tv CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin CNN January 16, 2020 11:00am-12:00pm PST
documents, the white house not giving the democrats what they want? i mean, is there a potential for any kind of a conflict if he were to do any? >> well, you know, back in 1993 the supreme court ruled in something that i like to refer to as the other nixon case, not the 1974 landmark involving president richard nixon, but a 1993 case when a judge by the name of walter nixon who was being tried after being impeached in the house challenged some senate procedures, went over the supreme court after he had been convicted on the senate side and said look, i didn't like the way the senate did its procedures, and the supreme court said this is the senate's show. the senate has its power. we are not going to rule on how the senate needs to do this. now, there could be -- i mean, who says never anymore in any way in our atmosphere, but there could be -- let me just finish on what could come. there could be some possible challenges on executive privilege that would go over there just like i do have to remind everyone that there are
three cases now pending at the supreme court that involve donald trump completely separate from this impeachment that have to do with house and grand jury subpoenas for his tax records and other financial papers. >> in the brief for the government in nixon versus the u.s., there were two names on that brief. >> right! arguing for the government. the first name was ken starr -- >> let me cut you off. i want to listen to the senate majority leader. >> mr. president suggest the -- >> we'll call the role. >> mr. alexander, ms. baldwin. >> present. >> mr. buraso. >> present. >> mr. bennett. >> mrs. blackburn. >> present. >> mr. blumenthal. >> let's go back, i'm sorry to interrupt. >> this significant case that went all the way to the supreme court on whether or not there could be a constitutional challenge to the senate's behavior in an impeachment trial, chief justice rehnquist
led a court that ruled 9-0 against the challenge to the manner in which the senate conducted the trial. the two names on the brief for the government solicitor general ken starr, deputy solicitor general john roberts. >> you want to know another quirk of that. you want to know who else was on those briefs? >> doug ledder, he was also in the department of justice at the time, and now he's the house counsel for nancy pelosi. everyone was around in '93. >> the people who need to know this is a non-issue are around and in positions of authority. >> the other interesting thing about john roberts is that, of course, he has been sort of outspoken about the rule of the courts, and he did take on donald trump in a way after donald trump was criticizing obama judges. >> that's a quote, obama judges. >> and he came out and he said we do not have obama judges or trump judges. so we've heard from him on the role of the courts, and how they
cannot be political, so it is so highly unlikely under any circumstance that john roberts would do anything, even if he weren't inclined. >> i think the risk, though, is if he's pressed into it. if somebody says we don't like where the senate majority is, presiding officer, could you make a determination on this? i have a feeling he would throw it right back to the senate majority, but you know, you just don't know in this atmosphere what kind of wild card he could be handed. >> so joan, in '99, the very first objection came from tom harkin who was objecting to the democratic senator from iowa who was objecting to house impeachment manager bob barr, republican of georgia using the terms jurors, and there was a bunch of reasons for that. rehnquist ultimately ruled and sided with harkin the democrat. do you see roberts doing that, or do you think he will just put everything to a 51-vote threshold? >> that was a very procedural question, and actually i loved
that question because it reminds all our viewers this is not any kind of standard trial because the senators are not sitting just as jurors. they're actually sitting as chief justice william rehnquist said, as a court. >> they're judges. it's like 100 judges. >> that one, it wasn't substantive, but it's important and it sort of put the house managers in their place and said look, you've got to call them by the right names. >> i have another question we have some confusion about. i know you want to talk about this. go ahead. >> you said you loved what took place with the harkin point of order. >> uh-huh. >> that was 21 years ago yesterday. you loved it. i didn't. i was the parliamentarian on duty at that time, and i turned and gave the chief justice my best advice, which is if i cannot find a basis to sustain a point of order, you don't sustain a point of order. i turned and listened to his ruling 180 degrees opposite of
what i advised. >> that's a good lesson. >> it did not go unnoticed to the authorities. >> so my question is, we've been talking all about these 51 senators. >> right. >> who could vote to approve documents and witnesses and so forth, but there are 100 senators and what happens if there is a tie vote, and the open question had been whether or not the chief justice who is presiding can break a tie. john dean had mentioned on air with me last week that he thought the chief justice might be able to. you were saying you're not so sure. >> i yelled at the tv and it didn't matter. >> well, what's the truth? what's possible? >> the truth is complicated. >> because this could happen. >> in the andrew johnson trial, chief justice chase had three opportunities to break a tie. he took the opportunity on the first two. one was on a motion that the senate retire for consultation, and the other was on a motion that the senate adjourn for one day, in both instances they were tied.
he voted yes. so to a certain extent he's voting his own personal comfort. after the first vote, senator sumner was very upset. he made a motion. he argued that the chief had no authority to vote. he made a motion basically stating that the chief justice was not authorized to vote. that motion was roundly defeated, so the chief voted once. he was challenged. the senate basically sided with the chief. two days later he voted again, and i wasn't alive back then, but i'm rather certain that a number of the senators got after him and said you are not a senator. there is no authority. there is no explicit authority for you to vote, and when the last opportunity for him to break a tie arose, he decided not to. >> just curious, i think it's significa significant. remind our viewers why the vice president of the united states, who's the president of the senate and usually comes in to break a tie has no role in an impeachment trial. >> well, he has no role in this impeachment trial because he has a conflict of interest and the
framers of the constitution understood that. so the vice president, who is the president of the senate and in the constitutional provision naming him the president of the senate said he shall have no vote unless they are evenly divided. so the suggestion is he has a tie breaking vote only when he presides. he cannot preside in the impeachment trial of a president and so he has no tie breaking vote based on that. then the question is and people have argued, well, the chief justice is really the vice president for these purposes, and that's the theoretical basis for his authority to break a tie. >> so we really don't know what happens if there's a tie? is that really where we are? >> what the 1986 rules say to follow up i'm in the camp that believes he cannot break a tie. i'll tell you why, after all that happened in 1868, as the senate revised its rules, it specifically did not give the presiding officer the power to do that. now, some people would say, well, it didn't say that he couldn't, but until this new
round of -- i think some people are putting hopes onto john roberts that he might -- >> here's the chief justice of the united states. >> this is the escort committee coming in. you see lindsey graham, patrick leahy, dianne feinstein, roy blunt, all senators followed by the chief justice of the united states, there he is john roberts. they're walking in to the u.s. senate to begin the formal -- the formal procedure of this trial of the president of the united states. if 67 senators, two-thirds of the u.s. senate vote to convict, he will be removed from office. >> of the senate rules on impeachment, and the united states constitution, the presiding officer will now administer the oath to john j. roberts, chief justice of the united states.
>> the escort committee will now conduct the chief justice of the united states to the dias to be administered the oath. >> senators, i attend the senate in conformity with your notice for the purpose of joining with you for the trial of the president of the united states. i am now prepared to take the oath. >> will you place your left hand
on the bible and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of donald john trump, president of the united states now pending, you will according to the constitution and the laws so help you god? >> i do. >> god bless you. thank you very much. >> at this time i will administer the oath to all senators in the chamber in conformance with article i, section 3, clause 6 of the constitution, and the senate's impeachment rules. will all senators now stand or remain standing and raise their rite hand? do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of donald john trump, president of the united states now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws so help you god?
>> as the senators sign this document, they're being called by alphabetical order. joan biskupic, what are they signing here exactly? >> they're signing what's officially called the oath book, and every single senator rising from his chair and her chair will come up there and sign this, and that was done in 1999 and it was done back in 1868. this is part -- this is when i said a very scripted affair, and today is mostly script and ceremony as opposed to what's going to happen next week and beyond. but this is where they all come
up and, you know, they'll take their oaths as the chief administered it, and just attest to be impartial. >> you know, the interesting thing here is also as our great ted barrett up on the hill points out, that these senators unlike in 1999 where when they signed it they each kept their pen, they are all signing with one pen, and that is because mitch mcconnell really criticized nancy pelosi for handing out pens yesterday, so even on an issue as small as do you keep your pen, they have had disagreement, and so they are not doing it today. >> yeah, a lot of republicans thought that while it is common practice to have pens given out as legislation is signed that handing out pens and smiling and posing for pictures was unbecoming of a procedure that the speaker has referred to as
solemn and serious. >> alan fruman, you were the -- going back 21 years when bill clinton was impeached by the house and the trial began in the senate. who comes up with all these parliamentary, these procedures that we're going through right now? >> these procedures in the clinton trial were worked out by the joint leadership, majority leader trent lott of mississippi and democratic leader tom daschle of south felt the house had not conducted itself in a dignified manner and they were determined that the senate would handle this impeachment trial with dignity, and they convened in the old senate chamber, a caucus of 100, and they were determined that the ground rules for the trial or at least the ground rules for the beginning of the trial would be unanimous. and at the time senators kenn y kennedy, ted kennedy and phil graham, liberal democrat, conservative republican
basically brought all of their colleagues together and decided initially to support the basic guidelines for the beginning phase of the trial, for the phase of the trial that is similar to pleadings in a lawsuit. the complaint going to the president, the answer from the president, the replication from the house, all of this was scripted out and decided in a resolution that was adopted 100 to nothing. the smooth stuff was done by the leadership. >> and wasn't it that they waited on hard questions like witnesses until they got down the road when they had to decide live testimony versus videotaped, and of course opted just for three videotapes. >> they adopted the first resolution on january 7th. the contested resolution, the more difficult procedures were decided at the end of january. >> so it's interesting to think that when this starts next week, the senators are going to go
into this capsule t. they will not be able to text. they will not be able to talk to their colleagues. they will be sitting there forced to listen, and this is something none of us do these days because we multitask every moment of every day, and they're going to be in a very, very different world. >> i've described that world adas show up and shut up. they're used to speaking. that's why they're in the senate. well, these rules explicitly prohibit them from doing that. >> and you know, four of those senators out of the 100 are running for president of the united states right now. they're not going to be in new hampshire. they're not going to be in iowa. they're going to be sitting there in the senate from noon until at least 6 or 6:30 p.m. every day six days a week they have trial sessions on saturday as well. >> that's right. probably a sigh of relief when they learned that this weekend,
at least, there's not going to be an actual trial, which was a possibility as of last week, so they don't actually have to be here until tuesday after the martin luther king holiday. so this weekend is going to be their final push on the trail for, you know, we don't know how long. i mean, it really could run up to -- right up to the iowa caucuses, the first monday in february. speaking of, there's one of them, bernie sanders, and it really issue you know, we'll see if iowa continues to be the way it has historically been, which is they nake hands, hug the can six times before they agree to caucus for them or whether -- that would mean that the people who don't have to be here will have a real advantage. >> it's sure an in kind contribution to the campaigns of former mayor pete buttigieg and former vice president joe biden because you have bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, amy klobuchar,
and michael bennet, four senators all running for president who are not going to be able to be in iowa before the february 3rd iowa caucus, and then one week and one day after that is the new hampshire primary, and then the saturday after that is nevada, the saturday after that is south carolina. i mean, depends how long they're off the campaign trail, but it's not helpful. >> and mitch mcconnell want this is done by the state of the union, which is february 4th. >> the day after the caucus. >> february 4th, and if there are witnesses, think about that, these democrats presumably want to have witnesses. if there are witnesses, that would prolong this trial even further and keep them off the trail perhaps even past iowa. we just don't -- we just don't know. they're going to have to vote against their own self-interests. >> for point of comparison, the clinton trial lasted five weeks. i think it was a february 12th vote, and we're already starting later in the calendar year than the clinton trial, started in january of 1999.
so -- and again, that one had three witnesses, but they were just videotaped, and it was already a repeat of the starr testimony. >> and you know, you were the senate parliamentarian during the bill clinton impeachment trial. tell our viewers, all 100 u.s. senators they were sworn in. they took the same oath as the chief justice. the chief justice administered that oath to them. why do they now need to actually sign what's called this impeachment trial oath book in addition to seeing them and hearing them say they would abide by all the rules and accept this oath? >> oh, i believe that the oath book is simply ceremonial. i think what matters is that they raised their hands and afr affirmed an oath in open saegs session. the senate does like to keep records. it's my guess, i don't know, but my guess is this is simply the senate's way of saying we go through historic moments, we like to memorialize them. >> are there other procedures where someone is sworn in but
then needs to sign an oath book as well? >> well, senators after they're sworn in to be senators sign the general oath book, and that's an oath book that's been kept from 1789, and so -- and i don't know if there are actual numbers in the book, but senators do know that your united states senator number -- let's say 1776, so the senate keeps a general oath book going back to the very beginning. the senate likes to keep records. >> and the oath is that they receive the information and decide impartially, objectively? >> well, there's the special impeachment trial oath that they take, and it's different. it's different from their general oath of office. >> that's elizabeth warren signing the oath book right there. >> they swear to do impartial justice. >> swear to do impartial justice, although many of them on both sides of the aisle have already said how they're going to vote when it comes to removing the president. let's continue to listen in.
hear ye, all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the house of representatives is exhibiting to the senate of the united states articles of impeachment against donald john trump, president of the united states. >> the majority leader is recognized. >> mr. chief justice, for the information of the senate on my behalf and that of the distinguished democratic leader, i'm about to propound several unanimous consent requests that will assist with the organization of the next steps of these proceedings. they deal largely with necessary paperwork incident to the trial. therefore i ask you now to consent that the summons be issued in the usual form preside provided that the president may have until january the 18th2020 to file his answer with the secretary of the senate which will be spread upon the journal and the house of representatives
have until 12 noon on monday january 20th, 2020 to file its replication with the secretary of the senate. finally, i ask consent that the secretary of the senate be as a document those documents filed by the parties together to be available to all parties. >> is there objection? without objection, so ordered. >> i ask unanimous consent if the house of representatives wishes to file a trial brief it be filed with the secretary of the senate by 5:00 p.m. on saturday, january the 18th, 2020. further, that if the president wishes to file a trial brief it be filed with the secretary of the senate by 12:00 noon on monday january 20th, 2020. further, that if the house wishes to file a rebuttal brief, it be filed with the secretary of the senate by 12:00 noon on tuesday january 21st, 2020. finally, i ask consent that the secretary of the senate be authorized to prep as a senate
document all documents filed by the parties together to be available for all parties. >> is there objection? without objection so ordered. >> i ask unanimous consent that in recognition of the unique requirements raised by the impeachment trial of donald john trump president of the united states, the sergeant of arms shall install appropriate equipment and furniture in the senate chamber during all times that the senate is sitting for trial with the chief justice of the united states presiding. the appropriate equipment, furniture, and computer equipment in accordance with the allocations and provisions announced into the desk and ask that they be printed in the record. >> is there objection? without objection, so ordered. >> i ask unanimous consent that the senate sitting at the court of impeachment adjourn until tuesday, january the 21st, 2020, at 1:00 p.m. >> is there objection? without objection, so ordered.
>> the senate sitting as court of impeachment is adjourned until tuesday, january 21st at 1:00 p.m. so there you have it, the united states senate adjourned until 1:00 p.m. we thought originally, jake, it was going to be 12:00 noon when they would formally begin the arguments, the prosecution, the house managers making their arguments, but now it's 1:00 p.m. on tuesday when the formal trial will begin all 100 senators have now been sworn in. the chief justice of the united states, he's presiding, and they're going to have basically over the weekend to get ready
for this third ever trial of a president of the united states who's already been impeached by the house of representatives. >> we should just note, take another moment just to note the gravity of the situation and how serious this is. it's possible that we'll never see another impeachment or impeachment trial of a president ever again. some fear that it actually will become the norm, but it's very rare. it's only happened three times. president trump is the 45th president of the united states, and it's only happened three times. andrew johnson in 1868. bill clinton in 1999 and today even though certainly there have been ugly periods in american politics, this is about as tough as it gets. one body of the house of representatives saying this individual, the president of the united states we no longer think he should be president of the united states. and now the senate gets to make the ultimate decision. joining us now is cnn presidential historian douglas
brinkley. professor brinkley, put this in historic terms for us. this is a very significant day. >> well, yes, jake, and yeah, i think you used the right word, the gravity of the day. i've been watching, and you can feel how solemn it is. the fact that as you guys recently said, it's a time to kind of show up and shut up, and so we've been able to watch the choreography going on today, and it's been impressive. and it reminds you that we are in for quite a ride coming up. when this was happening in congress, the impeachment of donald trump, it made sense to be talking about alexander hamilton and the federalist papers and andrew johnson, but i think right now we need to hone in for at least the weekend to think about william jefferson clinton. the fact that bill clinton delivered that famous state of the union address like he did in the middle of impeachment and was able to give him a bounce. but clinton did it in a
magnanimous way. donald trump will be giving a state of the union on february 4th that's almost an act of war against democrats, and also, as you've been commenting, william rehnquist did an above average, maybe even an excellent job presiding over the bill clinton trial, so i believe roberts is a student of rehnquist, and we're going to see him make sure that this doesn't get showy or weird, that the republicans respect roberts and the democrats do too. but the big difference is about the starr report, and you know, with the starr report did a lot of the homework for the clinton impeachment trial. there were a few witnesses on video as has been mentioned on your show, but by and large, you know, there was never going to be a monica lewinsky showing up we already knew the outcome. in this case we pretty much know there are not going to be 67 senators that are going to try to, you know, get trump out of office, but we don't know if
four or five republicans led by the mitt romney gang are going to demand that we have -- >> hold on a second. hold on one moment, i want to hear what senator bernie sanders is saying. >> we have a constitution. we have a rule of law. it is absolutely imperative that no president can be above the law no matter who you are. and if we allow this president to be above the law, it sets a terrible precedent for future presidents and for the future of this country. so i would hope that senator mcconnell allows us to have a full and fair trial. when you have a trial, you hear from witnesses. that's what we do in the united states, and i hope mcconnell will allow those witnesses to testify and give us their version of what happened. but while we go forward with
this impeachment trial, i hope the american people understand that we have not forgotten that in this country outside of washington, d.c. today there are millions of people who are struggling economically, millions of people who cannot afford their prescription drugs or their health care, and what the congress of the united states has got to do is chew bubble gum and walk at the same time. we've got to deal with this impeachment trial, but we cannot forget the very serious problems facing the american people. >> are you concerned about how this will affect your campaign? >> i want to make the point that as we made before, there are four u.s. senators who are also running for president who have to suspend their campaign like bernie sanders and sit in the senate chamber over the next several days. doug brinkley, we interrupted you, but go ahead. you were making an important point. >> well, i was just trying to make that caomparison,
differences between what happened to bill clinton and what's happening to donald trump here. bernie sanders immediately took the microphone right now, and that's a big difference. we are running a 2020 presidential campaign, and bill clinton was at the end of his second term, and it affected politics in the sense that bill clinton got -- once he wore the eye, al gore tried to avoid being seen with bill clinton a lot. most scholars feel that was a mistake, that gore should have wrapped his arms around the clinton economy. impeachment during clinton it stigmatized the president. we'll have to see whether donald trump gets stigmatized to what happens here. whether in the summer people are going to look at donald trump or in the fall as an impeached president running for re-election, or are they going to say this is just a lot of politics as usual. and my final point would be that i never thought i'd say that i miss tom daschle and trent lott. they had comedy and civility and were able to kind of work through the clinton impeachment.
i don't know what we're going to encounter here, but mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer do not seem to be on the same page in any way, shape, and form, and that's because the king daddy battle is for these witnesses, and it's going to be happening quick and fast, and at all costs, the democrats need to get to hear from parnas and giuliani and the rest and maybe the whistle-blower will come and talk in private quarters. maybe hunter biden will show up. we're going to have to see. i doubt that the democrats are going to put witnesses like that forward. >> they won't put them forward, but it might not be up to them ultimately if there's a ruling on witnesses. professor brinkley, we were discussing earlier in the broadcast 21 years ago in one day, the very first objection made by democratic senator tom harkin, he objected to the idea that the republican house impeachment managers during the clinton impeachment referred to the senate as jurors. and one of the reasons he objected was because, obviously,
they're more than jurors. they get to decide what evidence they see, what evidence they don't see with majority votes. but beyond that, harkin's point was this is not just like a jury makes a decision about the fate of one man. this jury or 100 judges, if you will, will decide what standards are acceptable for the behavior of a u.s. president as they did with bill clinton. if ultimately what happens is that president trump is not removed from office from the senate trial, which is pretty much what every expects since it's a tall order to get 67 senators, what does that mean for future u.s. presidents and their handling of foreign policy and they're asking other countries to look into whatever they want? >> it means that the country has a president who operates as an outlaw, and you know, we always are trying to compare presidents to each other, but we haven't had an outlaw president before, and that's what you have with
donald trump. and incidentally outlaws in american history get their fans, billy the kid and al capone, donald trump may be in that swirl, he's going to be seen as acting in a demagoguic way and acting in a dictatorial way trying to smash the establishment, diss our intelligence fwagathers, operat in a whole new precedent that we couldn't have imagined. it's very important that donald trump was held accountable. he has been as nancy pelosi said, he is wearing the i in history. he has been punished. but i'm afraid if no witnesses come forward after what we've heard about what transpired in the ukraine and stalking of an ambassador, and none of this gets heard, i feel it's going to make a lot of people think our democracy is broken and that the american presidency, the executive branch is trying to run shotgun over both the
judicial branch and certainly over the legislative branch. >> all right, professor douglas brinkley, thank you so much, appreciate it. >> veryimportant, our special coverage will continue. we'll talk about the rules of the senate trial, what we can all expect. much more of our special coverage right after this. we're oscar mayer deli fresh, and you may know us from your very first sandwich, your mammoth masterpiece, and whatever this was. oscar mayer is found in more fridges than anyone else, because it's the taste you count on. make every sandwich count.
my grandparents that i never knew.ch about i'm a lawyer now, but i had no idea that my grandfather was a federal judge in guatemala. my grandfather used his legal degree and his knowledge to help people that were voiceless in his country. that put a fire in my heart. it made me realize where i got my passion for social justice. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com
welcome back to cnn special coverage. as the senate prepares for just the third impeachment trial ever of a u.s. president, and this may be one of the toughest rules senators must follow during the trial. >> hear ye, hear ye, all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment. >> keep silent, that's tough, and that's of course a clip from the 1999 impeachment of then president bill clinton. what other restrictions will hang over the 100 senators during the proceeding? have the rules been updated in the last 21 years? let's bring in cnn's tom foreman. so they have to be quiet. what other rules must senators follow? >> well, the rules can change with the majority vote, so there could be changes in rules all along. here's where we're starting. there's a ban on smartphones and electronics. they can't bring them into the chamber. they have to leave them on the way in. does that mean they have no access to this? probably not because pages can
still come and go so if the president's tweeting o'for they want a proxy to tweet for them, they could probably do it. they're required to sit at their desks and no talking to neighbors. that may sound like something that works in second grade. you know why it's a problem here? remember, senators choose their desks like choosing neighborhoods. they want to be next to other power players for different reasons. this is basically saying you cannot take advantage of that. you can't chatter with the people next to you about the evidence or anything else. there's a ban on reading materials not associated with the testimony, not associated with the testimony is the real loophole here because, again, if you had a page bring in a bunch of tweets from the president, you could say that has nothing to do with the testimony or everything to do with the testimony. so that's another thing they can't do. and they must be in attendance at all times. they have to sit there and always be at their desk as this goes forward. the real key here, though, i must say to all of you really is the word guidelines up here, because i have the feeling that
all of these rules by all of the senators at some point may very well be broken simply because, remember, these are a lot of people who are in a position where they usually tell people what to do more than be told, and they're sitting over a president who doesn't seem to think anyone can tell him what to do. it's hard to imagine they're all going to read these and say this is what i will do, but this is the starting area, and it's a difficult thing for a lot of these senators. >> tom foreman, thank you very much. jeffrey toobin is joining us. we learned that the trial actually will begin 1:00 p.m. eastern on tuesday. we know that the house managers, they'll present the case why the president of the united states should be removed from office. that will take a few days. then the president's attorneys, they'll come forward and say why the president shouldn't be removed from office. only then will the senate decide on witnesses. is that right? >> that's right, but there is still so much we don't know about how the rules will work. let me just give you one parnas
associate of rudy giuliani gave that sensational interview to anderson cooper. he has relevant evidence. even if he doesn't testify, even if he is not allowed to testify, will the democrats be allowed to refer to him during their testimony -- during the house managers' presentation? will they be able to introduce some of the text messages, the handwritten note, which talks about how they need to persuade zelensky, the president of ukraine to announce an investigation of the bidens? you know, what are the rules of evidence? this is not a trial in a strict criminal sense where there are specific rules of evidence. how much the house managers are allowed to talk about things that are not in the record of the impeachment process in the house of representatives still an open question.
and you know, that -- how that presentation will work with the seven house democratic managers, you know, will be fascinating to watch because we don't know how they will divide up the responsibilities and how -- and how much they will be able to present. >> jeffrey, republicans have been saying, including president trump that any new witnesses, any new evidence, this is business that should have been taken care of by the house impeachment managers. it's not the senate's job to do the house's job for them. what's your -- what are your thoughts on that? >> that's just a completely made up argument. there is nothing in the constitution that says all the evidence has to come out in the -- in the house of representatives. in fact, the senate has an even more solemn responsibility than the house of representatives because it's the senate deciding whether the president stays or goes. why would the senate ever deny
itself relevant evidence to that question? there is no prohibition on that as we've been discussing. there were three witnesses who testified in the clinton trial in the senate. historically the senate has felt free to look into the evidence again. it strikes me as a complete, you know, make weight inventive argument designed to shut down the process, but it is certainly not anything mandated by the constitution or history. >> all right, jeffrey toobin, thanks so much. >> and everyone stand by. the -- as the impeachment trial is set to get underway on tuesday, what role will this new evidence play? the indicted rudy giuliani associate directly implicating the president in the ukraine scheme, lev parnas we're talking about. you're going to hear his accusations just ahead. what'd we decide on the flyers again? uh, "fifteen minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance."
i think we're gonna swap over to "over seventy-five years of savings and service." what, we're just gonna swap over? yep. pump the breaks on this, swap it over to that. pump the breaks, and, uh, swap over? that's right. instead of all this that i've already-? yeah. what are we gonna do with these? keep it at your desk, and save it for next time. geico. over 75 years of savings and service. and let me tell you something, rodeo... i wouldn't be here if i thought reverse mortgages took advantage
of any american senior, or worse, that it was some way to take your home. it's just a loan designed for older homeowners, and, it's helped over a million americans. a reverse mortgage loan isn't some kind of trick to take your home. it's a loan, like any other. big difference is how you pay it back. find out how reverse mortgages really work with aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage guide. eliminate monthly mortgage payments, pay bills, medical costs, and more. call now and get your free info kit. other mortgages are paid each month, but with a reverse mortgage, you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait, and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. discover the option that's best for you. call today and find out more in aag's free,
no-obligation reverse mortgage loan guide. access tax-free cash and stay in the home you love. you've probably been investing in your home for years... making monthly mortgage payments... doing the right thing... and it's become your family's heart and soul... well, that investment can give you tax-free cash just when you need it. learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse mortgage loan to cover expenses, pay for healthcare, preserve your portfolio, and so much more. look, reverse mortgages aren't for everyone but i think i've been 'round long enough to know what's what. i'm proud to be a part of aag, i trust 'em, i think you can too. trust aag for the best reverse mortgage solutions. so you can... retire better.
hello, i'm wolf blitzer in washington along with jake tapper. you're watching cnn's live special coverage of the impeachment trial of president donald trump. thanks very much for joining us. only moments ago on the floor of the united states senate two events played out that will forever change the trump presidency. >> senators, i attend the senate in conformity with your notice for the purpose of joining with you for the trial of the president of the united states. i am now prepared to take the oath. >> will you place your left hand
on the bible and raise your right hand? do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of donald john trump, president of the united states now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and the laws so help you god? >> i do. >> that was, of course, john roberts, the chief justice of the united states officially sworn in to preside over the senate impeachment trial. a few moments later, all 100 members of the u.s. senate as far as we know, took an oath of their own. >> do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of donald john trump, president of the united states now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws so help you god? >> we're actually told it was 99 senato