tv Inside Politics CNN January 16, 2020 9:00am-10:00am PST
with the articles, and the senate just rejected them, they wouldn't accept them at that time. they said come back tomorrow. >> i don't think that was a question of rejecting the articles. the first step that had to be taken was the house formally notifying the senate that they had adopted articles of impeachment. and that's a message. that message is usually carried by a messenger and it's almost always delivered off the floor without any ceremony. this is a circumstance regarding some ceremony, and once again, laura dove, the secretary for the majority, announced the house managers and they did state that the house had adopted articles of impeachment and they were notifying the senate. the senate's impeachment rules provide that the secretary of the senate shall notify the house immediately when those articles are to be, quote, exhibited. and so the notification is immediate, but the exhibition isn't. and a decision was made -- and
this is somewhat standard. the decision was made that these articles would be exhibited today at this hour. so there was no need to actually leave the articles themselves in the senate chamber. frankly, the articles needed to be read by the managers, so it makes sense under these circumstances the message having been delivered that the articles had been adopted, the senate saying, pursuant to its rules, we'll let you know when we want you to exhibit these, which they did. it makes sense for the managers to take the articles, take them back, hold onto them, not lose them, which would be a bad thing. then they would have nothing to read on the floor of the senate. >> i don't think we should lose sight of the history of what we're about to see. yes, it's very carefully staged and choreographed. as alex was pointing out, all sorts of specific details, but this is only the third time in american history we'll see this unfold. >> that's right.
some people ask me, are you forgetting about richard nixon? richard nixon resigned, he was never formally impeached. there are others who fear impeachment will become a political weapon, not saying as some democrats do as well, we're now living under our second phase. >> a lot of people covered that bill clinton impeachment trial. 21 years ago, you and i were there. john, we remember it very differe vividly, we remember it unfolding, but there are things different this time. >> it is eerily strange how the trump administration is tracking the calendar, if you will. it looks very unlikely, unless this trial goes tolike bill clinton's did, and no one expects it to, it could happen
in the back half of his impeachment trial. however, he did also lie to a grand jury. this is about the allegation that this current president abused his power by using the levers and powers and authority of government for personal and political gain. so the allegations are very different. what's also similar is that heading into the clinton senate trial, it was pretty clear the math was not there, that the president of the united states was not going to be convicted and removed from office. the math seems pretty clear in this case with a republican majority that this president, barring something any of us could predict, will be barred and removed from office. the other question is the question of witnesses. the republicans wanted witnesses. they wanted to put monica lewinsky in live testimony. >> here they begin the formal walkover through the statutory hall, through the capital
rotunda from the house of representatives to the senate. >> jerry nadler of judiciary. zoe lofgren from california, this is her third impeachment. she was a california staffer during the nixon impeachment and she was here for bill clinton. this is a very diverse group in every sense of the word, except, of course, idealogically, and they come from all over the country, including a freshman from colorado, a congresswoman from texas, a congresswoman from florida. >> paul irving, the house sergeant of arms, is leading that delegation, leading the procession, the formal delegation, through the rotunda and statutory hall on to the senate. >> that's right, and we saw these same folks doing a processional yesterday. the group said several people, and jake was talking about how diverse it was, six lawyers, and one law official was a chief of
police down in orlando. john is laying out some of the similarities with the timeline from the clinton impeachment. what is different here is you're going to have people who are running for president who are going to have to be glued to their seats for weeks on in as they're competing for the democratic nomination. they could actually be in the senate as folks are going to vote on february 3rd in iowa. >> and i mentioned last night, and it's happening again now, they just walked past the old senate chamber where, until they built this one they're going to walk into, is where the senate met. and 21 years ago, 100 senators sat in that chamber and agreed, in a bipartisan way, on the rules of impeachment. it's such a different time now on almost every issue. >> trent long, who was the republican leader, and tom dashell, the democratic leader, had such a better working
relationship. i would say everyone had a better relationship than chuck schumer and amitch mcconnell. >> this is the trump impeachment of the united states. the sergeant in arms will present the managers on the part of the house of representatives. >> mr. president, i announce the senators, the managers on the part of the house of representatives, to conduct proceedings on behalf of the house concerning the impeachment of donald j. trump, president of the united states. >> on the part of the house, it will be received and escorted to the senate.
present and are ready to present the articles of impeachment against president trump, president of the united states. house resolution 798, appointing and authorizing managers for the impeachment trial of donald john trump, president of the united states. resolve that mr. schiff, mr. nadler, ms. lo dprks orklofgren jeffries, mr. demmings, mr. crow and ms. garcia are here to present the articles to the president of the united states, and that the managers, self-appointed, may in conduct of the trial exhibit articles of impeachment to the senate and take all other actions necessary, which may include the following: employing legal,
clerical and other necessary assistance and incurring such other expenses as may be necessary to be paid for amounts to the committee under a judiciary of applicable expense resolutions or from the applicable house of representatives. number two, sending for persons and papers and filing for secretary of senate on the part of the house of representatives any pleadings in conjunction with or subsequent to the exhibition of the articles of impeachment that the managers may consider necessary t. with the permission of the senate, i will now read the articles of impeachment house resolution 755. house resolution 755. impeaching donald john trump, president of the united states for high crimes and misdemeanors. resolve resolved that donald j. trump, presidents of the united states, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the
following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the united states senate. articles of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives of the united states of america in the name of itself and of the people of the united states of america against donald john trump, president to the united states of america, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. article 1. abuse of power. the constitution provides that the house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that the president shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. in his conduct of the office of the president of the united states, and in violation of his constitutional oath, faithfully to execute the office of president of the united states,
and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, donald j. trump has abused the powers of the presidency in that using the powers of his high office, president trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, ukraine, in the 2020 united states presidential election. he did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the government of ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent and influence the 2020 united states presidential election to his advantage. president trump also sought to pressure the government of ukraine to take these steps by
conditioning official united states government acts of significant value to ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. president trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. in so doing, president trump used the powers of the presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the united states and undermined the integrity of the united states democratic process. he thus ignored and injured the interests of the nation. president trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means. number 1, president trump acting directly and through his agents within and outside the united states government, corruptly solicited the government of ukraine to publicly announce investigations into, a, a political opponent, former vice
president joseph r. biden jr., and b, a discredit of theory promoted by russia, alleging that ukraine, rather than russia, interfered in the 2016 united states presidential election. number 2, with the same corrupt motives, president trump acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the united states government conditioned two official acts on the public announcement that he had requested. a, the release of $391 million of united states taxpayer funds that congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to ukraine to oppose russian aggression, and which president trump had ordered suspended. and b, a head of state meeting at the white house which the
president of ukraine sought to demonstrate continued united states support for the government of ukraine in the face of russian aggression. number 3, faced with a public revelation of his actions, president trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the government of ukraine, but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal, political benefit. these actions were consistent with president trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in united states elections. in all of this, president trump abused the powers of the presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal, political benefit. he has also betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in
corrupting democratic elections. wherefore, president trump by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to security and the constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. president trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removement from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the united states. article 2. obstruction of congress. the constitution provides that the house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment, and that the president shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. in his conduct in the office of
the president of the united states, and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of president of the united states, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, donald j. trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the house of representatives pursuant to its sole power of impeachment. president trump has abused the power of the presidency in a manner offensive to and s subversive of the constitution, in that they have committed sole corruption with ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election. the committee has undertaken an
investigation, seeking subpoenas and document testimony deemed vital to the various executive branch agencies and offices and current and former officials. in response, without lawful cause or excuse, president trump directed executive branch agencies, offices and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. president trump thus interposed the power of the presidency against subpoenas of the house of representatives and assumed for himself functions and judgments necessary to exercise the sole power of impeachment vested by the constitution in the house of representatives. president trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means. number 1, directing the white house to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the
committees. number 2, directing other branchs and offices to defy subpoenas and withholding documents from the committees which include the department of state, the office of management and budget, the department of defense refused to produce a single document or record. number 3, directing current and former office officials not to cooperate with the committees, in response to which nine administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, mainly john mick mulvaney, robert d. blair, john a. eisenberg, russell ellis, russell t.vot, brian mccormick and t.brechtal.
these actions were consistent with president trump's previous efforts to undermine foreign investigatio investigations. through these actions, the president gave to himself the right to interfere in his own conduct, to deny any information to the house of representatives in recognition of its sole power of impeachment. in the history of the republic, no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so kpre comprehensikpren comprehensively the ability to represent high crimes and misdemeanors. this served to cover up the president's misconduct, to control the power of
impeachment, and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the house of representatives. in all of this, president trump acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the united states. wherefore, president trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the constitution if allowed to remain in office. and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. president trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office and disqualification to hold or enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit in the
united states. mr. president, that completes the exhibition of the articles of impeachment against donald john trump, president of the united states. the managers request that the senate take order for the trial. the managers now request leave to withdraw. >> thank you, mr. schiff. the senate will duly notify the house of representatives when it is ready to proceed to trial. >> and that is expected to be tuesday morning when the senate will actually proceed to trial, although at 2:00 eastern, jake, we expect the chief justice of the united states supreme court to come over, be sworn in as well as the 100 members of the u.s. senate. you see the house managers are walking out of the u.s. senate. the senate will then proceed with their business. but this is a truly historic moment. >> it is a moment. it's a somber moment. >> let's listen to mitch mcconnell.
>> the chief justice of the united states will preside over the trial as required in articl united states constitution. also under the previous order, the presiding officer has been authorized to appoint a committee of four senators, two upon the recommendation of the majority leader and two upon the recommendation of the democratic leader to escort the chief justice into the senate chamber. i ask that the presiding officer do so now. >> the chair, pursuant to order, january 15, 2020, on behalf of the majority leader and the democratic leader, appoints mr. blount of missouri, mr. leahy of vermont, mr. graham of south carolina and mrs. feinstein of california to escort the chief justice of the united states into the senate chamber. >> so for further information,
there will be a meeting at 2:00 p.m. today and the senate stands in recess subject to the call of the chair. >> without objection, the senate stands in recess subject to the call of the chair. >> the senators now in recess. chief justice john roberts will be sworn in in about an hour and a half or so, 2:00 p.m. eastern. we heard the formal presentation. of all 100 members of the senate, they will be sworn in as well even though the formal trial won't begin until tuesday. >> it's an incredibly somber moment. i do believe that there are democrats who only came to this reluctantly. after the moral report, there was not a groundswell in dem graphs to please. but i think that anybody who is trying to look at this objectively, people can disagree
whether or not this rises to the level. people can be arguing whether witnesses should be the presid accused to have committed are worth examining or trying to be partial about. that just doesn't pass the smell test. john king? >> the key facts here as of this moment are not really in dispute. the president attacked the character, he attacked the secondhand knowledge of some of the witnesses presented on the house side. but the president's own call which he calls perfect, he talked to the president of ukraine about an investigation into joe biden and he said to keep to touch with rudy giuliani and the attorney general of the united states. all the evidence from around that and the weeks before and the weeks after, made clear, as you said.
what's fascinating now is going through the procedure of getting the trial underway. the chief justice will say something this afternoon. that will be fascinating. he was at the top of the clinton impeachment trial. but then the president's team finally gets a chance. they declined to come to the house judiciary proceeding. >> they had a chance. >> they had a chance there. they decided to wait until they were in a republican-controlled chamber. they did not want to make a case when the democrats had a trial. listen to trump officials. listen to the deposition of fiona hill. listen to officials questioning the legality, saying the president was holding up this aid. you can't say this is acceptable. you can make an argument this is an impeachable defense. is that all the president will do, or will he challenge facts? >> some key administration
officials on the record have admitted quid pro quo. we had gordon sondland saying, was there a quid pro quo? holding up a meeting with president trump in the oval office in exchange for the announcement of these investigations, yes, there was. we had mick mulvaney who refused to testify. mick mulvaney said the aid was held up, at least in part, for the promise of an investigation into this discredited conspiracy theory that ukraine hacked into the dnc servers into 2016, not russia. two administration players on the record already admitting a quid pro quo to a degree. >> that's right. and what we saw for the month or so of the hearings and so forth in the house was it was a lotta. and what we've already seen theseen house managers start to do is to streamline, is to con dense a c
condense and make the arguments, as you said, as cogent as possible. i don't think i remember hearing jerry nadler and other house democrats talk about the case they are going to present, and we're going to see and hear that in a way that they can put their best evidence forward. and all of the other noise that we heard during the hearings and the distractions will not be there, because the jurors, the 100 senators, have to sit silently and listen. >> and nia, adam schiff, the chairman of the intelligence committee, was very somber, very serious. he read these two articles of impeachment, abuse of power by the president of the united states, obstruction of congress by the president of the united states, repeatedly saying that the president of the united states engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors, which the u.s. constitution says is the reason for our president potentially to be impeached. and if convicted in the senate removed from office. >> that's right, and dana talks
about the distidistillation of in a way that the american people can understand, right? there are really two juries here. there are 100 people making the decision. there is some indication we know what will happen, that they won't get enough republicans to come over and kick the president out of office. that seems to be a certainty. what is still uncertain is where the american public will fall. we've seen some polling, maybe it's split in terms of what should happen, should this president remain in office or should he be removed. that's why it's important that nancy pelosi pick who has experience in the courtroom, and adam schiff particularly is very good at that. >> she picked courtroom lawyers, essentially, plus val demmining is a former police chief.
so as they present documents and video clips from the former impeachment hearings, they'll say, we got this email from the office of management and budget that backs this up. the president's team could object at this point. it's not in the official impeachment record. should we bring that in? there were two lawyers with them. they can say they want to include this, and the other side can object. what does the chief justice do? if he says, i think it should be allowed, tuesday becomes huge. >> the chief justice can do that, the senators can object, and then it goes to a vote of 51 senators, or the chief justice can say, that's not my role, we
need a vote. and then the chief can rule on these questions of evidence initially, and any ruling the chief makes under the impeachment rules is subject to appeal. appeals are phrased, shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate? so the chief says the evidence is in and the appeal is convicted and a vote. >> very interesting. ly we went through this object yuls. senator tam referred to the 100 senators as jurors, because as
you just heard, they have more power than a jury. they get to make decisions like jurors. listen to mr. harkin. >> i object to the continued use of the word "jurors" when referring to the senate sitting as triers, a trial on the impeachment of the president of the united states. >> the senator from iowa's objection is well taken, that the senate is simply not a jury, it is a court in this case. and, therefore, counsel should refrain from referring to senators as jurors. >> michael gerhartd, the reason he made that objection is a jury will impact the life of only one man, whereas the u.s. senate is setting standards for the united states of america when it comes
to presidential behavior. >> that is exactly right. and senator harkin made that point, and i think quite significantly, the chief justice who presided over that trial, rehnquist, agreed with him. in fact, senator hamilton referred to them as judges in this trial, not jurors. they are correct that senators have critical power in this trial. the chief justice only ha power to the extent that at least 61 senators support him. otherwise it's up to the court. it's not held up in the president of the united states. >> i wanted to ask you a
question. what are the standards, then, if the senate decides to acquit president trump? what are the standards that will be set? what does it mean for the next president if president trump, given all the evidence we have, is acquitted. >> a simple majority can impeach the president of the united states, but it takes two-thirds of a jury in the senate to impeach. there are 53 republicans, 47 democrats. dana, you watch this as closely as anyone. is there any way, knowing what we know right now, that 67 centimeters will vote in favor of conviction? >> you put a key phrase in there. knowing what r we know now. if, in the interim, 51 senators
vote to allow witnesses that change minds, if 51 documents are open to change bids. >> you said this before. what is so ush if r flt is that it is happening in an election year when the president of the united states is on the ballot. so the court of public opinion is as important as the jurors/senators in that trial. >> and when the republi mcconne understands anything he does could affect his job, could affect the political climate in the country. that's what makes this so unique and so different. even if all 47 democrats stay together, do you think in an election where public republica
majority is at risk, in a republican majority where he leads the ticket and he leads the organization, that is just a fact. you may think we're supposed to make these decisions separate of the political calendar. we cannot. other big difference is president clinton was tried at this point. he wasn't for months. he lied to the american people, he lied in his deposition of the paula jones case, but at this point, president trump was c contrite. he was asking america not to convict him. i get it. as this plays out, it will be fascinating. if four or five republicans side with the democrats and some new evidence is brought in, how does the president react? we'll be having live commentary from the current president of the united states, the defendant, if you will, during the trial. we didn't have that during the clinton days, he mostly kept his head down. >> and there was no twitter. >> there was no twitter.
>> the president's favorite mode of expression. i think we've seen from republicans so far that they have by and large gone along with this president. even the people we say, it sounds there's a question. >> we can't go along with this and say it's time to choose with republicans. they have chosen in the past to cast their lot with this president who has taken over, probably a hostile takeover, of the republican party. if you're someone like susan collins, why would you risk breaking from this president? >>. that's a political calculation. unless thoept make a. you stick with your politics.
with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. and now for their service to the community, we present limu emu & doug with this key to the city. [ applause ] it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. and now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ]
only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ welcome back. the senate has formally begun the impeachment trial of the united states. manu raju up on capitol hill. manu, you're monitoring this as closely as anyone and you have a special guest. >> reporter: yeah, we're speaking to former democratic candidate kamala harris. you were sitting in the chamber. obviously you called for the president to be impeached, you support his impeachment. as you approach this, is there any way you would actually vote to acquit this president? >> i take seriously the oath i'm about to take this afternoon to do impartial justice, and i am fully prepared to follow the facts and the evidence where they lead. and i think the most important thing is that this is a process that allows for all of the available evidence to be present
before the senate so that we can have an outcome that reflects fairness and justice. and that means bringing forward before the senators all documents and all live witnesses that are available for us to make a decision about what happened. >> and of course, some new information has come out in the last couple days. lev parnas coming forward. do you think the democrats should push to get lev parnas to testify before the senate impeachment trial? >> i think we need all evidence so we can figure it out and make a decision that reflects a fair process. any attempt to limit our ability to have the evidence that is available, i think, is not in pursuit of justice and will not be respected by the american people. >> do you think, though, that parnas is one person who you could consider as a possible witness? >> yeah, i think there are many
people. but let's just start with those witnesses that we know have been subpoenaed, are available, willing to testify and have not been available to us. i have called john bolton to come before us, mick mulvaney should come before us. there are a number of people, even as adam schiff read the articles of impeachment, that have not been made available to this process. >> some republicans want a deal that you have republican witnesses come forward in addition to democratic witnesses. would you let joe biden testify in addition to john bolton? >> it has to have relevancy. otherwise you could say i want santa claus so testify, right? it means people who have firsthand information that will help the united states senate in its role as jurors determine where the facts and the evidence lie in a way that allows us to make the decision we ultimately
must make. >> reporter: you're here now as a senator, but you're also a former presidential candidate. do you ev do you have any thoughts about this spat that has occurred between elizabeth warren and bernie sanders where apparently elizabeth warren was told by bernie sanders that a woman can't become president? >> i think as a former candidate running as president of the united states, i will tell you my one area of focus, and i believe all our collective area of focus, needs to be on the misconduct by donald trump in terms of what he has done passing a tax bill that only benefit the top 1% in our country, allowing his administration to stand in the way of all americans having access to affordable health care, and in particular, attempting to get rid of the ban on preexisting conditions. we should be looking at what he is doing to stand in the way of what we need to do to take on the climate crisis and is running an administration who, on a daily basis, are deregulating some of the most toxic and harmful industries that a government should
actually be paying attention to. these are the issues we should be focused on. >> senator harris, thank you for talking to us. wolf and jake, back to you. >> thank you, manu, thank you, senator, as well. jake, it'sthe senate shall reconvene, all members of congress and the 100 senators will be sworn in as well. >> we'll see a couple bipartisan moments, mainly to do with the pageantry. the cloakroom has just announced that the chair has announced blount, graham and leahy, a democrat, to escort them through the pageantry. don't be fooled. this will be an all-out fight. >> lindsey graham was a house
manager. now he's in the house judiciary committee, but he was one of 13 republican house managers back in the day. >> at that time he was very forceful in insisting there have to be witnesses. >> house manager lindsey graham and senator lindsey graham are d diametrically opposed. >> you bring in live witnesses now, as of then, they don't want a circus coming into what they believe is the better and dignified chamber. the process in the old days was to do videotaped depositions and bring did in and decide what should be played on the senate floor. republicans thought they were going to get new information out of monica lewinsky, bring it to
the floor of a senate trial, and if you read the transcript in the day, they got nothing. in fact, they schooled her, because president clinton's lawyer, not to want to antagonize her said, no questions. we're done. so they didn't get anything for it. they got no new information changed the dynamic. i think that's something to thic think about as we go forward. >> an independent voted in favor of the articles of impeachment as well as the impeachment, and he said he would take the trade if he were a democratic senator of getting john bolton to testify, getting mick mulvaney and others that they want to hear from, perhaps lev parnas, in exchange for what people like senator rand paul and others are saying, that joe biden testify, hunter biden, maybe even the whistleblower behind some closed door briefing. he said that's a trade worth
making. >> i wouldn't hold my breath on any democrat, and i know you wouldn't, either, of any democrat agreeing with what you just laid out. he is not involved in what the house is prosecuting the president for, which is withholding aid, military aid, and in exchange for an investigation. what hunter biden did or didn't do is a separate question and may be a separate investigation in any other forum, but not here. something i want to add to the comparison we'll see here, and there are a lot of comparisons to clinton because it was 21 years ago and that was the first time in 100 years we had seen an impeachment, but the thing to keep in mind is there was a huge, long, real independent investigation that went on with ken starr. they got all the interviews and they had all the witnesses. this is totally different because there was no independent investigation, and for the house, they didn't get any of
these witnesses because the white house wouldn't allow it. so, you know, that is why the democrats are going to push so hard to at least hear some of them despite the fact that, you're right, it could backfire. >> you haven't seen an attorney general with the streak of janet reno appointed since then. we're going to take a break and see the chief justice shortly as he prepares to get sworn in for the trial. more coverage after a quick break.
we're just an hour or so away before the chief justice of the united states, john roberts, will be sworn in to preside over this trial in the senate. al alan, he takes serious the chief justice of the united states. >> the chief justice has always taken that title seriously and has taken the responsibility very seriously. i have gone back and reviewed some of my notes surrounding the presence of chief justice rehnquist, and nobody really knew the proper verbiage, the manner in which he should be proe approached, what he should say, and looking at some of my office notes, a language had been prepared for the chief to say,
senators, i attend the senate in obedience to your notice for the purpose of joining with you and forming a court of impeachment. that language had been prepared for the chief justice. he did not use it. >> that's interesting. i do think that it's possible that john roberts is even less inclined to insert himself in the process than chief justice rehnquist was, and rehnquist was very differential and respectful of the process. but i think roberts is even -- we won't see any stripes on his robe to start with. >> which means the 51 vote will be potentially even more significant. >> my guess, just based on watching john roberts as chief justice of the united states is that he will defer as much as possible. he doesn't want to be tainted. he doesn't want to be seen as political. stay with us. we have more live cnn coverage of the senate impeachment trial of president donald trump. we're going to take a quick break. stay with us.
and a pair without. the bounce wrinkle guard shorts have fewer wrinkles and static, and more softness. it's the world's first mega sheet that does the job of three dryer sheets. it also comes in unscented. if you don't love bounce wrinkle guard, we'll give you your money back. conditions are protected. vo: a broken promise. trump repeatedly tried to undermine coverage for 134 million americans with pre-existing conditions. mike: "he just doesn't care if you have a pre-existing condition he wants to deny you access to coverage. if he is re-elected, he'll keep trying to do that and i think we can't let that happen." vo: as president, mike will lower costs, and protect americans with pre-existing conditions. mike: i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message.
skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast! does scrubbing grease feel like a workout? scrub less with dawn ultra. it's superior grease-cleaning formula gets to work faster. making easy work of tough messes. dawn is a go-to grease-cleaner throughout the kitchen, too. keep a bottle in the laundry room to pre-treat greasy stains. and keep dawn in the garage to lift grease off car rims. it's even gentle enough to clean wildlife affected by oil. dawn's grease cleaning power takes care of tough grease wherever it shows up. scrub less and save more... with dawn.
oh no, here comes gthe neighbor probably to brag about how amazing his xfinity customer service is. i'm mike, i'm so busy. good thing xfinity has two-hour appointment windows. they have night and weekend appointments too. he's here. bill? karolyn? nope! no, just a couple of rocks. download the my account app to manage your appointments making today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. i'll pass.
i'm wolf blitzer in washington alongside jake tapper. we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world for a truly historic moment in the presidency of donald trump and the united states congress. >> for only the third time in american history, the senate will sit for an impeachment trial of the president of the united states. donald j. trump now joins bill clinton and andrew johnson as the only other one who fac