Is there every member of the committee who wishes to vote voted?

The clerk will report.

Mr. Chairman, there are 23 eyes and 17 nose. The article is agreed to. The resolution is amended as ordered reported favorably to the House.

Welcome to Talking Feds, a roundtable that brings together prominent former federal officials for a dynamic discussion of the most important legal issues of the day.

And it says, important and historic a day as they come. A few hours ago, the House Judiciary Committee voted out two articles of impeachment, accusing President Donald Trump of abuse of power and

contempt of Congress, urging his removal from office and sending the articles to the House floor, where it's widely anticipated they will pass making Trump the third president ever impeached.

The implications of this seismic event for our political system, the 2020 election, Trump himself, the main congressional actors like Schiff and McConnell and constitutional rule are immense.

And far from clear. I'm Harry Littman. I'm a former United States attorney and deputy assistant attorney general and a current Washington Post columnist.

We are going to jump right into it with a fantastic group of expert commentators who are as well suited as anyone I know to assess what will emerge from this historic development.

They are all returning contributors well known to listeners of this podcast. I'll just give their top line credentials which don't begin to capture their deep experience and sophistication with the political world of Washington DC.

First Natasha Bertrand, the National Security Correspondent at Politico. Thank you very much Natasha for rejoining talking feds.

Thank you.

Second Ron Claim General Counsel at Revolution LLC but former chief of staff to vice president Spiden and Gore and to attorney general Reno. Welcome back Ron.

Thanks for having me.

And Matt Miller, a partner of Viennowo and MSNBC contributor and a former director of public affairs at DOJ.

So look, let's just jump right in. We have on the one hand this debate of what seems to be as consequential presidential misconduct as the country has ever experienced.

And yet there's a flatness to it because it seems like the Republicans are remaining in lockstep and the likely outcome in the House as a whole as it was in committee is at least the Republicans will 100% stay in line.

Let me start there, you know, given the overwhelming proof and the gravity of the offenses, how have the Republicans been able to impose such total 100% discipline?

Are there no Republicans at all, either who think about country over party or whose political prospects might be aided by coming out against Trump?

Why have they been able to be so completely united here?

Well, they just don't seem to think that this is impeachable. I mean, they genuinely, even the moderate Republicans, even folks like Will Hurd who is retiring and who really has nothing to lose has told the Democrats that, you know, this call wasn't necessarily perfect, but we don't believe that it is impeachable conduct.

I think part of the reason for that that they're putting forward is that they say that no crime was committed. Now, of course, a crime is not necessary for a conduct to be impeachable, but that is the line that they've been sticking to and Mitch McConnell has been able to maintain a large degree of discipline in the Senate as well.

...