh no, I did it, there was a quid pro quo and then, what is overcome, it does not reach the level of impeachment and so on, while we were trying to present a case that would show all the facts to the American people that was not the goal of the republicans they came the president's advice they came with smoke and mirrors they did not come with facts and the truth they came with smoke and mirrors to make you believe it was us those of us who did something wrong and did not pay attention to the obvious and overwhelming evidence of the president's bad actions the other the other the other key fact here the key provision is that it has always been understood that crimes on the one hand and impeachable crimes, On the other hand, they are different, you can have a crime that is not impeachable, you can have an impeachable crime that is not a crime and the S of a impeachable crime, its abuse of power, impeachment is not the impeachment clause and the Constitution It was not there to punish crimes, that's why, that's why, that's why you can't imprison someone as a result of an impeachment or find him, the impeachment was put there as a protection of the Republic against the president who would add power from the eyes that had tried to subvert the Constitution. subvert the role of Congress to prevent protections and the drafters didn't mention specific crimes at all because you couldn't anticipate what a president might do in the future that a president might do what what what what what this president did or what a president might decide conspiring with Putin to give him Alaska back, those would certainly be impeachable, but there is no crime, he will not raise Hunter Biden and Burr Yzma, what was the idea of ​​raising Hunter before dinner?

You know what you all mentioned. Hunter Biden. and burr yzma one of the arguments that the Republicans made was that well, we didn't want to bring this up, we weren't going to bring this up and Bondy stood up, we'd rather not talk about this, we'd rather not discuss it. this, but the house managers have put this directly into question, so we must address it. Do you believe thatargument and we can't be what was the idea of ​​bringing Hunter to dinner? He already knows that the president tried to deceive Joe Biden because he was afraid that Joe Biden would defeat him in the election and the president's team used impeachment to try to achieve the same goal.

That's exactly what they, whether you had mentioned it or not, we didn't drink, we didn't mention it. did not mention the issue, the factual accusation against Ukraine was that the president attempted to use state power and withhold military aid that had been voted by Congress to Ukraine to get the Ukrainian government to announce a false bonus. investigation of the Bidens because they are his political opponents, he was using state power for his personal political gain, that was terrible and questionable because, for all the obvious reasons, you are using state power to try to get foreign help to interfere and cheating in the next election, okay, Republicans raised well, Hunter Biden did this with Berea, etc, etcetera, etcetera, completely irrelevant, completely relevant, what he did, I didn't do, had nothing to do with the Question, which one was it?

The president subverted the power of the government to help himself with his election by having the Ukrainian government prank his alleged opponent, it was just another distraction, as were some of the arguments that Miss Demi raised, I mean, It was another distraction, another distortion hunter. Biden was not on trial, the president of the United States was on trial. Damn, Joe Biden is a candidate, uh, I personally don't think so. But I guess he was president, Vice President Biden wasn't on trial nor was he bitten by a hunter and I think the public sees that, it was totally irrelevant and I don't think so.

It's going to be that way in the long run, but frankly, I've done it. I've been busy with the trial. I haven't really called a follow up, I mentioned Anderson. We never discussed this case in the context of how it affects the 2020 election except that we wanted to protect the country against foreign interference, so I think a lot of people watching would find it hard to believe that that wasn't at least part of this. , it was not our calculation at all and you know our job was to fulfill our constitutional duty to make the strongest case we can to inform the American people. of the president's gross misconduct and let the chips fall where they may and we can certainly understand why commentators and others would speculate about what the impact of impeachment will be, but that was not our job and really should not be a factor in our consideration. , so I don't know what the impact is yet and I guess we'll only know as time goes on, but the most important thing from our point of view was that this is a gift for the day after he felt he was exonerated by Bob Muller came back on the phone seeking foreign interference again and said he was willing to sacrifice our national security and the integrity of our elections to get help cheating in the next election and that we had to confront that behavior that Lamar Alexander Jr. and others have.

They have indicated that they believe the president has learned a lesson. Do any of you believe that he would not try to do this again? Joni Ernst Lamar Alexander have indicated and others have indicated that they believe the president has learned a lesson. Do any of you believe he wouldn't? try to do this again, yes, of course, you haven't learned your lesson because, as we pointed out repeatedly throughout the trial, Donald Trump is a serial lawyer when it comes to trying to solicit foreign interference in our elections, he requested foreign interference to the Russians. The foreign interference sought by the Chinese at the center of the scandal is that it attempted to solicit foreign interference by the Ukrainians to pressure an American citizen, Joe Biden, to raise his own personal political game as part of an effort to cheat in the next elections and absent. any consequence to the extent that you perceive the acquittal as an exoneration, it is an exoneration by faith, but to the extent that the president perceives it as a vindication of his bad behavior, his constitutional crime, his bad actions, then there is reason to believe that he will try to do it again. and that is one of our responsibilities, you know that moving forward will be like the guards of that investigation, but we are also going to have to trust the American people.

The best indicator of future performance is to look at past performance. Donald Trump, a habitual criminal, was in Florida during the campaign when he told Russia if you were listening and obviously they were and then the next day as has been indicated the day after the Special Prosecutor testified on the hill the president by phone invited another power to interfere in our elections and then when he gets caught, he steps up to the microphone, doubles down and invites China and reminds Ukraine that yes, they should investigate the Bidens. We have no reason to believe that this president would have learned anything if perhaps he had.

He would have started the State of the Union address the other night by apologizing to the American people because they know that what he did was wrong and he is sorry for it. We haven't heard that and we shouldn't expect to hear it. Do you think? If Mick Mulvaney, if Bolton, if he knows, let Parnas know, if there had been witness testimony, do you think he would have made any difference with the Republicans? Well, I'm not, I'm not a mind reader and I've learned that my crystal ball is broken. I'm very good at predicting the future, but in the midst of all the legal discussion here in the discussion about trial strategy and whether we should have done more of this or less of that, I think it is important that we do not lose sight of it. what is really happening what really happened and why am I here you know my career in the country's public service began as a soldier and I still remember every day when I wake up I still remember what it felt like to be the lieutenant in the in Baghdad and not have the support that my men and I needed.

You talk about it on the floor of armored vehicles. How alone we feel and how we feel forgotten. That distance between Washington DC and Baghdad, those thousands of kilometers, some days, seemed like millions. of miles and one of my goals here was to close that gap between the discussions that we have in Washington and the politics and the legal debates and in the political maneuvering that happens here in the real world, the bottom line consequences are that the President of the United States has shown us time and time again that he will always put his interests above the interests of the people he serves and is sworn to defend and that's what it's all about, you know, we have 68,000 American troops in Europe. that they are willing to defend our partner Ukraine and he was willing to withhold what that partner did in the war to benefit himself and people can't forget that he let us down too often and I have no hope that this time things will turn out improve and it's just I'm sorry that some senators can use words like it was embarrassing, it was inappropriate, it was wrong because he is and he has done it on so many other occasions, so he misled us and I think well, he was acquitted, he is not completely exonerated in Anderson, this president doesn't understand a soldier like Jason.

He doesn't understand a person who would leave his home to go fight in a foreign country for our freedoms. The police officer doesn't understand that he would risk their lives to save a stranger. He doesn't understand a police officer who would risk his own life to save a stranger. I understand a firefighter who would run into a burning building to risk his life to save a family. He doesn't understand members of Congress who take oaths from the heart. I think this president believes that all men and women can be bought. Could you please respond to the answer that the president's attorney just gave and provide any other comments that the Senate would benefit from hearing before we adjourn for the night there was a moment yes, as you know, the president was clearly watching all of this with pay close attention there was a time when you were president German and charming, you were getting up to speak German, Mr.

Hugh, said Jerry Jerry, the president said that you were fighting big, were you fighting big? No, but the president loves that division, not just in an effort, I think, in vain, to divide others. managers but he loves so much division in the country he loves to pit people against each other what happened at that moment well, you know, we tried to choreograph our questions so that each of us had a different topic and each of us knew when we were getting close to the microphone, you know, we couldn't do it perfectly, we were able to do it perfectly because some questions were repeated and some were in the middle of two.

I think Jerry knew that was going to be the last question of the night and that's why we crossed our signals, but I think, frankly, we were pretty perfect in terms of arranging for the members to be able to answer those questions in real time, that it was the belief that you knew it was the last thing you wanted to have. Lastly, no, you know, there are a lot of people who watch this and are depressed about the outcome. Obviously, there are many people in the country who are delighted with the results, as well as people who are sad and depressed, demoralized by the result. results of this and what they have seen, what do you tell them?

I mean, you've been living and breathing this for four years, but very intensely in the last few months, what do you say to people who say that? Look, I mean all the headlines today or the president has been acquitted. Those who believe he is guilty say he got away with it. Well, I would say that we have gone through much greater difficulties in our history. Let's get through this chapter the sooner the better. I believe that the actions we take today, including impeaching the president and trying him, will have the effect of slowing the country's momentum away from democracy until we return to normal and once again have an occupant of the Oval Office who has integrity.

You never fully realize how important character and the president are until you find out you've won without him, but I'm optimistic about the future of the country and we'll get through this. He would just add the impeachments behind us now, you know, my late father used to say. Don't worry, he organizes it, we have elections in November and the people themselves cannot accuse the president of this behavior. Thanks for your time. Yes, that was the first time since the trial ended that the House managers met to discuss the prosecution of the case against President Trump that's all for us thanks for watching