Skip to main content

tv   The Impeachment Trial of Donald J. Trump  CNN  January 31, 2020 9:30am-4:00pm PST

9:30 am
you've learned. >> reporter: sure, thanks for having me. mike schmidt and i are reporting that john bolton, his new man script for this book that he's trying to publish that the white house is trying to stop, at least for now, he describes a discussion in early may in the oval office that included mick mulvaney, the white house chief of staff, pat cipollone, the white house counsel, rudy giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, and john bolton and that giuliani was talking about these various investigations that they wanted, as we understand it, into some of the president's democratic rivals, including hillary clinton and joe biden, that the president directed john bolton to call the incoming president of ukraine, president zelensky, and make sure that rudy giuliani got a meeting with him in the coming days as giuliani was planning a trip to ukraine. the "times" reported on that trip that giuliani was reporting almost in realtime back in may
9:31 am
of 2019. bolton writes he did not make that phone call and white house officials got very upset about giuliani's potential trip and the trip was canceled. if bolton's account is true, you know, it would be the earliest that we know of that the president was involved in instructing people in relation to this pressure campaign with ukraine for investigations that he wanted. you know, i don't -- we published this information because we want to inform people. i don't know what impact, if any, this will have on any of the proceedings, but it does broaden, if true, our understanding of what happened. >> it also illustrates the fact that there is a lot that bolton is claiming that the senate has not heard about before, which we've known for a while because bolton's lawyer has been saying he knows about things that the senate does not know and the congress does not know. maggie, this also would seem to contradict the idea claimed by one of the president's
9:32 am
attorneys, patrick philbin, who, when asked about rudy giuliani and what he was doing, said that, quote, i want to make clear there was no conduct of foreign policy being carried out here by giuliani, because what you're describing is a campaign that is including the national security adviser, although it doesn't sound like bolton actually carried this out. >> reporter: right, and look, jake, i should note here that rudy giuliani emphatically denied to mike and me in a conversation that this conversation took place. he says there was never a meeting that he had where he discussed ukraine that cipollone was present for, and that that was also true from mick mulvaney. i expect we'll be hearing more from the white house as the day goes on. so i think this points to a couple of things, one of which is that bolton clearly has a story he wants to tell. there is nothing precluding bolton from coming out and speaking, and i think that's one
9:33 am
of the things that has really frustrated democrats, and privately some republicans, that if bolton does want to say something, he probably can at this point even as the white house is protesting some of the information in his manuscript is classified. >> indeed, he could call in just the way you did. great reporting, maggie. >> i'm just trying to show how easy it is. >> maggie, thank you for doing excellent reporting. the second paragraph in your article, maggie, says the president gave the instruction to bolton, according to bolton's manuscript, in an oval office meeting in early may that included -- this is interesting who was in that meeting according to bolton. mick mulvaney, the president's personal lawyer rudy giuliani, and the white house lawyer pat cipollone. mulvaney said whenever giuliani was there, he would walk away because he didn't want to get involved in attorney/client privilege. he's leading the legal defense
9:34 am
right now. the people in that meeting is pretty significant if bolton's account is true. >> if it's true, correct. that's an important "if." this is why, you know, house -- i know the president has said that the house didn't call bolton. it is true that they didn't take him to court over it, and then bolton said he would comply with a subpoena from the senate. this is why people who want witnesses are arguing it would be important to get bolton under oath. we should also note that the white house has argued that bolton, who was often at odds with mick mulvaney and with secretary of state mike pompeo, that bolton himself, you know, was a disgruntled employee on bad terms and had an ax to grind, which is why the importance of being under oath matters. but there are all kinds of complications of bolton testifying. it's not just the question of
9:35 am
his manuscript. there are real executive privilege issues that i think you would hear the white house put in play. right now we have one person's account in a manuscript and we have denials from one of the people involved, so we'll see what happens. >> maggie haberman doing excellent reporting as she always does, thank you very much. we're only moments away from the resumption of the trial of the president of the united states. there will be eight hours on the senate floor equally divided by both sides, and then we assume there will be a final vote on witnesses. much more of our special coverage right after this. 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.
9:36 am
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
9:37 am
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. or more on car insurance.s could save you fifteen percent everybody knows that. well, did you know pinocchio was a bad motivational speaker? i look around this room and i see nothing but untapped potential. you have potential. you have-oh boy. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
9:38 am
man: how can i deliver superior long-term results? it begins with a distinctive approach to managing money. that for over 85 years has focused on keeping confidence up when markets are down. an approach where portfolio managers work well independently. and even better together. who don't just invest, but are personally invested. can i find a proven approach designed to deliver results? with capital group, i can. talk to your advisor or consultant for investment risks and information.
9:39 am
9:40 am
today is the final day of the impeachment trial, and the republicans are hoping they have enough votes to acquit the president. >> here with us now, "politico's" chief financial correspondent, tim berman. you had an opinion of why john bolton would not want to testify
9:41 am
even though he disapproved of the president's behavior. what is your take on this as the republicans vote for further witnesses. >> i think the impact of this latest news in the "times" is minimal, if there's any impact at all. to be clear here, what the "times" is reporting is essentially in service of something senator alexander was conceding in his statement last night which was, yeah, the president did it. he was central to this pressure campaign. the things that the house managers have accused him of have been borne out, at least to his satisfaction, to be true. and yet he pivoted in that same statement to say he doesn't believe the country needs to be put further through a trial. he doesn't believe the senate needs to talk to more witnesses to prove what has already been proven to him. so i don't think there's any real impact. i think obviously it adds to a lot of the fury surrounding this
9:42 am
entire process and it's going to sort of ratchet up some of the pressure on senate republicans, but the pressure has been on them for weeks now, jake, so i don't think it really changes materially the way they're approaching this. >> do you think this same conduct, if it were done by, say, president hillary clinton, would be meeting with the exact opposite response depending on party affiliation? in other words, senator alexander would be decrying the behavior and then also calling for her removal from office, and democrats would be defending her? >> without question. and to be clear, i wrote about this a couple months ago, jake. if then-president barack obama had been attempting to investigate tag romney and had asked china or the ukraine or other countries to look into tag romney for purposes of harming his domestic political rival heading into his 2020 reelection bid, then not only would
9:43 am
republicans have pursued articles of impeachment, but the current president's staunch republicans, they would be looking for impeachment. former members of the house freedom caucus, some of the staunch conservatives on capitol hill, both of those gentlemen have said to me, look, without any question, if the shoe were on the other foot here, not only would we be pursuing impeachment but the right wingers in our conference, these guys who were constantly nipping at the heels, they would be prosecuting this most forcefully. we know they are the ones defending this president in the most vigorous way possible. >> thank you for your analysis of this. there's breaking news coming in
9:44 am
right now. we are responding to an incident at mar-a-lago. we'll have details right after a quick break. olay regenerist makes my skin feel so dewy and soft and silky and hydrated...incredible. i love it. i'm busy phillips and my skin is confident i can face anything with my olay. and my latest beauty secret.. for bright, smooth skin... olay regenerist cream cleanser.
9:45 am
9:46 am
9:47 am
9:48 am
there's breaking news we're hearing. what do we know, kristin? >> reporter: wolf, right behind me is mar-a-lago, and there are
9:49 am
multiple helicopters up above. they said vehicles and people are in custody. the highway patrol was following a black suv as it barrelled to two security points outside mar-a-lago. it broke into both those security points. the vehicle then sped off. they were eventually tracked down, and again, this vehicle and these suspects are currently in custody. we have reached out to secret service. we know, of course, president trump is supposed to be here later today. he's spending his weekend here in mar-a-lago. this is a developing situation, but you should see the kind of security presence that's around us right now. streets blocks away from mar-a-lago are completely shut down. we talked to one eyewitness who was in mar-a-lago who said he heard about eight gunshots and then was shuffled off by security. all the roads being shut down by
9:50 am
florida police as well as all these agents trying to determine what happened. the big question here, of course, is whether or not that vehicle was headed toward mar-a-lago intentionally. were they on a chase for any reason? why exactly were they following this car in the first place and was it headed toward mar-a-lago? this is a developing situation. we're keeping our ear to the ground to find out exactly what happened. >> kristin holmes, thank you very much. president trump is now responding to that new breaking "times" report that john bolton said the president instructed him in may to ask ukraine's president to investigate the bidens. let's go to dana bash. dana, what is president trump saying in response? >> the president just gave a statement to the "new york times" denying that this conversation ever happened. he said, i never instructed john bolton to set up a meeting with
9:51 am
rudy giuliani, one of the greatest corruption fighters in america and by far the greatest mayor in the history of nyc to ask for a meeting with president zelensky. that meeting never happened. this is the president after this story came out giving a comment and a full denial. as you can imagine, jake, the senate and the congress in general has been primed over the past three years to expect the unexpected with this president, and here we are on the cusp of what could be the final day of the president's impeachment trial beginning with a key republican senator poised to make an announcement on whether or not to hear john bolton as a witness or anybody as a witness, and of course another wrinkle comes out like this. as you would imagine, there is a lot of buzzing going on about this and questions about whether it would make a difference about lisa murkowski's decision. jake? >> dana, thanks so much.
9:52 am
>> it's interesting, jake, that this news is coming out, but by all accounts, i think all of us believe it's not going to have an impact on changing anybody's vote when it comes to new witnesses emerging before this trial. >> no, the senators know that john bolton has things to say that they have not heard. i think they fall basically into two kalt goecategories, republi senators. one, okay, i agree with that and let's hear from him. the second group is lamar alexander. i'm sure he has more to say but i've already heard from trump about this so i don't need him. and third, i don't think this story is true. >> the impression might be, what does the house do? john bolton's book is supposed to come out in six weeks or next month. the house does have the ability through international affairs, they could call bolton and talk to him. so my understanding is they haven't made that decision yet
9:53 am
but i expect they'll be pressured on that in the coming days. >> iver be've been in the caucu. the talk is going to be two things. one, they're trying to influence lisa. they're trying to put this article out just before she makes a decision. i'm telling you, that's what they'll be saying. she'll be thinking, this is targeted at me. and number two, and this goes to the vote, drip, drip, drip. there is more stuff coming if we let this thing sit out here. >> also, aren't they going to be asking, wait, weren't we told something different on the senate floor by the president's attorneys? >> no. >> mr. philbin told us foreign policy wasn't conducted by a private person. you were also told that rudy giuliani was a minor player, shiny object designed to distract you. and one of the president's lawyers was in the meeting. >> that's right. he's on the floor. everybody stand by. we're only moments away from the
9:54 am
resumption of the trial of the president of the united states. we'll be right back. we made usaa insurance for members like martin.
9:55 am
an air force veteran made of doing what's right, not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa ♪ oh, oh, (announcer)®! ♪ once-weekly ozempic® is helping many people with type 2 diabetes like james lower their blood sugar. a majority of adults who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. here's your a1c. oh!
9:56 am
my a1c is under 7! (announcer) and you may lose weight. adults who took ozempic® lost on average up to 12 pounds. i lost almost 12 pounds! oh! (announcer) ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. there's no increased risk. oh! and i only have to take it once a week. oh! ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation.
9:57 am
some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. once-weekly ozempic® is helping me reach my blood sugar goal. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®.
9:58 am
hello, i'm wolf blitzer. welcome to cnn's special live coverage of the impeachment trial of president donald j. trump. >> and i'm jake tapper along with dana bash who is leading cn
9:59 am
this,'s coverage up on capitol hill. in moments the senators will come in for an evening that could decide on an impending vote of new witnesses or new documents. >> one additional witness democrats have been pushing for, the "new york times" now reporting new revelations from john bolton's draft manuscript. the president's former national security adviser writes that president trump directed him -- that's a quote from the manuscript -- to help with the pressure campaign to gather damaging information on joe biden two months before the call with ukraine. >> the question is will that news change any minds of senators? we're waiting to hear on the decision for lisa murkowski of
10:00 am
alaska. even if she votes in favor of witnesses, that would present a 50-50 tie. that would make a very small possibility that chief justice roberts would break the tie for witnesses. i don't think that would happen. >> zero chance of that happening. >> it has been done before in an impeachment trial. >> it has been done. it was done twice in 1868 by chief justice chase. immediately after that, senator sumner of massachusetts made a motion, in essence, to amend the impeachment rules to deny the vice president the authority to vote, which authority was not explicitly granted. that motion failed. >> the vice president or the chief justice? >> i'm sorry, chief justice. that motion failed 22-26. so the chief justice voted first on march 31st and again on july
10:01 am
2nd -- >> 1868? >> 1868. a while ago. by the end of the trial, the chief justice was confronted with a motion on the vote to adjourn the trial for a month. it was a tie vote and he declined to vote, and i'm thinking that he voted in the first two instances and refrained in the third instance, basically based on his personal comfort. >> and senator santorum, he was raked over the coals. there is very little indication that chief justice roberts wants to weigh in on political justice. >> salmon chase was appalled. >> are you saying he could weigh in, then? >> he's less likely to. >> salmon chase, he was an active participant in republican politics. john roberts is none of those
10:02 am
things. john roberts will not weigh in. >> let's see what lisa murkowski does and we'll know if it's 50-50 or not. what you learning, dana? >> we thought lisa murkowski was going to release a statement this morning. it obviously did not happen. we see the senate is poised to begin to resume the trial. and so we're going to see -- i tend to agree with what senator santorum said earlier just in covering the senate in particular, the republican conference for so long, that even though there is buzz, i can tell you there is a lot of buzz about this new "new york times" story saying that the president, according to john bolton's manuscript, that the president told him to talk to giuliani and get the ball rolling on an investigation of joe biden back as early as may, that the discussion is about it but then, you know, kind of getting their back up about what the kind of goal is of whomever is leaking to the "new york times" to potentially influence this
10:03 am
decision that lisa murkowski is going to make and others as we get close to the witness vote. but i can tell you, as you can imagine, because pat cipollone, the man we have seen on the senate floor for days and days and days leading the president's defense, his chief counsel, because he is also alleged, according to the bolton manuscript, according to the "new york times," to have been in that meeting. i just got a text from a democratic senator before going onto the floor that said, heaven help cipollone. so there is a lot of churning going on as you might expect as the senators are gathering for what could be the final day or what may not be the final day of this impeachment trial. >> it looks like while we're waiting for the house managers to walk in, the senators continue to walk in at some point. jake, we will see the chief justice of the united states. he will be presiding. there will be the usual prayer, pledge of allegiance and then four hours of debate equally
10:04 am
divided between both sides. >> we've been hearing some republican senators, pat toomey of arizona, basically saying what the president did was inappropriate but it does not rise to the level of impeachment and removal from office. we got the statement from marco rubio from florida. nobody thought they would support removing him from office, but it goes a little farther than inappropriate, because the premise of his post is, assuming everything the democrats say is true, just because the standard rises to the level of impeachment doesn't mean it's the standard of the country to remove the president from office. there's rubio saying even if you think this is completely true and horrible and he should be impeached on it, and he's not disputing this point, believe it or not, i don't think it's enough for removal of office. >> so on the one hand you're saying what the president did was wrong, but on the other hand saying it does arise to the
10:05 am
level, especially in an election year, to remove the president from office. i think you'll see the senators try to lay down some marker to try to tell the president, look, we're going to vote your way here. you really have to start thinking a little bit more about what you're doing and how you conduct yourself. we're three years into the trump administration. that is not a new theory. it's the first time we're having it in the context of an impeachment trial, which is a historic event, but you do see some republicans who are trying. i know a lot of democrats would say, not trying hard enough, not trying bold enough. if you want to send the president a signal, call in john bolton. even if in the end you're going to vote no, let him testify. marco rubio has ambition, maybe wants to run for president again, trying to get to a place where they make a point with the president and try to preserve themselves, give themselves some flexibility in the future. but, again, if you're opposed to this president, you're going to say that's weak or splitting the
10:06 am
difference. >> isn't that the difference between the house and the senate? in the house we heard none of this. we heard hardly anybody -- no republican to my memory, maybe you guys remember -- >> only former republicans. >> amash and adam kensington were critical. >> but no republican came out, and even marco rubio who was saying, maybe impeachment was fine, but we're different and we have a different job. because our job is not to impeach, our job is to remove. but the senators are getting to a different place, which is inappropriate. maybe some of them will get to wrong, jake, i don't know. inappropriate but shouldn't be removed for it. my question is, how does the president react to that? because we know his lawyer, pat cipollone, who by the way was in this meeting that the "new york times" wrote about, said everything was appropriate. alleged meeting, as rick santorum points out, but let's
10:07 am
just say there is more coming out. >> this is the point i've been making all along. there is a range of republicans in the republican office who really has a problem with the way donald trump conducts business, and i believe you'll hear from them. you'll hear more statements. this is not the last republican who is going to say -- because they're going to go out after they vote and they have to defend this vote. very few are announcing beforehand. they're going to get up here in the next -- how many hours is it, 17 hours, 16 hours if they take the whole time? they're going to have to defend their vote and you're not going to hear many say this was a perfect call. you'll hear some say this was a sham, but you'll hear a lot of folks saying, i'm really concerned about what the president did, but. >> here's what's going to energize democrats. marco rubio gave a carefully crafted statement, more than most republicans did. he's going to vote against
10:08 am
having witnesses. he's going to say, i don't need to hear more. >> it doesn't rise to the level. >> that's not going to fly with everybody. 80% thinks there should be witnesses. >> this is not sufficient enough to remove the president. >> i want to know if we'll hear from rick's former colleagues on article 2. >> i think you'll find democrats on board with this one, personally. >> against it. >> voting no on article 2. >> really. >> i do. >> i thought you would see republicans voting yes on article 2. >> absolutely not. i think the idea that the democrats are saying, you know, we don't have time to go through the normal process of checks and balances and going to the third branch of government and getting the third branch of government to adjudicate this dispute. to me it completely eliminates the ability to control their privilege under the constitution. >> and then maybe you'll start
10:09 am
having another debate about what is an impeachable offense or what rises to the level of impeachable offense. the government of accountability office has said what the president did was illegal. >> as they did toward president obama on things he did. but no one impeached president obama for doing that. >> we're talking about this. we're talking about the fact that the "new york times" is writing about a pressure campaign from the president to his national security adviser, telling his national security adviser, you've got to be in on this scheme with me and call zelensky, and he did not do it. >> we should note president trump issued a statement about this allegation by bolton in his manuscript that was just reported by the "new york times." president trump saying, quote, i never instructed john bolton to set up a meeting with president zelensky with rudy giuliani, the
10:10 am
greatest mayor in the history of new york city. >> it was so specific. did you ask him other things? was there a meeting that was still about ukraine? >> we know he wrote a letter to the president of ukraine saying that, i'm doing this on behalf of the president of the united states. >> he was trying to meet with him, yes. >> cannexactly. >> what's interesting about the president's defense, john, is that he doesn't need to deny facts that members of the republican party in the senate are already saying, we already believe these facts and we're still not going to remove you from office. president trump is denying facts that we know are true but also denying facts that we don't know about but even people willing to acquit him are willing to believe. >> so now you're going to see the democrats getting up to make their case for witnesses in this fo four-hour debate trying to raise all these questions. did the president lie to you? you're going to vote for no
10:11 am
witnesses, you're going to vote to shut this down after the president lied to you about mr. giuliani's role, about mr. cipollone's role? i'm not saying it's true, but it's alleged by john bolton. that's the case schiff is going to make. we expected the decision from lisa murkowski an hour ago. we haven't gotten that. is she rethinking or still just hasn't released a statement? i see no evidence this is going to go another direction, but you'll see the democrats with time left to use it to say, team trump is lying to you in your house, and you're going to let him off. >> and what philbin said yesterday was rudy giuliani's inquiries were in connection with the 2016 election coming from ukraine. >> what did biden have to do with the investigation? >> it came in a report that rudy
10:12 am
did that was delivered to the white house and they talked about this. it's not that rudy denied he was engaged and involved in it, he didn't deny it, he said they were in two different contexts -- >> there were two different meetings, one was about the biden and the 2016 election interference that the president's own security adviser called a debunked security theory and they said ukraine did not interfere in the 2016 election. that's a debunked theory by the president's own adviser and aides. >> as you know, the president doesn't necessarily believe all the things coming out of the fbi. i'm just saying the president is very suspect about those types of, quotes, debunkings. >> alex, you're the former parliamentarian. this report was denied by the
10:13 am
president, by rudy giuliani. we have four hours of debate equally divided between the house managers's side, the democrats' side and the white house republicans' side. walk us through how a debate like this will roll out in the next four hours? >> this is not thought of as a debate, this is thought of as arguments. the parties argue, the senate d deliberates. there is no debate per se in the impeachment trial. chief justice roberts is permitting the party that favors the motion to go first. the opposition to the motion goes second, but the proponents of the motion get to rebut. the first chunk of time goes to the proponent of the notion. they have as much as two to three hours for rebuttal. the opponents of the motion get to go second. they may not reserve any of their time, so they have to use
10:14 am
all their time. i believe we saw this in the conversation of the basic revolution and the amendments to it that the proponents, if they are smart, will speak very briefly in favor of the motion, and they'll say, i will let the opposition have their time now. and the proponents will save as much as their two hours as possible and force the opposition to use all of my time and ghoet rebuttal time. >> i just want to read this statement from rudy giuliani who talked to ken vogue he will of the "new york times" about this story, about this bombshell report of maggie haberman and michael schmidt that bolton in his manuscript allegedly says president trump directly told him to help set up a meeting between the new president of ukraine. he asked if rudy giuliani made up the meeting because he denies it took place. giuliani said, quote, i think he's making some of it up. he's surely making it up.
10:15 am
i wouldn't call it making it up but he's acting like a re real scumbag saying i rejected it once. that is from a phone interview that giuliani had with ken vol g volger. i'm not really sure what to make of that statement because he's saying he was making it up, then he said he wasn't making tup. >> besides that, there was mick mulvaney and pat cipollone. you have two people you could ask about the meeting. there is a very basic question, which is, did the president ask giuliani, ask bolton to set up a meeting for the president of ukraine for rudy giuliani -- >> here's chief justice john roberts. let's listen in as he gavels perhaps this last day of the impeachment trial. >> the chapel wilain will lead
10:16 am
prayer. >> let us pray. eternal lord god, you have summarized ethical behavior in a single sentence. do for others what you would like them to do for you. remind our senators that they alone are accountable to you for their conduct. lord, help them to remember that they can't ignore you and get away with it. for we always reap what we sow. have your way, mighty god. you are the potter, our
10:17 am
senators, and we are the clay. mold and make us after your will. stand up, omnipotent god, stretch yourself and let this nation and world know that you alone are sovereign. i pray in the name of jesus, amen. >> please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation, under god, indivisible, for liberty and justice for all.
10:18 am
>> senators, please be seated. if there is no obljection, the journal of the trial to date is admitted. the deputy sergeant in arms will make the proclamation. >> hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. all are asked to remain silent on penalty of imprisonment while the senators discuss the arl articles of impeachment against president donald john trump. >> we'll take a break about two hours in. >> pursuant to the provisions of senate resolution 483, the senate has provided up to four hours of argument by the parties equally divided on the question
10:19 am
of whether or not it shall be an order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents. mr. manager schiff, are you a proponent or opponent? >> proponent. >> mr. cipollone, are you a proponent or opponent? [ inaudible ] >> thank you. mr. schiff, you may proceed. >> before i begin, mr. chief justice, the house managers will be reserving the balance of our time to respond to the argument of counsel for the president. mr. chief justice, senators, fellow house managers and counsel for the president, i know i speak for my fellow managers as well as counsel for the president in thanking you for your careful attention to the arguments that we have made over the course of many long
10:20 am
days. today we were greeted to yet another development in the case when the "new york times" reported with a headline that says, trump told bolton to help his ukraine pressure campaign, book says. the president asked his national security adviser last spring, among other advisers, to pave the way for giuliani a meeting with ukraine's new leader. this was two months before the president asked for the help of his political opponents, to help the presidential campaign to extract damaging information from opponents, according to an unpublished manuscript by mr. bolton. mr. trump gave the instruction that bolton wrote, that included the acting chief of staff mick
10:21 am
mulvaney, the president's personal lawyer rudy giuliani and the white house counsel, pat cipollone, who is now leading the president's impeachment defense. now, you will see in a few moments, and you will recall mr. cipollone suggesting that the house managers were concealing facts from this body. he said all the facts should come out. there is a new fact that indicates mr. cipollone were among those who are in the loop, yet another reason why we ought to hear from witnesses. just as we predicted and it didn't require any great act of cla clairvoyance, the facts will come out. they will continue to come out. and the question before you today is whether they will come out in time for you to make a complete and informed judgment as to the guilt or innocence of
10:22 am
the president. now, the "times" article goes on to say that mr. trump told mr. bolton to call vladimir zelensky who recently became president of ukraine to meet with mr. giuliani who was planning a trip to ukraine to discuss the allegations that the president sought in mr. bolton's account. mr. bolton never made the call, he wrote. never made the call. mr. bolton understood that this was wrong, understood this was not policy, understood this was a bad call. over several pages, according to the "times," mr. bolton laid out
10:23 am
mr. trump's fixation on ukraine and the president's belief against a mix of shoddy events and outright conspiracy shetheos that the president aimed to win the election in 2016. mr. bolton began to object, he wrote in the book, affirming the testimony of a white house counsel aide, fiona hill, who said that mr. bolton warned that mr. giuliani was a hand grenade who is going to blow everybody up. now, as you might imagine, the president denies this. the president said today, i never instructed john bolton to set up a meeting for rudy giulia giuliani, one of the greatest corruption fighters in america. so here you have the president saying john bolton is not telling the truth.
10:24 am
let's find out. let's put john bolton under oath. let's find out who is telling the truth. a trial is supposed to be a quest for the truth. let's not fear what we will learn. as mr. cipollone said, let's make sure all the facts come out. >> mr. chief justice, senators, counsel for the president, last tuesday at the onset of this trial, we voted for mr. mcconnell's to be held in the
10:25 am
outset. you have heard arguments from both sides. you have seen evidence that the house was able to collect. you have heard about the documents and witnesses president trump blocked from the house's impeachment inquiry. we have vigorously questioned both sides. the president's counsel has urged you to decide this case and render your verdict upon the record assembled by the house. the evidence in the record is sufficient. it is sufficient to convict the president on both articles of impeachment, more than sufficient. but that's simply not how trials work. as any prosecutor or defense lawyer would tell you, when a case goes to trial, both sides call witnesses and subpoena documents to bring before the jury. that happens every day in courtrooms all across america.
10:26 am
there is no reason why this impeachment trial should be any different. the commonsense practice is born out of precedence. there has never been -- never before been a full senate impeachment trial without a single witness. in fact, you can see in the slide, in every one of the 15 prior impeachment trials, the senate has called multiple witnesses. today we ask you to follow this body's uniform precedence and your common sense. we urge you to vote in favor of subpoenaing witnesses and documents. now, i'd like to address one question at the offset. there has been much back and forth about whether, if the
10:27 am
house believes it has sufficient evidence to convict, which we do, why do we need more witnesses and documents? so i'd like to be clear. the evidence presented over the past week and a half strongly supports a vote to convict the president. the evidence is overwhelming. we have a mounting of evidence. it's direct, it's corroborated by multiple sources, and it proves that the president committed grave impeachable offensed to cheat in the next election. the evidence confirms that if left in office, president trump will continue to harm our, america's, national security. he will continue to seek to corrupt the upcoming election,
10:28 am
and he will undermine -- he will undermine our democracy all to further his own personal gain. but this is a fundamental question that must be addressed. is this a fair trial? is this a fair trial? is this a fair trial? without the ability to call witnesses and produce documents, the answer is clearly unequivocally no. it was the president's decision to contest the facts. because he has chosen to contest the facts, he should not be heard to complain that the house wishes to further prove his guilt to answer the questions he would raise.
10:29 am
he complains that few witnesses spoke directly to the president about his misconduct beyond his damning conversations with sondland and mulvaney. okay. let's hear from others, then. the witnesses the house wishes to call directly , to the president's own words, his own admissions of guilt, his own confessions of responsibility. if they did not, all the president's men would be on their witness list, not ours. these witnesses and the documents that their agencies produce tell the full story. and i believe that we are interested in hearing the full story. you should want to hear it. more than that, the american people, we know they want to hear it. the house republicans' own
10:30 am
expert witness in the house, professor turley, said if you could prove the president used our military aid to pressure ukraine to investigate a political rival and interfere in our elections, it would be an impeachable abuse of power. and senator graham, too, recognized that if such evidence existed, it could potentially change his mind on impeachment. well, we now have another witness, a fact witness, who would reportedly say exactly that. ambassador bolton's new man scrip -- manuscript, that we will discuss in a moment, told him in no uncertain terms. we're talking about the former national security adviser saying the president told him in no
10:31 am
uncertain terms, no aid until investigations, including the bidens. for a week and a half, the president has said no such evidence exists. they're wrong. but if you have any doubt about the evidence, if you have any doubt about the evidence, the evidence is at your fingertips. the question is, will you let all of us, including the american people, simply hear the evidence and make up their own minds and you can make up your own minds, but will we let the american people hear all of the evidence? you recall that ambassador bolton, the president's former national security adviser, is one of the witnesses we asked for last tuesday. we did not know at the time what he'd say.
10:32 am
we didn't know what kind of witness that he would be, but ambassador bolton made clear that he was willing to testify and that he had relevant, firsthand knowledge that hadn't yet been heard. we argue that we all deserve to hear that evidence, but the president opposed him. now we know why. because john bolton could corroborate the rest of our evidence and confirm the president's guilt. so today, today, senators, we come before you and we urge -- we argue again that you let this witness and the other key witnesses we have identified come forward so you have all of the information available to you when you make this consequential
10:33 am
decision. if witnesses are not called here, these proceedings will be a trial in name only. and the american people clearly know a fair trial when they see one. large majorities of the american people want to hear from witnesses in this trial, and they have a right to hear from witnesses in this trial. let's hear from them. let's look them in the eye, gauge their credibility and hear what they have to say about the president's actions. for the same reasons this body should grant our request to subpoena documents, the documents that the president also blocked the house from obtaining, documents from the white house, the state department, d.o.d. and omb that
10:34 am
will complete the story and provide the whole truth, whatever they may be. we ask that you subpoena these documents so that you can decide for yourself. if you have any doubt as to what occurred, let's look at this additional evidence. to be clear, we're not asking you to track down every single document or to call every possible witness. we have carefully identified only four key witnesses with direct knowledge who can speak to the specific issues that the president has disputed. and we targeted key documents which we understand have already been collected, for example, at the state department. they've already been collected. this will not cause a substantial delay. as i made clear last night, these matters can be addressed in a single week.
10:35 am
as we made clear last night, these matters can be addressed in a single week. we know that from president clinton's case. there the senate voted to approve a motion for witnesses on january 27. the next day it established procedures for those depositions and adjourned as a court of impeachment until february 4. in that brief period, the parties took three depositions. the senate then resumed its proceedings by voting to accept the deposition testimony into the record. in this trial, too, let's do the same. we should take a brief one-week break for witness testimony and document collection during which time the senate can return to its normal business. the trial should not be allowed to be different from every other impeachment trial or any other kind of trial simply because the
10:36 am
president doesn't want us to know the truth. the american people that we all represent, the american people that we all love and care about deserve to know the truth. and a fair trial requires it. this is too important of a decision to be made without all of the relevant evidence. before i turn to the specific need for these witnesses and documents, i want to make clear we are not asking you again to break new ground. we're asking quite the opposite. we are asking you to simply follow the senate's unbroken precedence and to do so in a manner that allows you to continue the senate's ordinary
10:37 am
business. the senate sitting as a court of impeachment has heard witness testimony in every other, as we've said earlier, in every other 15 impeachment trials in the history of the republic. and, in fact, these trials have had an average of 33 witnesses. and the senate has repeatedly subpoenaed and received new documents while adjudicating cases of impeachment. that makes sense. under our constitution, the senate does not just vote on impeachments, it does not just debate them. instead the senate is commanded by the constitution to try all cases of impeachment. well, a trial requires witnesses. a trial requires documents. this is the american way, and this is the american story.
10:38 am
if the senate denies our motions, it would be the only time in history it has rendered a judgment on articles of impeachment without hearing from a single witness or receiving a single relevant document from the president whose conduct is on trial. and why snl how can we justify this break from precedence? how would we justify? for what reason would we break precedence in these proceedings? there are many compelling reasons beyond precedent that demands subpoenas for witnesses and cases and documents in this case. and at this time i yield to manager garcia.
10:39 am
>> mr. chief justice, president's counsel, senators. last week i shared with you that i was reflecting on my first days at a school for baby judges. you all may recall that. and i mentioned to you that one of the first things they told us was that we had to be good listeners and be patient. you as judges in this trial have certainly passed the test. thank you for being good listeners and for being patient with us. it's been quite a long journey, but we're here today to talk about the other thing they told us in baby judge school, and that was that we had to give all the parties in front much us a fair hearing, an opportunity to
10:40 am
be heard, an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, an opportunity to bring evidence. and that's what i want to talk to you about today. because in terms of fundamental fairness, subpoenas in this trial would mitigate the damage the president caused by the wholesale obstruction of the house inquiry. the president claims there is no direct evidence of his wrongdoing, despite direct evidence to the contrary in ambassador bolton's offer to testify to even more evidence in a trial. but let's not forget that the president is arguing there is no direct evidence while blocking all of us from getting that direct evidence. it's a remarkable position that they have taken. quite frankly, never as a lawyer or a former judge have i ever
10:41 am
seen anything like this. and for the first time in our history, president trump ordered his entire administration -- his entire administration -- to defy every single subpoena. the trump administration has not produced a single document in response to the congressional subpoenas. not a single page. nada. that's never happened before. there is no legal privilege to justify a blanket blocking of all these documents. we know that there are more relevant documents. there is no dispute about that. it is uncontested. witnesses have testified in exceptional detail about these documents that exist that the president is simply hiding. president trump's blanket order prohibited the entire executive
10:42 am
branch from participating in an impeachment investigation and also extended to witnesses. 12 in all followed that order and refused to testify. much of the critical evidence we have is the result of career officials bravely coming forward despite the president's obstruction. but those closest to the president, some may say, like in the musical "hamilton," those in the room when it happened followed his instruction. the president does not dispute that these witnesses have information that is relevant to this trial. that these individuals have personal and direct knowledge of the president's actions and motivations and can provide the very evidence he says now that we don't have. now, the president's counsel alleged the house managers hid evidence from you. >> because as house managers,
10:43 am
really, their goal should be to give you all of the facts. because they're asking you to do something very, very consequential, and ask yourself -- ask yourself -- given the facts you heard today that they didn't tell you, who doesn't want to talk about the facts? who doesn't want to talk about the facts? impeachment shouldn't be a shell ga game. they should give you the facts. >> this is nice rhetoric. but it's simply incorrect. the president's counsel cherry-picked misleading bits of evidence, cited deposition transcripts or witnesses who subsequently corrected their testimony in public hearings and said the opposite. in some cases simply left out
10:44 am
the second half of witness statements. the house managers accurately presented the relevant evidence to you. we spent about 20 hours presenting the facts and the evidence. the president's counsel spent four hours focusing on the facts and the evidence. and that evidence shows that the president is guilty. but to the extent certain facts were shown to you, let's be very clear. we are not the ones hiding the facts. the house managers did not hide that evidence. president trump hid the evidence. and that's why we are standing up here asking you to not let the president silence these witnesses and hide these documents. we don't know precisely what the witnesses will say or what the documents will show but we all deserve to hear the truth.
10:45 am
and more importantly, the american people deserve to hear the truth. never before has a president put himself above the law and hid the facts of his offenses from the american people like this one. we cannot let this president be different. quite simply, the stakes are too high. second, as this biuilds on what weaver been arguing, the senate should want a complete evidenciary record before you vote on the most sacred task that the constitution entrusts in every single one of you. i can respect that some of you have deep beliefs that the removal of this president would be divisive. others, you may believe that leaving this president in the
10:46 am
oval office might be catastrophic to our republic and our democracy. but regardless of where you are, or regardless of where you land on this spectrum, you should want a full and complete record before you make a final decision and to understand the full story. it should not be about party affiliation. it should be about seeing all the evidence and voting your conscience based on all the relevant facts. it should be about doing impartial justice. consider the harm done to our constitutions, our constitutional order, and the public faith in our democracy. if the senate chooses to close its eyes to learning the full truth about the president's misconduct, how can the american people have confidence in the result of a trial without
10:47 am
witnesses? third, the president should want a fair trial. he has repeatedly said that publicly, that he wants a trial on the merits. he specifically said it. you saw a clip that he wanted a fair trial in the senate. that would have to be with witnesses that testify, including john bolton and mick mulvaney. he said that he wants a complete and total exoneration. well, whatever you say about this trial, there cannot be a total -- on exoneration without hearing from those witnesses. because an acquittal on an incomplete record after a trial lacking witnesses and evidence will be no exoneration. it will be no vindication. not for the president, not for this chamber and not for the
10:48 am
american people. and if the president is telling the truth and he did nothing wrong, and the evidence would prove that, then we all know that he would be an enthusiastic supporter of subpoenas. he would be here probably himself if he could, urging you to do subpoenas if he had information that would prove he was not totally in the wrong. if he's innocent, they should be asking to subpoena mick mulvaney and john bolton for their testimony. the president would be eager for them to testify about his innocence. he would be eager to show them the documents to ensure there was no corruption and burden sharing. but the fact that he trusts tope
10:49 am
testimony of his former advisers and documents speaks volumes. you should allow witnesses and documents so the president can get the fair trial he wanted. but more importantly, so the american people can get the fair trial they deserve. the american people deserve a fair trial. i said it at the onset of this trial that one of the most important decisions you would make that the moment in history would not be whether the presidency and the american people will get a full trial if. >> the faith in our institution depends on the perception of a fair process. a vote against witnesses and documents undermines that faith. senators, the american people want a fair trial.
10:50 am
the overwhelming majority of americans, three in four voters, three in four as of this past tuesday, believe this now, there's not much that the american people agree on these days, but they do agree on that, and they know what a fair trial is. that involves witnesses and that involves evidence. the american people deserve to know the facts about their president's conduct and those around him skprs th, and they d have confidence in this process, confidence that you made the right decision. in order to have that confidence, the senate must call relevant witnesses and obtain relevant documents withheld thus far by this president. the american people deserve a
10:51 am
fair trial. i now yield to my colleague manager. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, counsel for the president, last week the house managers argued for the testimony of four witnesses, ambassador john bolton, mick mulvaney, robert blair, and michael duffey, and during the presentation from both parties, it has become abundantly clear why the direct testimony from those witnesses is so critical, and new evidence continues to underscore that importance, so let's start with john bolton. the president's counsel has repeatedly stated that the president didn't personally tell any of our witnesses that he linked the military aid to the
10:52 am
investigations. there is simply no evidence anywhere that president trump ever linked security assistance to any investigations. most of the democrats' witnesses have never spoken to the president at all, let alone about ukraine's security assistance. not a single witness testified that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting or anything else. >> simply not true, as the testimony of ambassador sondland and the admission of mick mulvaney make very clear. the evidence before you proves that the president not only linked the aid to the investigations, he also conditioned both the white house meeting and the aid on ukraine's announcement of the investigations, but if you want more, a witness to acknowledge that the president told them directly that the aid was
10:53 am
linked, a witness in front of you, then you have the power to ask for it. i mentioned this portion, there's a slide -- i mentioned this portion of ambassador's manuscript in the beginning and manager schiff referenced it as well, but he says directly that the president told him this. now the president has publicly lashed out in recent days at ambassador bolton. he said what ambassador bolton is saying is nasty and untrue, but denials in 280 characters not the same as testimony under oath. we know that. let's put ambassador bolton under oath and ask him point-blank, did the president use $391 million of taxpayer money, military aid intended for an ally at war to pressure ukraine to investigate his 2020 opponent? the stakes are too high not to. i'd like to briefly walk you
10:54 am
through why ambassador bolton's testimony is essential to ensuring a fair trial. also addressing some of the questions that you've asked in the past two days. first, turning back to ambassador bolton's manuscript, the president's counsel has said no scheme existed, and the president's counsel has cited repeated denial, public denials of president trump's inner circle about bolton's allegations. none of them, of course, under oath. as we know from the testimony of ambassador bolton how important being sworn in really is. but ambassador bolton is the top national security aid has direct insight into the president's inner circle, and he's willing to testify under oat whethh whe quote, everyone was in the loop as he testified before. ambassador bolton reportedly knows, quote new details about senior cabinet officials who have publicly tried to sidestep involvement, end quote,
10:55 am
including secretary pompeo and mr. mulvaney's knowledge of the scheme. second, ambassador bolton has direct knowledge of key events outside of the july 25th call that confirm the president's scheme. remember, this is exactly the type of direct evidence the president's counsel say doesn't exist. that's partly because they would like you to believe that the july 25th call makes up all of the evidence of our case. the call, of course, is just a part of the large body of evidence that you've heard about the past week, but it is a key part. but ambassador bolton has critical insight into the president's misconduct outside of this call, and you should hear it. take, for example, the july 10th meeting with u.s. and ukrainian officials at the white house, dr. hill testified during the meeting that ambassador sond sand said that he had a deal with mr. mulvaney to schedule a white house meeting if the ukrainians did the
10:56 am
investigations. according to dr. hill, when ambassador bolton learned this, he told her to go back to the nsc's legal adviser, john eisenberg and tell him, quote, i am not a part of whatever drug deal sondland and mulvaney are cooking up on this, end quote. we already have corroboration of dr. hill's testimony from other witnesses like lieutenant colonel vindman, and we have new corroboration from ukraine, too. alexander dan a oleksandr danylyuk confirmed in an interview that the road map for u.s., ukraine relations should have been the subjects but the investigations were raised, end quote. danylyuk also explained why this was so problematic. he raised concerns that being, quote, dragged into this internal process would be really bad for the country, and also, if there's something that violates u.s. law, that's up to the u.s. to handle, end quote. danylyuk elaborated that there were serious things to discuss at the meeting, but if instead
10:57 am
ukraine was being dragged into, quote, internal politics using our president who is fresh on the job, inexperienced that could just destroy everything, end quote. another key defense raised by the president is that ukraine felt no pressure, that these investigations are entirely proper. well, here's ukraine saying the opposite of that. you know what else danylyuk said in the interview? quote, it was definitely john who i trusted, end quote talking about ambassador bolton. so if you want to know whether ukrainians felt pressure, call john bolton as a witness. he was trusted by ukraine and he was there for these key meetings, and he was so concerned that he characterized the scheme as a drug deal, and urged dr. hill and others to report their concerns to nsc legal counsel who reports to white house counsel cipollone. so let's ask ambassador bolton these questions directly under
10:58 am
oath. the president says ukraine felt no pressure, that soliciting these investigations wasn't improper. is that true? if it is true, why is ukraine publicly saying that the talk of investigations could destroy everything? and if the president's administration thought this was okay, why did you use the words drug deal? we should ask him that. why did you urge your staff to report concerns to lawyers? these are all questions that we can get the answers to. third, the president has suggested the house managers have not presented any direct evidence about mr. giuliani's role in the scheme. >> in fact, it appears the house committee wasn't particularly interested in presenting me with any direct evidence of what mayor giuliani did or why he did it. instead, they ask you to rely on hearsay, speculation, and
10:59 am
assumption, evidence that would be inadmissible in any court. >> well, once again, that's simply not true, but if you want more evidence, we know that ambassador bolton has direct evidence of mr. giuliani's role regarding ukraine and expressed concerns about it. the president has suggested that mr. giuliani wasn't doing anything improper and he was not involved in conducting policy by their own admission. they said he wasn't doing policy, so let's ask john bolton what giuliani was doing and whether the investigations were politically motivated or part of our foreign policy. he would know. dr. hill testified that ambassador bolton said mr. giuliani was, quote, a hand grenade, which she explained referred to, quote, all the statements that mr. giuliani was making publicly that the investigations that he was promoting, that the story line he was promoting, the narrative
11:00 am
he was promoting was going to backfi backfire, end quote. the narrative mr. giuliani was promoting, of course, was asking ukraine to dig up dirt on biden. dr. hill also testified that ambassador bolton was so concerned he told dr. hill and other members of the nsc staff, quote, nobody should be meeting with giuliani, end quote, and that was, quote, closely monitoring what mr. giuliani was doing and the messaging that he was sending out, end quote. so let's ask ambassador bolton. if mr. giuliani wasn't doing anything wrong why were you so concerned about his behavior, and then you directed your staff to have no part in this. if mr. giuliani wasn't trying to dig up dirt on biden, why did you seem to think he was -- that he could, quote, blow everything up? . four fourth, the president has said there was nothing wrong with the
11:01 am
july 25th call. once again the evidence suggests that ambassador bolton would testify the opposite was true. ambassador bolton expressed concerns even before the call that it would be quote, a disaster, because he thought there would be, quote, talk of investigations or worse. now, if the president would have you believe that the call was perfect as he's repeatedly stated, why don't we find out? because all of the evidence before you suggests otherwise. and ukraine knows this is not the case. the call was not perfect, danylyuk is clear on this point, he says, quote, one thing i can tell you that was clear from this july 25th call is that the issues of investigations is an issue of concern for trump, end quote. or it was clear. but if there's still any uncertainty, we must ask ambassador bolton. if there was no scheme, how did you know president trump would raise investigations on the
11:02 am
call? what made you so concerned a call would be a disaster? fifth, the president's main defense once again is that he withheld the military aid for a legitimate reason, but the evidence doesn't support that. we've heard a lot. the evidence doesn't support that. witness testimony, e-mails and other documents confirm that ambassador bolton and his subordinates on many occasions, including through in-person meetings with the president himself, urged the president that there was no legitimate reason to withhold the aid. but if you're not sure, if you think this could in any way have been about a legitimate policy reason, let's ask the national security adviser who was in charge of that. if this was simply a policy dispute as the president argues, let's ask john bolton whether that's true. the president also argues that you cannot evaluate the president's subjective intent, that the president can use his power any way he feels is
11:03 am
appropriate. that's of course, not the case. whether his intent was corrupt is a central part of this case as it is in nearly every criminal case in the country. as a backup argument, however, the president claims that, you know, we want you to read the president's mind. juries, of course -- >> this entire impeachment process is about the house managers insistence that they are able to read everybody's thoughts. they can read everybody's intention. they think you can read minds. >> they want to tell you what president trump thought. >> routinely asked to determine the defendant's state of mind. that's central to almost every criminal case in the country, and it's disingenuous for the president's counsel to argue that the defendant's state of mind is unknowable, that it requires a mind reader, or is
11:04 am
anything but the most common element of proof of any crime, constitutional or otherwise. but if you want more information, let's ask the president whether john bolton can help fill in any gaps about his state of mind. >> if you think about it, john, he knows some of my thoughts. he knows what i think about leaders. >> this case is about the president's conduct in ukraine. john bolton knows a lot about that. let's hear from him. a fair trial demands it, and it's more than just ensuring a fair trial. it's about remembering that in american truth matters. as mr. bolton said on january 30th, quote, the idea that somehow testifying to what you think is true is destructive to the system of government we have, i think is very nearly the reverse, the exact reverse of
11:05 am
the truth, end quote. now, as manager schiff started this out, the truth continues to come out. again, in an article today, more information. the truth will come out, and it's continuing to. the question here before this body is what do you want your place in history to be? do you want your place in history to be let's hear the truth or that we don't want to hear it? >> given our time constraints, we will now summarize the reasons why mr. mulvaney, mr. duffy, and mr. blair are also
11:06 am
important. let's turn first to mr. mulvaney. to begin with, mr. mulvaney participated in meetings and discussions with president trump at every single stage of this scheme. we just talked about motive and intent. if you want further insight into the president's motives or intent, further direct evidence of why he withheld the military aid and the white house meeting, you should call his acting chief of staff who had more access than anyone. mr. mulvaney is important because the president's counsel continues to argue incorrectly that our evidence is just hearsay and speculation. faced with ambassador sondland and mr. holmes saying this was all as clear as two plus two
11:07 am
equals four, the president says they are just guessing. that is simply not true. the evidence is direct. the evidence is compelling and confirmed by many witnesses corroborated by text messages, e-mails, and phone records. but if you want more evidence, if you want another firsthand account for why the aid was withheld for the undisputed quid pro quo for that white house meeting, let's just hear from mick mulvaney over and over again, ambassador sondland described to multiple witnesses how mr. mulvaney was directly involved in the president's scheme. here's some of that testimony. >> and so when i came in, gordon sondland was basically saying, well, look, we have a deal here that there will be a meeting.
11:08 am
i have a deal here with chief of staff mulvaney there will be a meeting if the ukrainians open up or announce these investigations into 2016 and burisma, and i cut it off immediately there. ambassador bolton told me that i am not part of this -- whatever drug deal that mulvaney and sondland are cooking up. >> what did you understand him to mean by the drug deal that mulvaney and sondland were cooking up? >> i took it to mean investigations for a meeting. >> did you go speak to the lawyers? zb . >> i certainly did. >> what i want to ask you about he makes reference in that drug deal to a drug deal cooked up by you and mulvaney. it's the reference to mulvaney that i want to ask you about. you've testified that mulvaney was aware of this quid pro quo of this condition that the ukrainians had to meet that is announcing these public investigations to get the white house meeting.
11:09 am
is that right? >> yeah, a lot of people were aware of it. >> including mr. mulvaney? >> correct. >> remarkably, the president is still denying the facts, even as they argue that if it's true, it's still not impeachable. but if the president did nothing wrong, if he held up the aid because of so-called corruption or burden sharing reasons, he should want his chief of staff to come testify under oath before this distinguished body and say just that. why doesn't he want mulvaney to appear before the united states senate? well, we know the answer, because mr. mulvaney will confirm the corrupt shakedown
11:10 am
sche scheme, because mr. mulvaney was in the loop. everyone was in the loop. as ambassador sondland summarized in his testimony on july 19th, he e-mailed several top administration officials including mr. mulvaney that president zelensky was prepared to receive potus's call and would ensure president trump that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will turn over every stone. mr. mulvaney replied i asked nsc to set it up for tomorrow. the above email seems clear, ambassador sondland testified that it was clear, that he was confirming to mr. mulvaney that
11:11 am
he had told president zelensky he had to tell president trump on that july 25th call that he would announce the investigation, which he explained was a reference to one of the two phony political investigations that president trump wanted. and mr. mulvaney replies that he'll set up the meeting, consistent with the agreement that sondland explained he'd reached with mr. mulvaney to condition a meeting on the investigations. but if there's any uncertainty, if there's any lingering questions about what this means, let's just question mick mulvaney under oath. so mulvaney also matters because we have heard several questions from this distinguished body of
11:12 am
senators, wanting to understand when or why or how the president ordered the hold on the security aid. as the head of the office of management and budget, mr. mulvaney has unique insights into all of these questions. your questions. remember that email exchange between mr. mulvaney and his depu deputy, rob blair on june 27th when mulvaney asked blair about whether they could implement the hold, and blair responded that it could be done but that congress would become unhinged? it wasn't just congress. it was the independent government accountability office that determined that the
11:13 am
president's hold violated the law. but if the president's counsel is going to argue without evidence that he withheld the aid as part of u.s. foreign policy, seems to make sense that the senate should hear directly from mr. mulvaney who has firsthand knowledge of exactly these facts. he said so himself. >> i was involved with the -- the process by which the money was held up temporarily. >> why doesn't president trump want mick mulvaney to testify? why? perhaps here's why. >> he also mentioned to me in the past hat corruption related to the dnc server? absolutely. no question about that, but that's it, and that's why we held up the money. now, there was a report -- >> so the demand for an
11:14 am
investigation into the democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to ukraine? >> the look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate. >> but to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. it is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the democratic server happened as well? >> we do -- we do that all the time with foreign policy. we were holding up money at the same time for, what was it, the northern triangle countries. we were holding up aid to the northern triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration. by the way, and this speaks to an important -- i'm sorry? this speaks to an important point because i heard this yesterday and i can never remember the gentleman, mckin y mckinney, is that his name? he testified yesterday, if you go and you believe the news reports because we've not seen any transcripts of this. the only testimony i've seen is sondland's testimony this
11:15 am
morning. if you read the news reports and believe them, mckinney said yesterday he was really upset with the political influence in foreign policy. that was one of the reasons he was so upset about this, and i have news for everybody. get over it. there's going to be political influence in foreign policy. >> is that what the constitution requires? get over it? is that good enough for this body, the world's greatest deliberative body? get over it? the president's counsel can try to emphasize mr. mulvaney and his attorneys' efforts to walk back this statement, but as you've seen with your own eyes, the statement was unequivocal, and even when given the chance in realtime on that day on october 17th to deny a quid pro quo, he doubled down.
11:16 am
get over it he said. but if you have any questions about what the real answer is where the truth lies, there's only one way to find out. let's all just question mr. mulvaney under oath during a senate trial. after all, counsel said that cross-examination was the greatest vehicle in the history of american jurisprudence ever invented to ascertain the truth. your standard. finally, i'd like to touch briefly on the importance of mr. blair and mr. duffey to this case. the president's lawyers have argued that withholding foreign aid is entirely within his right as commander in chief, that this was a normal ordinary decision and that this is all just one big policy disagreement.
11:17 am
we have proven exactly the opposite. this can't be a policy disagreement because the president's hold actually went against u.s. policy. the hold was undertaken outside the normal channels by a president who they admit was not conducting policy. the hold was concealed not only from congress but from the president's own officials responsible for ukraine policy, and most importantly, the hold violated the law. the president has the right to make policy, but he does not have the right to break the law and coerce an ally into helping him cheat in our free and fair
11:18 am
electio elections. and he doesn't have a right to use hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds as leverage to get political dirt on an american citizen who happens to be his political opponent. but if you remain unsure about all of this, who better to ask than mr. blair or mr. duffey. they oversaw and executed the process of withholding the aid. they can tell us exactly how unrelated to business as usual this whole shakedown scheme was when it was underway. they can testify about why the aid was withheld and whether there was any legitimate explanation for withholding it. some of you have asked that very
11:19 am
question. multiple officials including ambassador sondland, ambassador taylor, david holmes, lieutenant colonel vindman, jennifer williams, and mark sandy all testified that they were never given a credible explanation for the hold. so let's ask mr. blair. let's ask mr. duffey if this happens all the time as mick mulvaney suggests. why at this time in connection with this scheme or are all of those witnesses left in the dark? despite the president's refusal to produce a single document, to produce a shred of information in this impeachment inquiry
11:20 am
undertaken in the house, his administration did produce 192 pages of ukraine-related email records in freedom of information act lawsuits. albeit, in heavily redacted form. these documents confirm mr. duffey's central role in executing the hold. he's on nearly every single email released. nearly every single email. here's an important email from that production. just 90 minutes after the july 25th call, mr. duffey e-mailed officials at the department of defense that they should hold off on any additional dod obligations of these funds. mr. duffey added that the
11:21 am
request was sensitive and that they should keep this information closely held. the timing is important because if the aid wasn't linked to the july 25th call, if it wasn't related, why the sensitive closely held request made within two hours of that call? let's just ask mr. duffey. mr. duffey and mr. blair can testify about the concerns raised by dod to the office of management and budget, about the illegality of the hold, and why it remained in place even after dod warned the administration that it would violate the
11:22 am
impoundment control act. now, the president, of course, has disputed this fact, but we have demonstrated that omb was warned repeatedly by dod officials of two things. first, continuing to withhold the aid would prevent the department of defense from spending the money before the end of the fiscal year, and second, the hold was potentially illegal as turned out to be the case. by august 9th, dod told mr. duffey a directly that dod, the department of defense could no longer support the office of management and budget's claims that the hold would not preclude timely execution of the aid for ukraine, our vulnerable ally at war with russian-backed e
11:23 am
separatists. yet, as mr. duffey reportedly told ms. mccuster at the department of defense on august 30th, there was a clear direction from potus to continue the hold. clear direction from the president of the united states to continue the hold. so how did mr. duffey understand the clear direction to continue the hold? why is the president claiming that this wasn't unlawful when dod, the department of defense, repeatedly warned his administration that it was? wouldn't beawe all like to ask duffey these questions? finally, here's another reason why we know this was not business as usual.
11:24 am
on july 29th, mr. duffey, a political appointee with zero relevant experience abruptly seized responsibility for withholding the aid from mark sandy, a career office of management and budget official, seized the responsibility from a career official. mr. duffey provided no credible explanation for that decision. mr. sandy testified that nothing like that had ever happened in his entire governmental career. let's think about that. if this is as routine as the president claims, why is a career official saying he's
11:25 am
never seen anything like this happen before? mr. duffey knows why. shouldn't we just tab tke the t to ask him? the american people deserve a fair trial. the constitution deserves a fair trial. the president deserves a fair trial. a fair trial means witnesses. a fair trial means documents. a fair trial means evidence. no one is above the law, and i yield to my distinguished colleague, manager lofgren. >> mr. chief justice and senators, it's not just about hearing from witnesses. you need documents. the documents don't lie. there are specific documents
11:26 am
relevant to this impeachment trial in the custody of the white house, omb, dod, and the state department and the president has hidden them from us. i'm not going to go through each category again in details, but here are some observations. this is, of course, an impeachment case against the president of the united states, nothing could be more important, and the most important documents, documents that go directly to who knew what when are being held by the executive branch. many of these records are at the white house. the white house has records about the phone calls with president zelensky, about scheduling an oval office meeting with president zelensky, about the president's decision to hold security assistance, about communications among his top aides, about concerns raised by public officials with legal counsel.
11:27 am
we've heard about ambassador bolton's handwritten notes and book manuscript, and lieutenant colonel vindman's presidential policy memorandum. we know of reports about a number of emails in early august trying to create after the fact justifications for the hold, but we haven't seen any of them. they're at the white house being hidden by the president. i think it's a cover-up. documents at the state department, records about the recall of ambassador yovanovitch, about mr. giuliani's efforts for the president, about concerns raised about the hold, about the ukrainian reaction to the hold, and when exactly they learned about it, about negotiations with the ukrainians for an oval office meeting. we know of ambassador taylor's first person cable and notes and mr. kent's memos to file.
11:28 am
we know about mr. sondland's e-mails pompeo and brechbuhl and perry, but we haven't seen them. they're sitting at the state department. dod and omb also have records, records about president trump's hold on military aid to ukraine, about the justification for the hold, about hiding the hold from congress and trying to justify the hold after the fact, and about why the hold was lifted but we haven't seen them. they're at dod and omb. why haven't we seen them? because the president directed all of his agencies not to produce them. this trial should not reward the president's really unprecedented obstruction by allowing him to control what evidence you see and what will remain hidden. you should ask for these documents on behalf of the american people, and you should ask for these documents to get
11:29 am
truth yourself. now, let's come become to the issue of delay since the president's lawyers have suggested that having witnesses and documents would make this trial take too long. there will be lengthy court battles they say. the president might even invoke executive privilege for the very first time in this entire impeachment process. it would be better, we're told, to skip straight to the final verdict, to break from centuries of precedent and end this trial without hearing from a single witness, without reviewing a single document that the president ordered hidden. respectfully, that shouldn't happen. house managers aren't interested in delaying these proceedings. we're interested in the full truth, in a trial that is fair to the parties and to the american people in the facts of the president's counsel agrees are so critical to this trial. it's why we've said we won't go to court. we'll follow all the rulings of
11:30 am
the chief justice. we can get the witness depositions done in a week. in fact, i know we can because if you, the senators order it, that's the law. you have the sole power to try impeachments. if questions or objections come up including objections based on executive privilege, the senate itself and the chief justice in the first instance can resolve them. we aren't suggesting that the president waive executive privilege, we simply suggest that the chief justice can resolve issues related to any assertion of executive privilege as the supreme court recognized in the case of judge walter nixon, judges will stay out of disputes over how the senate exercises its sole power to try impeachments. that ensures there will be no unnecessary delay, and it's why we propose we suspend the trial for one week and that during that time, you go back to
11:31 am
business as usual. while the trial is suspended, we'll take witness depositions, review the documents that are provided at your direction. the four witnesses you should hear from are readily available, ambassador bolton has already said he will appear. we can and would move quickly to depose these witnesses within a week of the issuance of subpoenas. the documents, too, are ready to be produced. we're ready to review them quickly and to present additional evidence. meanwhile, the senate can continue going about its important legislative work as it did during the depositions in the clinton impeachment trial. the president's opposition to this suggestion says a lot. the president is the architect of the very delay he barwarns against. he could easily avoid it. he could move things along. he could stop trying to silence witnesses and hide evidence. i think he's afraid the truth
11:32 am
will come out. he hopes his threats of continued delay, however unjustified, will cause you to throw up your hands and give up on a fair trial. please don't give up. this is too important for our democracy. a decision to forgo witnesses and documents at this trial would be a big departure from senate precedent. when the senate investigated watergate, it heard from the highest white house officials. %-pe senate insisted. we got to the truth then because the senate came together and put a fair proceeding above party loyalty. we should all want the truth, and so we ask you do it again, that you put aside any politics, party loyalty, belief in your president, which we understand and sympathize with, but subpoena the documents and the
11:33 am
witnesses necessary to make this a fair trial, to hear and see the evidence you need to impartially administer justice. now, there's been a lot of discussion of executive privilege during this trial. even if the president asserts executive privilege, something he has not yet done, it wouldn't harm the president's legal rights or cause undue delay, and here's why. let's focus on john bolton since this week's revelations confirm the importance of his testimony. first, as private citizen john bolton is fully protected by the first amendment if he wants to testify. there's no basis for imposing prior restraint for censoring him just because some of his testimony could include conversations with the president. that's common place. as long as his testify isn't classified, it is shielded by the free speech clause, by the
11:34 am
first amendment. ambassador bolton has written a book. it's inconceivable that he is forbidden from telling the united states senate sitting as a high court of impeachment information that shortly will be in print. if the president did attempt to invoke executive privilege, he would fail. it's true for two separate reasons. first, claims of executive privilege always involve a balancing of interests. the supreme court confirmed in u.s. v nixon, the nixon tapes case that executive privilege can be overcome by a need for evidence in a criminal trial. that is even more true here. in an impeachment trial of the president of the united states, which is probably the most important interest under the constitution, it would certainly outweigh any claim of privilege. precedent confirms the point. to name just a few, national security advisers for president
11:35 am
carter, president clinton, samuel burger, president george w. bush, condoleezza rice, and president obama, susan rice testified in congressional investigations. these advisers discussed their communications with top government officials including the presidents they served. there's no reason why all of these officials could not testify -- could testify in the normal course of events and hearings but ambassador bolton, a former official couldn't testify in the most important trial there could possibly be. the second reason is the president waived any claim of executive privilege about ambassador bolton's testimony. all 17 witnesses testified in the house about these matters without any assertion of privilege by the president. president trump as well as his lawyers and senior officials have publicly discussed and
11:36 am
tweeted about these issues at some length. the president has also directly denied reports about what ambassador bolton will say in his forthcoming book. under these circumstances, the president cannot be allowed to tell his version of the story to the public while using executive privilege to silence a key witness who would contradict him. you shouldn't let the president escape responsibility only to later see clearly what happened in ambassador bolton's book. there are no national security risks here. the president has declassified the two phone calls with president zelensky, all 17 witnesses testified about the president's conduct regarding ukraine. we aren't interested in asking about anything other than ukraine. that's simply a bogus argument. the constitution uses the word sole power only twice.
11:37 am
first when it gives the house sole power to impeach, and second article i section 3 where it gives the senate sole power to try impeachments, and here's what it says. the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. when the president of the united states is tried, the chief justice shall preside. now, i think that provision in the constitution means something. it's up to the senate to decide how to try this impeachment with fairness, with witnesses, and documents. privileges asserted can be decided using the process that you devise. that's not unconstitutional. it's what the constitution provides. you have the power. you decide. please decide for a fair trial that will yield the truth and serve our constitution and the
11:38 am
american people. i yield now to manager schiff. >> senators, before we yield to counsel for the president, i'd like to take a moment by talking about what i think is at stake here. a no vote on the question before you will have long-lasting and harmful consequences long after this impeachment trial is over. we agreed with the president's counsel on this much, this will set a new precedent. this will be cited in impeachment trials from this point to the end of history. you can bet in every impeachment that follows whether it is a presidential impeachment or the impeachment of a judge, if that judge or president believes that it is to his or her advantage that there shall be a trial with
11:39 am
no witnesses, they will cite the case of donald j. trump. they will make the argument that you can adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the party who is accused without hearing from a single witness, without reviewing a single document, and i would submit that will be a very dangerous and long-lasting precedent that we will all have to live with. president trump's wholesale obstruction of congress strikes at the heart of our constitution and democratic system of separation of powers. make no mistake, the president's actions in this impeachment inquiry constitute an attack on congressional oversight on the co-equal nature of this branch of government, not just on the house, but on the senate's ability as well to conduct its oversight to serve as a check and balance on this president and every president that follows. if the senate allows president trump's obstruction to stand, it effectively nullifies the
11:40 am
impeachment power. it will allow future presidents to decide whether they want their misconduct to be investigated or not, whether they would like to participate in an impeachment investigation or not. that is the power of the congress. that is not a power of the president. by permitting a categorical obstruction, it turns the impeachment power against itself. how do we respond to this unprecedented obstruction will shape future debates between our branches of government and the executive forever, and it's not just impeachment. ability of congress to conduct meaningful and probing oversight, oversight that by its nature is intended to be a check and balance on the awesome powers of the executive branch hinges on our willingness to call witnesses and compel documents that president trump is hiding with no valid
11:41 am
justification, no precedential support. if we tell the president effectively you can act corruptly. you can abuse the powers of your office to coerce a foreign government to helping you cheat in an election by withholding military aid and when you're caught, you can further abuse your powers by concealing the evidence of your wrongdoing, the president becomes unaccountable to anyone. our government is no longer a government with three co-equal branches. the president effectively for all intents and purposes become above the law. this is, of course, the opposite of what the framers intended. they purposely entrusted the power of impeachment to the legislative branch so that it may protect the american people from a president who believes that he can do whatever he
11:42 am
wants. so we must consider how our actions will reverberate for decades to come and the impact they will have on the functioning of our democracy, and as we consider this critical decision, it's important to remember that no matter what you decide to do here, whether you decide to hear witnesses and relevant testimony, the facts will come out in the end. even over the course of this trial, we have seen so many additional facts come to light. the facts will come out. in all of their horror, they will come out, and there are more court documents and deadlines under the freedom of information act. witnesses will tell their stories in future congressional hearings, in books and in the media. this week has made that
11:43 am
abundantly clear. the documents the president is hiding will come out. the witnesses the president is concealing will tell their stories, and we will be asked why we didn't want to hear that information when we had the chance, when we could consider its relevance and importance in making this most serious decision. what answer shall we give if we do not pursue the truth now, if we allow it to remain hidden until it is too late to consider on the profound issue of the president's innocence or guilt. what we are asking you to do on behalf of the american people is simple. use your sole power to try impeachment by holding a fair trial. get the documents they refuse to provide to the house. hear the witnesses they refuse
11:44 am
to make available to the house, just as this body has done in every single impeachment trial until now. let the american people know that you understand they deserve the truth. let them though you still care about the truth, that the truth still matters. though much divides us on this, we should agree. a trial stripped of all its trappings should be a search for the truth, and that requires witnesses and testimony. now, you may have seen just in afternoon, the president's former chief of staff general kelly said a senate trial without witnesses is a job only
11:45 am
half done. a trial without witnesses is only half a trial. well, i have to say, i can't agree. a trial without witnesses is no trial at all. you either have a trial or you don't, and if you're going to have a real trial, you need to hear from the people who have firsthand information. now, we presented some of them to you, but you know as well as we there are others that you should hear from. but let me close this portion with words i think more powerful than general kelly's, and they come from john adams who in 1776 wrote right to trial by jury the heart and lungs, the mainspring
11:46 am
and the center wheel of our liberties, without which the body must die, the watch must run down, the government must become arbitrary. now what does that mean? without a fair trial the government must become arbitrary. now, of course he's talking about the right of an average citizen to a trial by jury. well, should courtrooms all across america when someone is tried but they're a person of influence and power, they can declare at the beginning of the trial if the government's case is so good, let him prove it without witnesses. if people of power and influence can insist to the judge that the house, that the prosecutors,
11:47 am
that the government, that the people must prove their case without witnesses or documents, a right reserved only for the powerful because you know, only donald trump, only donald trump of any defendant in america can insist on a trial with no witnesses. if that should be true in courts throughout the land, then as adams wrote, the government becomes arbitrary because whether you have a fair trial or no trial at all depends on whether you are a person of power and influence like donald j. trump. the body will die. the clock will run down, and our government becomes arbitrary. the importance of a fair trial here is not less than in every courtroom in america. it is greater than any courtroom
11:48 am
in america because we set the example for america. i said at the outset, and i'll repeat again, your decision on guilt or innocence is important, but it's not the most important decision. if we have a fair trial, however that trial turns out, whatever your verdict may be, at least we can agree we had a fair trial. at least we can agree that the house had a fair opportunity to present its case. at least we can agree that the president had a fair opportunity to present their case. if we have a fair trial, and we can disagree about the verdict, but we can all agree the system worked as it was intended. we had a fair trial, and we reached a decision. rob this country of a fair tr l trial, and there can be no representation that the verdict has any meaning.
11:49 am
how could it if the result is baked in by the process? assure the american people whatever the result may be that at least they got a fair shake. there's a reason why the american people want to hear from witnesses, and it's not just about curiosity. it's because they recognize that in every courtroom in america, that's just what happens, and if it doesn't happen here, the government has become arbitrary. there is one person who is entitled to a different standard, and that's the president of the united states, and that is the last thing the founders intended. we reserve the balance of our time. >> thank you, mr. manager. >> mr. chief justice -- >> the majority leader is recognized. >> i request the senate take a 15-minute recess. >> without objection, so ordered. you've been watching the impeachment trial of president donald j. trump. i'm wolf blitzer. >> and i'm jake tapper.
11:50 am
senators are now taking a brief recess after inquire nearly two hours of debate over whether to subpoena additional witnesses and documents. right now it appears that republicans have the 51 votes necessary to block any testimony from new witnesses including, for example, former national security adviser john bolton. just as the chief justice gavelled in today, republican senator lisa murkowski released a statement saying that she will vote no. despite explosive new information we are learning from john bolton. >> according to the "new york times," in a report that was just released, bolton's book manuscript says the president directed him to help with the pressure campaign against ukraine in order to extract dirt on democrats including the bidens last may. that was two months before the july call with the leader of ukraine. bolton claims according to the book that the president's request came during an oval office meeting that included rudy giuliani, acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney, and white house
11:51 am
counsel pat cipollone who has been representing the president in this impeachment trial. the president denies the conversation ever happened. >> former chief of staff john kelly just weighed in about the likelihood this trial will see no additional witnesses. kelly telling a new jersey newspaper, quote, if i was advising the united states senate, i would say if you don't respond to 75% of the american voters and have witnesses, it's a job only half done. you open yourself up forever as a senate that shirks its responsibilities, and wolf, i mean, it is astounding when you just take a step back and think two of the people calling loudest for more witnesses are two conservatives who worked for donald trump, former white house chief of staff, retired marine colonel john kelly, and conservative icon john bolton. they are both saying new witnesses. we need to hear more, but we're pretty confident 51 senators are going to say no thanks. >> and kelly said that bolton would be an excellent witness
11:52 am
because he was a, quote, copious note taker. >> he also said earlier in the week when he was giving remarks, i think, in texas, that when it comes to a disagreement about an event between president trump and john bolton, he believes john bolton, even though he and bolton have famously clashed when they were working together at the white house. >> you know, john king, the house managers now they had about an hour and a half. they still have a half hour time remaining. but now the whiete house counse, they're going to have two hours to make their case. >> the question is do they take all their time. the math is on their side. they were poked quite a bit pi the house managers. the house managers saying these guys came in here and lied to you in your house. mr. cipollone said this, we don't belief it's true. mr. raskin said rudy giuliani's a big player. the facts prove that's not true. in trying their last gasp, they know the math. they know these senators have
11:53 am
now committed. they're trying to convince republican senators who have committed to vote one way to change their mind. it's not going to happen. it's not going to happen, but they're trying, and so they're being quite pointed and quite personal and quite political in doing so. the question is does the president's team decide they want to fire back? you can see the tension and sense the tension on the floor. or do they take a deep breath, swallow their competitive pride if you will and say we're winning. we're just going to make the case. they said they had a rock solid case. why do you need more? let's go. it will be interesting to see how that plays out. it's tense in there. >> clearly the democrats are going to lose, gloria, when it comes to witnesses. there are 51 republicans now who will oppose additional witnesses. so that's a done deal. and of course it's always been a done deal for all practical purposes that when it comes to conviction and removal from office, there's no way they're going to get to 67. >> right, but this is about making the political case to the american people that this wasn't a fair trial, 75% of you want
11:54 am
witnesses as was pointed out from the floor of the senate. that is not what you're going to get. these people are voting to acquit someone effectively before they've heard the whole story without the witnesses, and so i think that -- and by the way, making the case that the president's chief counsel is a material witness to this story according to john bolton's book, which is reported today by the "new york times." so i don't think the democrats are in any rush to end this, even though they know they're going to lose in the end, but they want to keep repeating this and making this case to the american public that, yeah, he's going to get acquitted, but you know, as schiff said, you know, this is going to be -- this trial is going to be cited through the end of history because it was not done properly. >> it is true that we're talking about -- we have been talking about president andrew johnson's impeachment, so it's not as though this information goes away. >> that was in 1868.
11:55 am
>> thank you. i wasn't born yet. >> senator santorum, something that i'm really curious about. john kelly, retired marine general, man of honor, former white house chief of staff, national security adviser john bolton, former conservative icon, they are out there quite obviously saying that john bolton needs to be heard from. there's really -- you could argue about john bolton's book sales, but intellectually, politically, there's no upside to be saying that, especially for john kelly. why does it seem to matter so little to the republican senators? because i can understand if john kelly and john bolton were out there saying this is all a farce. it's a democratic partisan witch hunt, blah blah blah, i could see people, republican senators saying look at what john bolton's saying, look at what john kelly is saying. these are people that have some cred with republican senators. why doesn't anybody seem to care? >> well, first off, they're not
11:56 am
united states senators. i think that's probably the biggest thing. they have a very different responsibility than u.s. senators do, and both of them are former trump employees who have left the trump administration on less than good terms, and so i think that you always take someone who leaves employment from somewhere else and leaves under rocky circumstances and you somewhat discount motives that they may have other than what is in the interests of the country or your best interests. i think that -- i want to turn to lisa murkowski. this sort of feeds in -- >> i want to interrupt for just one second. senator schumer, the democratic leader is speaking right now. we're going to go to that right now. >> when you have so many -- one of the most troubling things about this is what the president did was so wrong, and there were so many people in the loop. all of whom shrugged their shoulders and went along with something that was decidedly against the law. maybe they said to themselves,
11:57 am
well, that's who donald trump is. that's who we're working for. but when there are so many people in the loop, there are so many revelations from that loop as time goes on. and so -- no, folks -- and so it is devastating. as for there is no agreement between leader mcconnell and myself. we have stood for one thing. we do not want this rushed through. we do not want it in the dark of night. members have an obligation to tell the american people and to tell the people of their states why they are voting. so we are not -- we are going to use whatever power we have to present it -- prevent it from being rushed through. but right now there is no agreement. i'm not going to take any questions. >> all right, let's go back to our conversation and let me just ask you about john kelly and
11:58 am
john bolton. obviously these are big stories out there and in a different time and place, that would be the headline. >> and they've become semihopeful heroes for some democrats. just to be more straightforward about it. they don't matter to senate republicans because they're not donald trump, and all senate republicans care about is the political power of donald trump. that scares them. they want to be reelected. they're worried about their own political future, and i think that's what's playing out here. it doesn't matter, they're seen as sort of the -- >> trump supporters, it's not trump personally as much as it is the fact that donald trump has 90th-plus percent of support within the republican party. >> is that a real poll number or is that the one he uses? >> it's big. it's as big as i've seen any republican president. >> he has far more political power than john kelly and john bolton. >> again, these are not strong political figures. >> let's talk about lisa murkows murkowski. >> let me read a little bit of
11:59 am
her statement, and john i want you to walk me through. there are two republicans who will vote in favor of witnesses, mitt romney and susan collins of maine. lisa murkowski will vote no, which is significant. here's one of the things she says given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, i have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the senate. i don't believe the continuation of this process will change anything. it is sad for me to admit that. as an institution the congress has failed. it has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process and drag the supreme court into it. she's very tough on this issue of the supreme court and the chief justice specifically. it sounds like that may have been her reason. she didn't want a 50/50 tie, which would have dragged the chief justice john roberts into this whole thing. as a result, it's going to be 51-49. >> it's kind of a kitchen sink statement in the sense that if she voted for witnesses, she
12:00 pm
would have put the chief justice in a bad position, step back. she criticizes the house, check, she criticizes the attacks on the supreme court. is that rand paul for trying to expose the whistle-blower and putting the chief justice in a bad position or elizabeth warren for proposing a question or is it both? she's clearly not a fan of the president's behavior either. the interesting part to me is she made this decision, which will make her republican colleagues happy because it will get the trial we now know the trial will be over, it might go a few more days, but it won't be a few more weeks. she apparently according to ra kn -- pushing mcconnell to take a few days here, to not rush the vote so senators can have a time to speak. susan collins has a tough re-election campaign. that point is fascinating to me. do these senators, lieu is a murkowski, susan collins wanting time to speak and explain themselves, doesn't surprise me, outlier role sometimes within
12:01 pm
the republicans. how many others? are there others? you read marco rubio's statement where he does take a shot at the president. he's not hugging -- not a tough one, i get it. >> it's really between the lines here. >> right, and so does he just want his statement to stand for it and let this go, or do other senators, other republican senators want to go to the floor, does lamar alexander want to go to the floor and read his statement? where he says i don't like what the president did here, i just don't think it's impeachable. >> rob portman from ohio used the word wrong, not just inappropriate, but wrong. but senators syransantorum, it hard to tell where she was going to land if you just went by the requests she asked during q & a period because she would ask a question that was tough for one side and then she ewould ask a question tough for the other side. >> what lisa's statement reflects is what any member would be going through who's in her position. she knows her vote isn't going to be decisive, so you do
12:02 pm
consider the ramifications of your vote given the fact that your vote isn't going to make a difference, but i think as wolf pointed out, putting the supreme court on the line and she does, she kicks the house pretty hard in this statement. she kicks the senate pretty hard, and she's saying, you know, we've already sullied the house. we've already sullied the senate. the president has done his job of sullying the executive branch. the last thing i want to do is bring the supreme court into this mess, and i'm going to end this. so you can say, well, she's diverting, she's dodging, but lisa's a pretty straight shooter. i think she's a very thoughtful person, and i think she's just saying end the mess. >> i think this would have been completely valid had she put the statement out a few days ago. >> no, no, no. >> what was strange about this -- >> she had to wait until she knew it didn't count. >> what is strange about this is that she was undecided, was contemplating it, this bomb shell of a "new york times" story comes out and then she comes out and says oh, wait, we don't need witnesses. we don't need to hear more. the timing of it.
12:03 pm
>> she also said that the house -- the house's articles of impeachment were flawed and rushed, so maybe it wouldn't have mattered. >> correspondent see anything in that statement -- i don't see anything in that statement that is even vaguely critical of president trump, though. i don't see anything. >> i read this in my initial reading, the last statement about supreme court specifically towards warren. that may be because i'm a democrat. >> talk about the importance of this moment for senators to speak because, you know, for a rot lot of us who are watching this the vote is really all that matters. i really only remember one person speaking on the floor of the senate during the clinton impeachment, and that was joe lieberman who people thought might vote to convict. he gave a statement where he talked about the agony of watching a fellow democratic president put the country through what he did based on the corrosive behavior of bill clinton. why is it important for these people to give statements about how they voted?
12:04 pm
>> well, unless they change the actual rules, you're not going to hear any senators speak. the best they can hope for at this point is that they can have record statements submitted for the record. it would take a resolution or a motion to suspend the rules to have senators have their voices heard during the trial. right now the best that the democrats can hope for is that their case continues to be made by the house managers. >> so john, what are you reporting then? you said that they want to speak. are you saying that mcconnell's going to suspend the rules to allow them to speak? >> you heard schumer, they're trying to cut some sort of a deal. af couple of e-mails from the people on the hill, there's some conversation going on that senator durbin said it's mcconnell who wants to push the vote back until wednesday. the white house is by all of our cnn's reporting is asking this be done before the state of the union. they want it done on tuesday. and this is the back and forth. you heard schumer, a little prickly there at the end, i'm not going to take any questions. he said there's no deal.
12:05 pm
so obviously they would have to reach an accommodation of some sort of a deal. i guess alan would know this better than me. would they have to suspend the trial or put the trial in recess, or would they have to have a new resolution that says we're going to have a speaking period. >> they could get unanimous consent to permit senators to pe speak and dare their colleagues to object. what colleague is going to object to that? >> i heard rumors they were going to give every member ten minutes. >> we're getting new information that dana bash is on capitol hill with manu raju. >> we can add to the conversation what we've been hearing here in the halls of the senate about the notion of when they're going to have a final vote and the question of senators wanting to have their time to make their case on the senate floor for the record. they've been sitting there for a very long time. we've been hearing the trial, but they haven't been able to speak. there's a whole bunch of toing and froing going on behind the scenes about when they will potentially take the final vote, and that statement by chuck
12:06 pm
schumer we just took live, that was really telling. >> it really was because he said we have not reached an agreement, him and mitch mcconnell, but the final process to get to a vote, and what we're hearing, what your sources are telling you is that there's going to be -- there's a discussion now to have the final vote on wednesday. now, that is much different than what we were hearing last night. republican leadership was pushing hard to get this done late tonight, and one big reason why as you were saying, the members have been signature around -- sitting around. they want a chance to express themselves. those deliberations that occurred in the clinton trial, those happened behind closed doors. that will be in a public session. they're also running into some logistical issues. the senate floor will be closed for part of tuesday. >> the iowa caucuses are on monday. >> mitch mcconnell is proposing a wednesday time to have the final vote but the white house really wants this done tuesday so the president can announce in the state of the union he has just been acquitted.
12:07 pm
>> that's really the key, the key is it's not -- now that we know where lisa murkowski stands and since last night your reporting on lamar alexander, we know unless there's something that we really don't expect that there won't be a vote to allow new witnesses, so we don't have any expectation that the president will be convicted unless, again, something dramatic happens. now it's all over but the when. for people out there wondering why is this an issue, it is an issue because it is history because these senators want a chance to sort of say their piece, and the fact that this is a real negotiation going on between the senate republican and democratic leader, they can't really say that because they have to show that they're doing -- >> a lot of republicans, too we have not heard a lot of o'senate republicans speak their minds about where they come down on these issues.
12:08 pm
a lot of them -- ben sasse told us a lot of republicans agree with what lamar alexander said. it speaks to a lot of us. i asked them, do you think the president acted inappropriately. he will not answer that question. other senators decide to express their views. >> remember, as we've been saying since the beginning of this trial, a lot of it is about the votes but so much, maybe even more right now because we are in an election year is about persuading public opinion. back to you wolf and jake. >> dana and manu thank you so much. stay with us. more live cnn special coverage of the senate impeachment trial of president donald j. trump after this quick break. stay with us. by the strolle♪s
12:09 pm
♪ i want to go, go, go where my baby is ♪ hey. hey. you must be steven's phone. now you can take control of your home wifi and get a notification the instant someone new joins your network. only with xfinity xfi. downlaod the xfi app today.
12:10 pm
too many after-parties. new neutrogena® bright boost with dullness-fighting neoglucosamine. boosts cell turnover by 10 times for instantly brighter skin. bright boost neutrogena®. you spend less and get way more., so you can bring your vision to lif. for small prices, you can build big dreams. spend less. get way more. shop everything home at wayfair toda.
12:11 pm
12:12 pm
[ disthave you ever wondered [ distant band playing ] what the motorcade driver drives when they're not in a motorcade? [ upbeat music starts ] [ engine revving ] ♪ this one drives a volkswagen passat. ♪ if they saw you on the street would your advisor recognize you? at ameriprise, we see you as more than a client. that's why our advisors care about what's important to you. they offer personalized advice to help you prepare for what's expected and even what's not. giving you the freedom to live financially confident. because to us, you're more than just another face in the crowd. with the right financial advisor, life can be brilliant.
12:13 pm
ameriprise financial. brushing only reaches 25% of your mouth. listerine® cleans virtually 100%. helping to prevent gum disease and bad breath. never settle for 25%. always go for 100. bring out the bold™ that's a reason to switch to jackson hewitt. our tax returns come with a free lifetime accuracy guarantee. life may change. your lifetime accuracy guarantee won't. tax prep guaranteed at jackson hewitt. welcome back to our special coverage, the u.s. senate is about to come back from a recess in the impeachment trial where we will hear the president's legal team argue why more witnesses should not be called. these debates are happening just as the "new york times" has a
12:14 pm
brand new report about john bolton's manuscript where the former national security adviser claims that the president directed him to orchestrate some of the pressure campaign in ukraine. he claims that rudy giuliani was in the room for that conversation among others. rudy giuliani denying that in a tweet, saying quote, the meetings the times describes is a lie. why didn't he quit? how much integrity and honor will a man sacrifice for greed and revenge? continuing, quote, i consider john bolton a friend during my investigation uncovering massive democrat corruption in ukraine. he never complained to me and now he says he did to pompeo. if he did, he's a back stabber, if he didn't he is a liar. >> lrket's bring in jeffrey to n toobin. they're going to do some legal analysis for us first of all. what do you think about this uproar that has developed with this "new york times" report? >> well, i think there's one background fact that has somewhat gotten lost, and that's
12:15 pm
that the president is guilty. the president -- the house managers proved what they set out to prove. that's what senator alexander acknowledged. senator toomey acknowledged it earlier today, senator sasse who's very fond of instructing the rest of us on the place of morality sort of halfway acknowledged it, and rick santorum said something very wise. he said the republican senators are very afraid of the drip, drip, drip, and by that i think he means the drip, drip, drip proving further that the president is guilty of what he's accused of in these two articles. so the goal of the house managers it would seem to me is to just get this thing over with because the longer it goes, the more facts come out and every fact shows that the president is guilty of these impeachable offenses. >> what about that, laura?
12:16 pm
>> i think that the house managers have to balance that test between when they have all the information. you have to remember what lamar alexander said yesterday. it wasn't whether the president did this, it's what they should do about it. and so it does turn the tide from being that political c calculus of proving the point, being very comprehensive in your approach and the evidence you do have and presenting it in a holistic way and then being thought to politically beat a dead horse. i have to point out two things jeffrey talked about, the idea of the background things. number one, senator murkowski, you are mistaken. congress as a body did not fail, but perhaps the senate has and breaking from precedent having any witnesses should they decide to do that. that's a failure of the senate not to receive the evidence, not a failure of congress and the house to bring it. number two, i protest vehemently the fact that john bolton is seen somehow as being very magnanimous in all of this, that somehow because of his
12:17 pm
willingness to testify he is absolved of being asked the question why now, why once you realize that the person kupperman filed a suit about the subpoena and they withdrew it and said no, i still want an answer, why not then offer to tell what you told in your book, why must we hear from the "new york times," why must we hear from people at your lectures or book tours about what you've said, especially now? ifdo you know that you may be t linchpin, why not speak up? instead this discussion of john kelly and john bolton who are pretending as if, oh, i think this is the right thing to do. it's kind of like dorothy in the wizard of oz. you could have clicked your heels three times and gone home at any time and now you want credit fully? i don't buy it. >> that's interesting. but senator santorum, before the break we were talking about -- or during the break we were talking about my theory that when they do major court cases today and there's a jury trial,
12:18 pm
the -- especially if there's a lot of money behind, the prosecution or the defense, especially the defense, they do profiles of the jurors. they try to figure out what will appeal to these jurors, whether it's based on dem grachographic they know the identity of the jurors. they target specific arguments to those jurors, jamie gangel the other day noted that when senator lamar alexander who was a former legislative aide to howard baker, who played a major role during watergate asking the question what did the president know and when did he know it, originally asking it in the way of helping president nixon ultimately came to be on the other side of that. there was no mention of howard baker that i discerned. there was no mention of anything that might appeal specifically to that juror and i also wonder if that was a failure logistically, i'm not talking about what should be or the law or the constitution or whether or not what president trump did is wrong, just logistically, was it a failure to not try to like look at murkowski, look at
12:19 pm
alexander, try to figure out psychological arguments to appeal to them? >> i think you have to be very careful how you do it. you don't want to make it obvious that you're going after a particular senator by talking about, oh, you know, senator alexander you did this, you did that. that would be a big mistake. you could very easily work in the nixon impeachment and the role that howard baker played and talk about the senate and its great, you know, its wisdom or the house in its old days, those kind of appeals would have been smart. but again, if you look at who they put as house managers, that's not who those people are. these people are folks who were focused on making the case to the american public and appe appealing to the base. unlike a lawyer who's there to win the case, they know they weren't going to win the case. >> you really think that? >> no, because they knew they could never win. >> i agree completely with this. the democrats made a calculation. they were not impartial jurors
12:20 pm
in the room. the people may have said they were on the fence. they weren't really, and they were making the case to the american public the whole time. that may be cynical, but i think that's right. >> and i think even making the case -- >> you both agree. >> i agree. even making the case that rudy giuliani was a big player and he had nothing to do with foreign policy, people sitting in that room know what rudy giuliani was doing. they knew that the president said to the three amigos go talk to rudy ask now you know that rudy giuliani was in an oval office meeting where it was very clear that the president wanted him to meet with the president of ukraine. but when you're talking to the american people -- >> we should note that that's denied by rudy giuliani and the president and others. >> when you're turning to the american people who aren't following this case the way we are and good for them. i mean, it's been a -- they are looking at this and saying okay, the president's entitled to have an outside adviser, and that's the case. that's the case i think that his
12:21 pm
attorneys were making. so again, not to the senate because in a way, it was predisposed. >> i disagree. the one really very important thing that the white house did that won the day for them on witnesses, and i think everything else and made everybody comfortable was the argument that dershowitz put together on the standard, the constitutional standard. >> even if he did it. >> that was not an argument for the american public. >> that was an argument to united states senators and they did a great job. >> you're talking about the argument even if it's guilty it doesn't rise to the level. >> you're going to see lots of statements. >> robert ray made it clear this was not a perfect conversation the president had. >> you were right about that, the they threw them the bone. they need that had bone. you were also throwing that to the american public. >> you have a good point. >> in the statement by alexander, in the statement by portman, rubio, you are seeing people tracking it was inartful,
12:22 pm
inappropriate, but it doesn't reach the bar of impeachment. the other things and the house managers have been trying to make this point, saying you know, you're going to cast a vote for no witnesses and in the next days and weeks and months more of this is going to come out. this back and forth between bolton and rudy giuliani proves their right. these are not shy men, john bolton and rudy giuliani. does it have any impact? does it change public perception? does it cost one or two of these senators on the ballot this year, don't know, but this is not going to end when this trial ends. this is not going to end. >> i want alan frumin to join us for a moment. what we're waiting for now once this trial resumes, the house managers, they still have another half an hour to go in their arguments, in their statements, but the white house lawyers now have two hours. they will go next. as long as they want, they can go as long as two hours. then the house managers will still have a half hour to respond, and then walk us through. there will be a vote on whether or not there will be witnesses. >> once this time is used, it's
12:23 pm
possible for somebody to propose an amendment to this motion. >> before the vote. >> before the vote. >> the resolution setting up this process speaks of four hours of arguments. it does not explicitly bar amendments. it does not explicitly authorize them. so i don't know, i wouldn't be surprised if a senator attempted to offer an amendment in part to get more time for arguments on the part of the house managers. at this point in time, the democrats know they're not going to win by action. they can only win by words, ask they may think this is a way of getting more time for the house managers to make their case. >> by the way, we should just note lev parnas, the giuliani associate who's been indicted and is of dubious credibility his attorney wrote a letter to mitch mcconnell saying basically he has stuff to testify about. he's willing to do so. he would detail, quote, the efforts he and a handful of republican operatives engaged in over a period of months to
12:24 pm
remove ambassador yovanovitch and gather dirt on joe and hunter biden. i'm guessing that's not going to make a difference either. there you go, another offer of another witness. >> he clearly is anxious to speak. >> we're waiting for this trial to resume momentarily. it will. stay with us. we'll be right back. at fidelity, we'll help you
12:25 pm
build a clear plan for retirement. one that covers health care costs, taxes, and any other uncertainties. because when you're with fidelity, a partner who makes sure every step is clear, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward.
12:26 pm
a partner who makes sure every step is clear, you will see at vgreat and look "guaranteed" we say that too! you've gotta use these because we don't mean it. buy any pair at regular price, get one free. really! visionworks. see the difference. it would've saved me a lotspen of money that i spent. my family has bad teeth. when you're not able to smile you become closed off. the meaning of a smile to me is the beginning of a conversation.
12:27 pm
the best advice i can give anyone... don't wait. at aspen dental, we're all about yes. like yes to free exam and x-rays for new patients without insurance. yes to flexible hours and payment options. and yes, you'll start smiling more too. don't wait, book at or call today. a general dentistry office. too many after-parties. new neutrogena® bright boost with dullness-fighting neoglucosamine. boosts cell turnover by 10 times for instantly brighter skin. bright boost neutrogena®.
12:28 pm
break out the butter loif you've been dreaming aboutr tender wild-caught lobster, dig in to butter-poached, fire-roasted and shrimp & lobster linguini. see? dreams do come true. or if you like a taste of new england without leaving home, try lobster, sautéed with crab, jumbo shrimp and more, or maybe you'd like to experience the ultimate surf and the ultimate turf... with so many lobster dishes, there's something for every lobster fan so hurry in and let's lobsterfest. or get pick up or delivery at
12:29 pm
welcome back to our special coverage, the u.s. senate is about to reconvene from a brief recess in the impeachment trial where we will hear the president's legal team argue against the efforts by house impeachment managers, democrats to subpoena additional witnesses. surprisingly former white house chief of staff john kelly is bucking with the president's lawyers telling a new jersey newspaper today, quote, if i was advising the u.s. senate i would say if you don't respond to 75% of the american voters and have witnesses, it's a job only half done. you open yourself up forever. you have some more information on this? >> yeah, jake, this is notable. this is the second time the former chief of staff has weighed in in recent days, where he is saying that he believes that these people should come forward and speak. he's saying that essentially if they do not hear from witnesses, he said today he believed it
12:30 pm
would only be half a trial. now, today he also went on to repeat his claim that he believes that john bolton is an honest and honorable guy, something he said a few days ago after you saw the people who still work here at the white house were criticizing john bolton saying he was just trying to get book sales, and today as we were seeing that the white house and the president himself dispute this new reporting in the "new york times" about john bolton's account of this meeting. john kelly is being sure to say that he believes that john bolton was a copious note taker during his time in the west wing. of course, we know that he was often seen with a yellow notepad around him, and of course the question is whether or not we're ever going to hear from him before that book actually comes out. though it seems less and less likely. john kelly also made an interesting comment, he said he believed after all of this is over that the president should invite congressional leadership from both parties to the white house and have a sit-down. based on the people we've been speaking with, that is not likely to happen. >> it's not difficult to imagine
12:31 pm
the president unleashed with an airing of grievances on tuesday's state of the union, which is slated for coming up on tuesday. what are the plans? we don't know what's actually going to happen yet, of course, but what are the plans for the state of the union? >> reporter: right now they are still moving forward like that address is happening on tuesday. we just got briefed by an official who was essentially going over the themes of what the president is going to be saying, but one thing this senior administration official wouldn't tell us is whether or not the president is even going to address impeachment in this speech. they wouldn't say whether he'll bring it up, how he would bring it up in that context, of course whether or not he's going to be reaching for this bipartisanship, something you saw in bill clinton's speech during his state of the union while he was being impeached. that's still a question as well as if this is actually going to happen, if the final vote for the president's acquittal has not happened yet by tuesday. right now there's a chance it could happen on wednesday, and the white house is not saying if they will move that vote, though we know behind the scenes they are pushing for a vote to happen
12:32 pm
on tuesday. they want the president to be able to come forward and give that speech after he's already been acquitted. right now we are in a situation where the president could be giving his state of the union speech and they still have not had that vote yet. >> we will be watching all of these developments, thank you very much. it's interesting, jake, mitch mcconnell, the majority leader said they were taking a 15-minute break. it's been about 45 minutes. usually it's a little longer than they say, but i'm beginning to get suspicious that behind the scenes, who knows, there may be something going on between mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer, the democratic leader. they're trying to work something out, perhaps. >> the ability of congressional leaders to stop time in its tracks or to make 15 minutes actually six hours is always remarkable. but yeah, this does beg the question, what is going on that is holding this up? are house -- senate democrats and senate republicans coming to an agreement to bring this to a close so it all ends tonight so that the four democrats in the
12:33 pm
senate can go to iowa and campaign for three more days before the iowa caucuses? what exactly is going on? we don't know. >> it seems like our reporting is saying it's not likely to end tonight and that what's going on is a struggle between chuck schumer who says you don't do what we want to do, i can offer amendments and i can hold this up for an awful long time, right? he can offer amendments. >> once again i don't see anything explicitly barring amendments to this motion. >> so he can do that. >> and the leader wants to get this over with. >> he does want to also let republicans who are at least conflicted about the fact that they're about to acquit the president speak to the fact that they don't approve of what the president did. >> but he probably doesn't want to keep it open as long as as chuck schumer does, and so there's -- >> bernie sanders and elizabeth warren won't be happy. they want to get out of here and head back to iowa for the weekend and then come back. >> as we follow developments hear in washington, we're also watching the dow right now. it's down over 600 points.
12:34 pm
stocks are dropping in fears -- amid fears about the economic impact of the coronavirus. we're going to continue to monitor that as well. the senate once again is in a quick break right now, about 45 minutes so far, much longer than we had expected. our special coverage and analysis will continue.
12:35 pm
12:36 pm
through the at&t network, edge-to-edge intelligence gives you the power to see every corner of your growing business. from finding out what's selling best... to managing your fleet... to collaborating remotely with your teams. giving you a nice big edge over your competition. that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence. ♪[ siren ] & doug give me your hand! i can save you... lots of money with liberty mutual! we customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need!
12:37 pm
only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
12:38 pm
...take the personal assessment and get matched i love the new myww program, because it's tailored to you! with a proven weight loss plan. find out which customized plan can make losing weight easier for you! myww join for free and lose 10 lbs. on us! brushing only reaches 25% of your mouth. listerine® cleans virtually 100%. helping to prevent gum disease and bad breath. never settle for 25%. always go for 100. bring out the bold™ welcome back to our special coverage. the senate is supposed to be heading back into trial after what was supposed to be a 15-minute recess. it's been almost an hour. we're in the middle of this heated debate over whether to
12:39 pm
call additional witnesses, but this break clearly has gone on a lot longer than expected. dana bash is up on capitol hill. i think sort of unusual, dana, what are you hearing? what's going on behind the scenes? >> reporter: what usually happens when there's a break that lasts longer than it's supposed to, which you guys have been alluding to. it means that the players are behind closed doors trying to figure out next steps, and i can tell you that manu raju and claire foran have been inside te chambers and neither mitch mcconnell or chuck schumer have been seen, which is an indication that perhaps they're talking to each other or they're with their respective leadership or staff trying to figure out if there's a way they can agree to move forward. as we were talking about, you know, the big question now isn't what the votes are going to be. it's when the votes are going to happen and how much time -- here's mitch mcconnell right now. >> mitch mcconnell, yeah. >> mitch mcconnell, the senate
12:40 pm
majority leader is walking in it looks, so go ahead, dana. >> reporter: exactly. so it's going to start soon, perhaps he's going to make an announcement before they resume the discussion that there perhaps is a deal, but we're going to have to wait and see because the question as i was saying is when these votes are going to be -- not whether or what the outcome is likely to be. >> a lot of competing agendas right now. first of all, you have senator schumer, the democratic minority leaer, he la leader, you have four democratic senators who want this to be over so they can get to iowa. they want to campaign a little including bernie sanders who is leading in a lot of polls in iowa. he doesn't want to cede any time to joe biden, perhaps his chief rival there, then you have republicans some of whom want to end this as soon as possible. the president wants this ended before the state of the union, some republican senators want to be able to go to the floor of the senate and explain why they're voting the way they're voting.
12:41 pm
some of them want to chastise the democrats, they want to chastise president trump's behavior, which they ultimately are going to vote to acquit. there's a swirl of different agendas going on here. >> it's by no means clear you heard chuck schumer say there's no deal. he hasn't worked anything out yet. maybe they have. we'll be anxious to hear -- well we'll hear it resume. chief justice has brought it back into session. >> ready to hear the presentation from counsel for the president. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, the house managers have said throughout their presentation and throughout all of the proceedings here again and again that you can't have a trial without witnesses and documents as if it's just that
12:42 pm
simple. if you'ring g to hae going to h, there have to be new witnesses and documents. it's not that simple, and that's really something that is -- a trope that's being used to disguise the real issues, the real decisions that you'd be making on this -- on this decision about witnesses because there's a lot more at stake there. and let me unpack that and explain what's really at stake there. the first is this idea if you come to trial, you've always got to go to witnesses, have new witnesses come in and that, but that's not true. in every legal system and in our legal system on both civil and criminal sides, there's a way to decide right up front in some quick way whether there's really a triable issue. whether you really need to go to all the trouble of calling in new witnesses and having more evidence in something like that, and there's not here. there's no need for that because these articles of impeachment on
12:43 pm
their face are defective, and we've explained that. let me start with the second article on the obstruction charge. we've explained that that charge is really trying to say that it's an impeachable offense for the president to defend the separation of powers. that can't be right. but it's also the case that no witnesses are going to say anything that makes any difference to the second article of impeachment. that all has to do with the validity of the grounds the president asserted, the fact that he asserted long-standing constitutional prerogatives of the executive branch in specific ways to resist specific deficiencies in the subpoenas that were issued. no fact witness is going to come in and say anything that relates in any way to that. it's not going to make any difference. and on the first article of impeachment, that too is defective on its face. we've explained, we heard it again today here that the way they have this subjective thaer
12:44 pm
ri -- theory of impeachment, based just on the president's subjective motives, and they said again today here that the way they can show the president did something wrong is that he defied the foreign policy of the united states. and we talked -- i talked about that before, this theory that he defied the agencies within the executive branch. he wasn't following the policy of the executive branch. that's not a constitutionally coherent statement. the theory of abuse of power that they framed in the first article of impeachment would do grave damage to the separation of powers under our constitution because it would become so malleable they can pour into it anything they want to find illicit motives for some perfectly permissible action. it becomes so malleable it's no different than mal
12:45 pm
administration, the exact ground that the framers rejected during the constitutional convention. the constitution defines specific offenses. it limits and constrains the impeachment power. now, there's also the fact that we actually heard from a lot of witnesses. we heard from a lot of witnesses in the proceedings so far. you've heard 192 video clips by our account from 13 different witnesses. there were 17 witnesses deposed in the closed hearings in the house and 12 of them testified again in open hearings. you've got all of those transcripts, so you can see the witnesses' testimony there. the key portions have been played for you on the screens, and you've got over 28,000 pages of documents and transcripts. you've got a lot of evidence already, but there's another principle that they overlook when they say, well, if you're going to have a trial, there just have to be witnesses.
12:46 pm
as if the most ordinary thing is you get to trial and then start subpoenaing new witnesses and documents. that's not true either. and we pointed this out. in the regular courts, the way things work is you've got to do a lot of work preparing a trial called discovery to find out about witnesses and depose them and find out about documents before you get to trial you can't show up the day of trial and say, actually, we're not ready. we didn't subpoena john bolton, the witness x or witness y, and now we want to subpoena that witness. now we want to do discovery, and why does that matter here? because here to show up not having done the work and to expect that work to be done in the senate by this body has grave consequences for the institutional interests of this
12:47 pm
body, and it sets a precedent, really sets an important precedent for two bodies for the senate and for the house because what the senate accepts as an maech impeachment coming from the house determines not just precedent for the senate but really precedent for the house in the future as well. if the procedures used in the house to bring this proceeding here to this stage are accepted, if the senate says yes, we'll start calling new witnesses because you didn't get the job done, and whatever process you used to get it here, then that becomes the new normal, and that's important in a couple of ways. one is, as we've pointed out, the totally unprecedented process that was used in the house that violated all notions of due process, there are precedents going back 150 years in the house ensuring that
12:48 pm
someone accused in an maech impeachment hearing in the house has due process rights to be represented by counsel, to cross-examine witnesses, to be able to present evidence. they didn't allow the president to do that here. and if this body says that's okay, then that becomes the new normal, and they stand up here, the house managers and say this body would be unfair if this body doesn't call the witnesses. they talk about fairness. where was the fairness if that proceeding in the house? and manager schiff says things would be arbitrary if you don't do what they say and call the witnesses they want. well, wasn't it arbitrary in the house when they wouldn't allow the president to be represented by counsel. wouldn't allow the president to call witnesses? there was no precedent in a presidential impeachment inquiry to have open hearings where the president and his counsel were excluded. it also would set a precedent to
12:49 pm
allow a package, a preeoceeding from the house to come here that the house managers say, well, now we need new witnesses. we haven't done all the work, and it's witnesses they didn't even try to get. they didn't subpoena john bolton. and they didn't go through the process when other witnesses were subpoenaed, when charlie kupperman went to court, they withdrew the subpoena, and now to say that, well, fairness demands that this body has to do all that work, that sets a new precedent as well, and it changes -- it would change for all the future the relationship between the house and the senate and impeachment inquiries. it would mean that the senate has to become the investigatory body. and the principles that they
12:50 pm
assert is that they had a process was arbitrary, and denied the president's rights and they did a process that denied the witnesses and they came here on the first night and remember when we were all here until 2:00, and then in very belligerent terms said to the members of this body, you are on trial. it will be tree treachery if yo don't do what the house managers say, and that not right. when it was their errors and they were arbitrary and they did not provide fair ntness that, i cannot project that on into this body and say that you have toic ma up for their errors, and if you don't, the fault lies here. they also suggest it is not
12:51 pm
going to take a long time, and they only want a few witness, and that it is going to be fair, and not just one side, and not the witnesses they would want. the president would have to be permitted to have witnesses. and with all respect, mr. chief justice, the idea that if a subpoena is sent to a senior aide and the president decides to stand by the principle of immunity that has been asserted since virtually every president since nixon, that is going to be resolved right here whether or not that privilege exists by the chief justice sitting as presiding officer. that is not making sense. that is not wait works. the senate even when the chief justice is the presiding officer here, he can't unilaterally
12:52 pm
decide the executive privileges of the executive branch, and that has to be decided another way and it could involve litigation and take a lot of time. so, the idea that this is all going to be done quickly, and if everyone does what the house managers say, it is not realistic, and it is not the way that the process would have to play out in accord with the constitution. and that has another significant consequence. again, affecting the institution as a precedent going forward and what it suggests is the new normal that is created there then is the express path for precisely the sort of impeachments that the framers most feared. framers recognized that impeachments could be done for
12:53 pm
illegitimate reason, and they recognized there could be partisan impeachments, and if this is the new normal, this is the epitome of a partisan impeachment. there was bipartisan opposition to it in the house, and it was rushed through with unfair procedures. 78 days total of inquiry, and think about that. in nixon, there had been investigating committees and a special prosecutor and long  before the house judiciary committee started the investigation. in clinton, there was an independent counsel for the better part of a year before the house judiciary committee started hearings. everything from start to finish in this case from september 24th to the articles of impeachment were considered in the judiciary committee was done in 78 days.
12:54 pm
for 78 days and for 71 of them, the president was locked out. so the new normal is slap dash and get it done quickly and get it done in the house to impeach the house and then bring it for the ent issenate all of the rea of the discussion and discovery is going to take place with the impeachment hanging over the president's head, and that is something that the framers were also concerned about. i mentioned it the other day, in federal number 65, hamilton warned specifically about what he called, and i'm quoting the injury to the innocent from the p p prokr crastination it would be
12:55 pm
hanging over the president's head and that how they structured the impeachment process so that this body could swiftly determine the impeachments that are brought. that is why there is a system of thorough investigation and thorough process done in the house. and hamilton explained that delay after the impeachment would afford an opportunity for intrigue and corruption, and it would also be as he put it a detriment to the state from the prolonged inaction of men whose firm and faithful execution of the duty might have exposed them to the persecution of an imtemperant or majority in the house of representatives. that is what has happened here. if you create a system now that makes the new normal a half-baked slap-dashed process in the house, and just get the
12:56 pm
impeachment done, and get it over to the senate and then once the president impeached, and you have the head of the executive branch, and the leader of the free world having something like that hanging over his head, then we will slow it down, and then we will start to do the investigation and just drag it out. that is all part of what makes this even more political, especially in the election year. it is not the process that the 23r5i process that the framers had in mind, and not something that the senate should condone in this case. the senate is not here to do the investigatory work that the house didn't do. where there's been a process that denied all due process, that produced a record that cannot be relied upon, and the reaction from this body should be to reject the articles of impeachment, and not the condone
12:57 pm
and put its imprematter on the way that it was handled in the house, and not to do matter further by doing the work that this house should have done by not seeking ed and having a fair and legitimate process to bring the articles of impeachment here. thank you. >> mr. sekulow. >> chief justice, members of the senate. over a seven-day period, you did hear evidence. you heard evidence from 13 different witnesses, 192 video clips and as my colleague, the deputy counsel said over 128,000 pages of documents. you heard testimony from gordon sondland the european ambassador
12:58 pm
and testified in the house proceedings, and i did not have an opportunity to cross-examine him. if we get witnesses, i have to have that opportunity. william taylor, former acting ambassador to the ukraine testified and you heard his testimony. we didn't get the opportunity to cross-examine him. he would be called. tim morrison, the former senior director for europe and russia and the national security council and you saw his testimony. they put it up. we need an opportunity and we did not have an opportunity to cross-examine him. jennifer williams, special supervisor in europe and assistant to mike pence, they put the testimony up, and i did not have an opportunity to cross-examine her, and if we call witness, i have to have that opportunity. and dr. david holmes, the ambassador to ukraine, i would
12:59 pm
have to call him, because we were not able to cross-examine, and if we are able to get witnesses, we will call the ambassador and cross examine, and the same with lieutenant colonel vindman. we did not have the opportunity to cross-examine, and if we have witnesses, of course, we will have the right to cross-examine him. and fiona hill, and she is the former senior director for the national security council and testified before the house, and if we havenesses with, then we have the opportunity to call her and cross examine her. and kurt volker, and we did not have the opportunity to to cross exam paine examine, and so if we are calling witness, and these are the witnesses that you have heard from, and we would have
1:00 pm
the right to call them and cross-examine. and george kent, the deputy director of eurasia affairs. you saw it, they called him. and so if we have witnesses, we have right to call and cross-examine deputy secretary kent. the former ambassador to ukraine, ambassador yovanovitch. they called her. you saw that testimony. we did not have the opportunity to cross-examine her. if we have witnesses, we would have to call her. laura cooper, deputy assistant secretary of defense, russia, ukraine and eurasia, and they called her, and you saw her witness testimony. right here. we did not have the opportunity to to cross-examine her, and we would have to be given the that opportunity. and these are the witnesses against the president. laura cooper. deputy assistant secretary of
1:01 pm
defense for russia, ukraine and eurasia, and the same thing, and david hale, the undersecretary for political affairs. he was called by the house, and you saw his testimony, and we never had the opportunity to cross examine, and if we have witnesses, we have to have the opportunity to do that. there were other witnesses that were called or you saw their testimony or heard their testimony or what was referred to as catherine croft, and mark sandy, the deputy secretary for national security programs and christopher adams, and you have heard their testimony referred to, and we did not have the opportunity to cross-examine them. so this is not going to happen if the witnesses are called in a week. now, that is just the witnesses that have been produced that you have seen by the house managers.
1:02 pm
you are being called upon to make consequential constitutional decisions. consequential decisions. for our constitution. we talk about the burden of proof, and i have said it and i will say it again, the managers said they proved the case 29 times that the evidence is overwhelming, and manager nadler he didn't even say it is overwhelming in his view, in page 739 of the congressional record, he is very clear. he says not only is it strong, there is no doubt. that is what he says. the one thing that the house managers think that the counsel thinks that is that about me that it is beyond the
1:03 pm
reasonable doubt. and of course, we believe they have not proven the stretch by any stretch of any proper constitutional analysis. in the clinton impeachment they talked about three witnesses called but they had testified before the grand jury and the house committees and so they were not new witnesses, and so what mr. philbin said is ekt kr, -- correct, under the constitutional design, you are to deliberate and they are to investigate. but what they are asking you to do is to become the investigative agency, the investigative body. if they needed all of this additional evidence which they said they don't need, and by the way, not only did they say it in the record, this is house manager nadler, quote, when he was on cnn back on the 15th of this month, we brought the articles of impeachment, because despite the fact that we did not hear from many witnesses that we could have heard from, we have heard from enough witnesses to
1:04 pm
prove the case without a doubt at all. and the same for lofgren, we have evidence proving the case through the meeting when bolton said it was a drug wheedeal, an have vindman there and sondland there, and so this idea that they have not had witnesses is the smoke screen. you have heard from a lot of witnesses. the problem with the case, the problem with their position is even with all of those witnesses, it doesn't prove an impeachable offense. the articles fail. i think it is very dangerous if the house runs up, which they did, articles of impeachment quickly, and so quickly that they are clamoring for evidence despite the fact that they put all of this evidence forward.
1:05 pm
they got the wish of the impeachment by christmas, and that is goal. but now they want you to do the work they failed to do. but as i said, time and time again we heard that you did not hear from the witnesses, and you did not hear from many witnesses, and mr. schiff modified it a little bit today. a little bit. you heard from a lot of witnesses. but if we go down the road of witnesses, this is not a one-week process. remember, i talked about the waving the wand and the ukraine corruption, and you won't have a witness wand here where you have a week to do this and get it done. no way to get this done proper under due process. and due process is supposed to be for the person accused. and they are turning it on its head. they have brought the articles before you. they are the ones who rushed the case up and then held it before you could start the proceedings
1:06 pm
and they passed the articles before christmas. you know, we talked a lot about the court system and the fact that they were seeking witnesses, and when it was close to having a court proceeding, they decided that they did not want to have that witness go through that, and so they withdrew the subpoena to moot the case out. how many constitutional challenges will we have in this body, because they placed a burden on you that they would not take themselves in putting the case forward. if we look at the constitutional framework, and the constitutional structure, that is not the way it is supposed to work. now, our opposition to this motion is straight forward as i have said. we came here ready to try the case on the record they
1:07 pm
presented. the record that the managers told us was overwhelming and complete, and mr. schiff went through every sentence of the articles of impeachment and just a few days ago and said prove, prove, prove. the problem is that what it prove, prove, prove is not an impeachable offense. you could have witnesses that prove a lot of things, but if it does not meet the law, the constitutional law required process, and the constitutional process required of substantive issues and do these allegations rise no level of removal of office for duly elected president of the united states, it doesn't. and especially so, especially so when we are in an election year. i am not going to take the time,
1:08 pm
your time which is precious to go over each and every allegation of the witnesses that i could. i could do it. i could stand here for a long time. i am not going to do that. i am going to say this. they created the record. do not allow them to penalize the country and the constitution, because they failed to do their job. with that, mr. chief justice, we yield our time. >> thank you, counsel. the house managers have 30 minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, senators. i want to walk through some of the arguments that you have just
1:09 pm
heard from the president's counsel. the first arguments that were made by mr. philbin, and mr. philbin began by saying that the house managers assert that you can't have a trial without witnesses, and he said it is not that simple. actually, it is. it is that simple. in every courthouse, in every state and every county in the country where they have trials they have witnesses. and i think that you heard mr. philbin tie himself into knots as to why this should be the first trial in which witnesses are not necessary. but you know, some things are just as simple as they appear. a trial without witnesses is not a trial. you can call it something else, but it is not a trial. mr. sekulow said something
1:10 pm
interesting. he said that the house investigates and the senate deliberates. well, he would rewrite the constitution with that argument. because the last time i checked the constitution, it said that the house shall have the sole power of impeachment, and the senate shall try the impeachment, and not merely deliberate about it or merely think about it or merely wonder about it. i know that you are the greatest deliberative body in the world, but not even you can deliberate in a trial without witnesses. but mr. sekulow would rewrite the constitution, and your job is not the deliberate the case, to try the case, and that is not what the founders had in mind, not by a long shot. and now, mr. philbin says that none of the witnesses would have relevance to article ii and i suppose they would have
1:11 pm
relevance in article i, but that is not true either. imagine what you will see when you hear from the witnesses who ran the office of management and budget or imagine what you will see when you read the documents from the office of management and budget, and what you will see is what they have covered up. what you will see is the motive for their complete obstruction of congress. when you see not the redacted emails and the fully blacked out emails they dane to give in the freedom of information act, but what you will see under the redaction, you will have proof of motive and when you see the documents you will see how fallacious these nonassertions of executive privilege are. and you will see in essence what they have covered up. i could not be more relevant to whether their panoply of legal
1:12 pm
justification of that we should fight all subpoenas is merely a cover-up and legal window dressing. so these witnesses and documents are critical on both articles. now, you heard mr. philbin argue and this is where we expected to be at the end of of the case, they have essentially proven the case, and we pretty much all know what has gone on here, and what this president did. no one really disputes that anymore. so what. so what. it is a version of the dershowitz defense, the president can do no wrong. the president is the state. if the president believes that corrupt conduct would help him to get elected, shaking down the
1:13 pm
ally with military aid and soliciting foreign aid from the israeli prime minister or whatever form it may take, so what. he has a god-given right to power. and there is nothing that you can do about it. it is the dershowitz principle of constitutional lawlessness. that's the end all argument for them. you don't need to hear witnesses who will prove the president's misconduct, because he has a right to be as corrupt as he chooses under our constitution. there is nothing that you can do about it. god help fus if the that succeeded. now, they say that these
1:14 pm
witnesses testified and so you don't need to hear anymore witnesses, and the house cannot call more witnesses. that is like a courthouse in america where the defendant if he is rich and powerful enough can say to the judge, hey, judge, the prosecution got to have witnesses in the grand jury. and they don't get to call anyone here. they called witnesses in the grand jury, but they can't call witnesses here. that is not how it works in any courtroom in america, that is not how it should work in this courtroom. of course, you have heard the argument time and time again that the house is not ready for trial. and of course, we never said that we were not ready for trial. we came here very prepared for
1:15 pm
trial. i would submit that the president's team came here unprepared for trial with the daily drip of disclosures that would send them back on their heels. and we came here prepared for a case, and to try a case, and yes, we had, i hope not the unreasonable expectation that in trying that case like every courtroom in america that we could call witnesses, and it is not a lack of presentation, and it is the presence of common sense. they didn't try to get bolton, they argue, and of course, we did try to get bolton. and what he said when he refused to show up voluntarily is that if you subpoena me, i will sue you. i will sue you. he said basically what don
1:16 pm
mcgann told us nine months ago, i will sue you, and good luck with that. and now the public argument that was made by his counsel was that he and dr. kupperman and out of, you know, just due diligence, they just want a court to opine that it is okay for them to come forward and testify. and as soon as the court blesses the testimony, they are more willing to come in, and they just are going to go to court to get a court opinion saying they could do it. and so they said there is a court to rule on this absolute immunity and shortly thereafter, they did. that is the court case in the mcgahn case and the judge said that the argument of the absolute immunity that, yes, the presidents have dreamed about
1:17 pm
and asserted which has never succeeded in any court in the land, and it is ridiculed in the case of harriat myers and made short shift in the case of don mcgann, and the judge said, no, we don't have kings here. in the 250 years of jurisprudence, there is not a single case to support the proposition for them to say that the president is subject to primus. and so in the case for a congress to enforce the subpoenas against witnesses or documents, the courts have said that the power to compel, compliance to the subpoena is co-equal, coextensive with the power to legislate, because you can't do one without the other. if we can't find out whether the president is breaking the law, violating the impoundment
1:18 pm
control act or any other law when he is withholding aid that we approached for an ally, how can we legislate a fix to ensure that it does not happen again, and we can't. if we can't get the answers, we can't legislate. that is the proposition vindicated by every court in the land, and of course, in the context of impeachment, the courts have said it is never more important. never more important. now, i don't know why after he said he would sue us, and reili don mcgahn we are in court nine months later, but i suspect that if the trial goes for wand he
1:19 pm
ke -- forward and he keeps it for himself, he will not be able to say what he knew. and so when you have to make a decision of whether or not a president of the united states should be removed for office why it is saved for a book. i submit for you it is equally difficult for you to explain as it would be for him. but you can ask him that question. why are you willing to testify before the senate but not the house. you should ask him that question. now, it was said and it has the character of you should have fought harder to overcome our obstruction.
1:20 pm
the house should have fought harder to overcome to stonewa stonewalling, and shame on the house. if they had only fought harder against the stonewalling, they could have gotten these witnesses earlier. and that is a difficult argument while they are stonewalling, and you should have taken the years necessary to overcome our stonewalling, and the reason why that argument is in such bad faith as i pointed out to you yesterday, they were derelict and shap happy, slap happy, and should have fought hardener the district of appeals and they are in the courthouse arguing the opposite. they are in the courthouse
1:21 pm
arguing the opposite. judge, they are trying to force a subpoena on don mcgahn and you need to throw it out. they don't have the jurisdiction, and this is non nonjudiciable and you cannot argue the case. that is a difficult argue and i credit them for making it with a straight face. but that is the character of it, you should have fought harder to overcome our stonewalling and obstruction. now sh now, they also say that the chief justice cannot decide issues of privilege. that the chief justice cannot make those decisions and we need to litigate this up and down the court system. that is remarkable argument, because the senate rules allow the presiding officer to make
1:22 pm
judgments to rule on issues of evidence, materiality and privilege, and that is permitted under your own rules. we don't need to go up and down the courts. we have a perfectly good judge right here. you heard our proposal yesterday that we take a week to depose the witnesses that we feel is relevant, and they feel are relevant and that the justice rules are relevant. just one week. now, they can say that the constitution requires them to go to court, but of course, it doesn't. there is absolutely no constitutional impediment from these fine lawyers saying, you know, that is imminently reasonable. we will allow a neutral party, the chief justice of the united
1:23 pm
states of america to rule on whether a witness is material or immaterial, whether they are being called for the reasons of probative evidence or harassment and whether you are making a proper claim of privilege or merely trying to hide crime or fraud. the concern they have is not that the chief justice is going to be unfair, but rather that he is going to be fair. but do not make any mistake about it, do not let them suggest that there is something constitutionally impermissible or that it would violate the president's rights to allow the chief justice of the united states to make those decisions in this court, because he is empowered to do so by your rules. and by the constitution which gives you the sole power to try impeachments in the sole exercise of your power to try
1:24 pm
impeachments, you can say we will allow the chief justice to make those decisions. mr. sekulow said that you have heard 13 witness, and the contradiction is that they must have been in between errands and missed where those 13 witnesses came before the senate and testified, but of course, you heard no live testimony in this body. there was not any live testimony before this body, and i don't recall any of you in that super secret bunker that they have been talking about. now, i will admit that there were 100 members eligible to be there and maybe i missed one of you, but i don't think that you were there for the live testimony in the house.
1:25 pm
now, mr. sekulow says that he was deprived of calling these witnesses himself, and calling them in the house, but that is not true either, because the president was eligible to call witnesses in his defense in the judiciary committee and he chose not to do so if the president's counsel felt that, you know, bill taylor says that he spoke with sondland after this phone call with the president, and sondland talks about how the military aid was conditioned on these investigations of biden, and i'd really like to cross-examine that west point grad and veteran, and you know, they could have called bill taylor, or they could have called mick mulvaney and put him under oath what we know now that john bolton would say, but of course they did not do that. they said merely, just get it
1:26 pm
overwith in the house. for all there, and too quick and slap dash and get it over in the house, because as the president said when it comes to the senate, we will have a real trial where he can call witness, but they have changed their tune. because now they know what they have known all along that the witnesses would incriminate the president. so they have fallen down to the argument that if we go down the road to the real trial and we go down the road to real trial, we the president's lawyers are going to make you pay. and the form of this argument is we are going to call every witness under the sun. we are going to call every witness who testified before the house, and we will call every witness that we can think of that would help smear the
1:27 pm
bidens. and we will keep you here until kingdom come. that is essentially the argument that they are making when mr. sekulow says that we will bring in fiona hill, and tim morrison and this witness or that witness. you have the sole power to try this case, and you don't have to be abused by the president's counsel. so, no we will give each side a shared week to call their witness, and you have that power, and if you id didndidn't could not have constricked the time for the argument, and you have been likewise determined of how much time should be taken with witness testimony.
1:28 pm
now, mr. sekulow ended the argument against witnesses with where mr. philbin essentially began. it all comes back to the dershowitz principle, and what is the point of witnesses if the president can do whatever he wants under article ii. what's the point of calling witnesses? what is the point of having a trial, if the president can do whatever he wants under article ii. the only constraining principle and i think that on of the senators asked yesterday, what's the limiting principle in the -- wi dershowitz argument in the president can corruptly seek foreign interference in his election, because he believes
1:29 pm
that his election is in the national interest and you cannot impeach him no matter how damaging it is to the national security. what is the limiting principle? i suppose that the limiting principle is only this. it only requires the president to believe that his re-election is in the national interest. well, that would require an extraordinary amount of insight for the president of the united states to conclude that his own election was not in the national interest arou interest, and not unprecedented because that is the decision that lbj arrived at. but i would not want to consider that a meaningful limitation on presidential power. and neither should you.
1:30 pm
finally, counsel suggested indig nance and it is not just the senate th president on trial here, but also the senate. and how dare the house managers suggest that your decision reflect on this body, and that is a calamy,and let me read a statement from one of your former colleague, and this is what former u.s. senator john warner, republican from virginia had to say, as conscientious citizens from all walks of life are trying the best to understand the complex impeachment issues being deliberated in the u.s. senate, the rules of evidence are central to the matter. should the senate allow sworn testimony from fact witnesses
1:31 pm
with firsthand knowledge and include relevant documents he asks. as a lifelong republican and retired member of the senate, and once served as juror in an impeachment trial, i understand the responsibility that you serving shoulder, and you believe that not only is the president on trial, but in many ways, so is the senate, itself. as such, i am strongly supportive of the efforts of my former republican colleagues who are considering that the senate accept the introduction of additional evidence that they deem relevant. not long ago, senators would work together to serve the interests of the nation. and if witnesses are suppressed in this trial, and majority of the americans are left believing
1:32 pm
the trial was a sham, i can only imagine the lasting damage to the senate and the fragile national consensus. the senate embraces the legacy for the american people by avoiding the risk. throughout the long life of our nation, the federal and state judicial systems have largely supported the judicial norms of the witnesses and relevant documents and i respectfully urge the senate to be guided by the rules of evidence and follow the norms and precedents and institutions to uphold the constitution and the rule of law by welcoming relevant witnesses and documents as part of this impeachment trial. that is your colleague, former senator john warner.
1:33 pm
senators, there is a storm blowing through the capitol, and the winds are strong and they move us in uncertain directions. jefferson once said that i consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held by the principles of the constitution. and the only anchor everm imagined by man by which to a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. i submit to you, remove the anchor and we go adrift. but if we can survive the drift of truth, this storm shall pass.
1:34 pm
i yield back. >> thank you, mr. manager. >> mr. chief justice, i suggest that we ask for a quorum. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. alexander. all right. so they are going to do a little pause right now, and quorum call as they call it, and they are going to do a roll call and spend a few minutes, jake, and what they are going to do is to try to figure out what to do next? >> yes. we presume that there is a vote on the motion to call more witnesses
1:35 pm
witnesses. >> and we believe that the motion is going to pass and it is going to be 49-4, and all 49 democrats and plus mitt romney and susan collins and 51 against, and 53 republicans and the big question of what next, because if there are no new witnesses or documents the only thing really is to vote on the articles of impeachment, and to debate the articles of impeachment. >> the clinton impeachment, it is a closed session and locked up the doors and they are locked up in there. >> and they turn off the cameras. >> and each member has their piece. >> and you could have unanimous consent -- >> no way it will. rand paul, and pick a number, they will give bernie sanders or elizabeth warren time to speak. >> time to speak to the american public. >> and remind us what happened? so that meant that everybody who was not a u.s. senator and
1:36 pm
certain essential senate staf r staffers has to leave. >> everybody leaves and gone. >> and the cameras are turned off, and then what? how long did that go for? >> three days. >> three days of people saying what they thought and how much of it leaked tout the press? >> well, you are allowed to go and release a copy of what you say, and so there is no, not like it is secret, but it is, and could be, and if you don't want to release the information. >> what is the conversations that people are having, and what are people saying? >> everybody is basically making their case, and standing up and trying to persuade -- >> this is after the motion to have witnesses or not to have witnesses. >> well, in clinton. >> this is in the time of clinton after the testimony. >> so in this case. >> so in this case -- >> the vote on new witnesses. >> and the nex prot seed yurl thing would be to go to the deliberation time, but that is probably what is being debated.
1:37 pm
i don't know under the original senate rules, because it is not covered in the resolution that was adopted whether senator schumer has the right to offered a dissional amendments. i sort of doubt it, but i don't know. and this is possible that there is dill tory tactics that the minority can get into. and as you saw on the first night of the trial, that schumer offered amendments into the early hours of the morning and maybe it is a tactic to get an agreement out of the majority to structure some time, and open up the chamber for debate. >> it is interesting, john, because scheduled on the scheduled four hours of the debate each side, and neither side took all of the time, and the house managers took a lot of it and almost all of it, but the white house lawyers took a very small small portion of it, and
1:38 pm
then it was to go right into the vote. >> and so there are two issues that speaker mcconnell has to solve. can they cut a deal for never the chamber, and okay, clear, we will end on this day, and you do everything by this time and push it to next week and the hope was to get it done in the early hours of the morning tonight. >> they will try to work that out with the majority and the minority leader, but he has mr. mcconnell who has issues with the incoming from the hill amongst several of the republicans want this time to speak, and other republicans do not. they want to go through and speak. and they have to resolve the differences within the republican family first. >> and four people who are not wanting to be sitting in a, loed up chamber where nobody can hear
1:39 pm
them. >> they want to be in iowa. >> yes. >> sometimes they call it the world's most deliberative body and that is meant as a compliment, and other times it is not. congressman udall said that everything that has needs to be said, has been said and not everybody has had the chance to say it. and i wonder if that is going on in a time like this, because we know the arguments and the decisions, and the real question that i have is how are kierst kierstin -- kersten kirsten si
1:40 pm
do. >> and yes, looking around. and we know that we have the releases from the offices of why they will vote for it or not, and those three, it is unclear. do they split for the baby and vote for the first and not the second? it is unclear. so, i imagine that americans for a while have known how it would end, and so it is sort of more shouting to happen before it ends. >> dana bash, and let me go to capitol hill, and dana bash may have insight as to what is going on. dana? >> a lot of negotiations in plain sight. john mentioned that you could see mitch mcconnell on the senate floor and chuck schumer and you have the republican and the democratic leader having a discussion when senator santorum knows it better than any of us, and when they ask for the absence of the kwor rul, thaquo
1:41 pm
hitting a pause button to have a conversation to find a way for compromise and figure out how to find the exit ramp and never mind to get on it to finish this impeachment trial. one other bit of color while this is happening, i got a text from a democratic senator in the middle of it said that there is a lot of intrigue and uncertainty on the senate floor as we speak. nobody knows how late they will go tonight, and nobody knows how long this is going to go and when they will take the votes other than the prescribed vote that we would expect on the witnesses today. so for all of the reasons that we are reporting particularly the issue that mitch mcconnell is having in his own conference right now with the people that he needs on his side, lisa murkowski, suzanne collins and others who telling him that they want a chance to talk, and they don't want to go to closed session and they want a chance to be heard by the constituents
1:42 pm
as part of the big decision they are making. >> i wanted to point out to people watching at home, if you are looking at the bottom of the kyrons there, and guys, move the banner. move the banner. if you are, well, what i want to talk about and through yo go. right above where it says donald j. trump in red, you will see a bunch of old men with the tops of their heads and this is john cornyn is the guy with the white hair, and i don't know what you want to call them, but to help identify, but that is presumably what we cannot see is the democrats on the other side of them, but that is the guy is mitch mcconnell's head to the right of john cornyn's left, and that is where everybody is talking and negotiating. go ahead, dana. you were saying? >> yes, senator santorum has been a part of the gaggle before and he knows what it is like when everybody is huddled around trying to find a way out. right now, it looks like it is the republicans talking amongst
1:43 pm
themselves in large part because of what i was just talking about that lisa murkowski, and susan collins and others were in mitch mcconnell's office for the extended break of almost an hour to find out how to have their time in addition to negotiating that with the democrats. this is to say, and not to say that the witness vote will change as to the timing, but how long they will have to talk and what form they are going to talk, and the idea that the four democrats are on the floor watching this happen, instead of running for president in iowa where they want to be is a fascinating subplot that continues to, you know, flow through all of this. >> and we are told, and this is tougher than tea leave, because it is the top of people's head, but we are told that one of the individuals, the guy with the full head of dark hair to john
1:44 pm
cornyn's right, two over is senator chuck schumer's chief of staff, the senate -- >> if it were a republican discussion, they would not have it right next to the democratic side of the aisle. seriously, they wouldn't. they would be way off in the corner there, and so logistically, they are talking to the democrats. >> and trying to figure out what next with the motion on the witnesses. >> this is what i am concerned about if i am thinking that i am reading which is taking a recess now or not a recess, xwauli inc quorum means they don't know what to do, because if they were going to the vote, they would have gone straight to the vote, and this is what alan f lalan fo was here, the previous parliamentarian, and so there is the disagreement of the intervening amendment now.
1:45 pm
>> you can see the top part of the screen with the chief justice speaking with lindsey graham, and over there on the screen is the managers of the right part of the screen with the white house lawyers having conversations, and various senators are walking over the talk to them, but at the bottom of the screen as jake is pointing out, mitch mcconnell is having a serious conversation with not only the republicans, but the key democratic figures about what to do next. we assumed it would be a actual vote of whether there is new witnesses or evidence allowed in. that vote if it happens is going to fail 51-49. and now, there are 51 republicans who will oppose any witnesses. we will see how long it takes to to get to the next step. and alan fruman, you are the former senate parliamentarian, and what is going on? walk us through it. >> what is going on is typical senate chaos, the organizing resolution of setting up the ground rules of setting up the trial took us to this point, and
1:46 pm
we have been following the ground rule, but in the middle of page three of the organizing resolution, there is language that defies a normal person's comprehension. unfortunately, i am not a normal person, and i am reading this for obscenities for oh, my god, everybody has a chance to throw a grenade here. and the motion of the body to be disposed of after the four hours' argument is an amendable motion, and under the senate's impeachment rules, the amendments are subject to two hours of argument. rick santorum and i were looking at this earlier, and there is language in here that says without intervening action or debate, but that language was meant to modify the next step of this process. that step would be motions to subpoena specific witnesses which motions would only be in order if the current motion before the senate is adopted.
1:47 pm
>> so the fact that the democrats know they will lose this amendment means they want to -- this is their chance -- >> this is the moment. >> this is the last chance to delay the process. >> this is the plan. and another -- >> well, somebody made a mistake in drafting this. >> and mitch mcconnell has to think about the white house. i don't know if you can see what the white house lawyers are doing, but you want a president who wants to get this done and overwith and particularly by the state of the union. >> tuesday. >> and also he wanted it done by the super bowl. that is not looking likely at this point. >> and he is doing an interview in the super bowl. >> yes. >> and so you notice no white house lawyers near mcconnell, and the reason for that is that this is -- >> so it -- >> no, this is senate prerogative and they won't say a word to mcconnell. >> and chuck schumer is saying we have the opportunity now to offer the amendments, and you
1:48 pm
have a bunch of people who want to talk and a bunch of people who want to go home, and president, and then he says that you have a bunch of people who want to go to iowa and you va president who wants to get it over. >> and the key from what senator sanitorium said, and alan fruman, and i want to bring in jeffrey toobin, that the way this is written, this is the only the way that democrats have leverage over the process. and alan fruman, let me bring you back before we go to jeffrey toobin. so the democrats could theoretically gum up the works by offering amendment after amendment and each amendment gets two hour s to debate that and so the republicans would like to avoid that and some democrats who want to go to iowa as soon as possible. so they are trying to exact some agreement here more favorable to their terms than they would get it? >> yes, no doubt that the
1:49 pm
senators would like to avoid that, and the problem is dealing with the senators who want to take this opportunity for amendments at this stage, and by the terms of this resolution do not appear to have an en forceable limit. >> so basically, i don't know who this would be, and maybe it is nobody, but theoretically senator schumer the democratic leader has more leverage over the process than a long time if not ever, and it is -- >> the first time. >> the first time in the trial. >> and the first night he had leverages, and he used it to go to 2:00 in the morning. >> this is a repeat of the first night. >> and this is interesting, because i am sure that some of the viewers are going to say that we know that there is going to be a vote on the witnesses that will fail, and after that, there is supposed to be a vote on whether or not to convict and remove the president of the united states from office, and that means 67 senators, and that is going to fail. so get it over with and move on. >> yeah, a lot of people are
1:50 pm
asking that question. what is going on right now. why drag this on. and that is a question for schumer who had 11 amendments that ended up failing, and he could do it again, and they will fail, and again, no witness, and the president is not going to be removed from office, so is this a theater when everybody knows what is going to happen here? >> well, he is the democratic leader who is throughout the tenure has been most activated by the base, and they want flesh. >> yes. and politicians at play. surprise. so, yes, four democratic senators would like to end it, but they understand that they want to put some pressure on the white house team here and put some pressure on the republicans, but schumer has a tough act, because senator sanitorium was talking about,
1:51 pm
how long? to what end? how does he balance to get flesh here, and reasonable doing it, and again, if mcconnell has an internal republican dynamic and what is complicate and what is funny when you are asking for a quorum call, there is not enough senators in the room to do your business, but it is a pause button, because they are all required to be there. >> and the first night of the trial, that could have been dispatched in a few hour, but it went well into the night, and several individual amendments calling for the subpoena to compel the testimony of john bolton and calling for a subpoena to compel the testimony of mick mulvaney, and things that could have been consolidated, but the theory of the republicans what senator schumer was trying to get because every single one of the votes required every single senator to say yea or nay and that is to get vulnerable
1:52 pm
republicans like cory gardener who is up for re-election, and mcsally and others, and to get it their voice there, and at the time that nation needed them, senator blank voted to cover up blank and senator collins, and that is a republican theory of what schumer is trying to get into the record, and for what. >> and it is a big impact on the democratic primary and the presidential election and it is a senate play from the democrats' perspective and schumer is the leader of the democrats in the senate and he wants them on the record and he wants more messaging amendments that can be raised again as you said in the ads and the social media campaigns and in digital advertising and fund-raising. >> so it is not about the president anymore, but it is about control of the senate which is what the republicans have said. >> and let me go to jeff toobin for one second. >> are you there, jeff?
1:53 pm
>> yes. >> go ahead. >> one thing to emphasize and jake just said that the leverage that schumer has here is to get the republicans to make uncomfortable votes as he did in the beginning of the process. vote to say that, you know, the no witness. individual witnesses, and no john bolton and no mulvaney and no documents, and so susan collins and cory gardener are going to have to defend those votes on the campaign trail, and the other thing that i think that schumer would be thinking about here is that donald trump wants to deliver the state of the union tuesday having been acquitted. and chuck schumer has within his ability as we understand the rules to make that impossible. to make them sit there for enough hours so that the dream of the president's cannot come true. he may well decide it is worth it.
1:54 pm
those are small goals in the context of the impeachment trial, and that is what happens when you are the minority, because you don't have many opportunities to win. >> and it is a mixed bag, because yes, if you are the democratic leader and you want to deprive the republican president a talking point, but it does, john king n the sense that i want to do the people's business and i am still impeached. >> the chief justice john roberts just walked out of the senate chamber which is not a good sign. >> and so, people with can see the full room, manu raja and after talking 10 or 12 minutes mcconnell and schumer, that the talks have broken up, and schumer is huddling with his side. >> and so, what i saw is that laura dove, and bob dove, the former parliamentarian, and
1:55 pm
laura runs the senate cloak room and she went over after the conversation to talk to erik yulin who is very skilled with parliamentary thing, and she came over to talk to him and down low to the white house and then eric took off, and he is the gentleman walking forward. >> he may have called the white house. >> he is the liaison between the senate and the president. >> and so he is walking back to mcconnell. >> there are people with very difficult goals throughout all of this and it is hard to figure out a way to make all of them unhappy to the same degree, because nobody is going to be happy with the end result of this and particularly those who want to get over tonight. >> and let's bring back alan fruman and i don't remember from the clinton impeachment, were they voice votes or hitting the
1:56 pm
switch on the desk so that your voice was recorded? >> there are no switches. that is in the house. >> oh, okay. sorry. >> we did not have a lot of these votes in the clinton trial, and this is unusual. >> and senator sanitorium, do you think that one of the things that senator schumer is going to likely want is the voice vote? >> the chief justice has just come back in and maybe it is encouraging, and there he is on the upper part of the screen. >> do you want that schumer is going to want to have collins and gardener -- >> yes, every member will stand up at their chair and vote on each article. >> is that how it happened for clinton for every single one? >> yes. >> and in the bill clinton impeachment trial there was a lot more coordination and cooperation between the democratic and the republican leader tom daschle and trent lott who worked a lot better than mcconnell and schumer. >> and much more agreement. >> and much more compelling
1:57 pm
testimony from monica lewinski. >> and now, manu raja came out, and said america gets to see what a quorum call s and the next steps in the senate, and we get to see it a lot as people who cover it. and so what did you see? >> mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer were engaged in a direct conversation for 10, 12 minutes, and then in the beginning, mitch mcconnell talked to laura do who then went to talk to the democratic floor general as we call him up here, and gary mirick and then other people came into the conversation and aides and john thune was in the conversation and then later john cornyn and back and forth some time, and then after that, chuck schumer went to huddle in his
1:58 pm
corner office, and so there is a serious discussion of what is happening and how the end the trial, and whether or not chuck schumer is going to go a long with the proposed plans to the end of the trial, and what that is in the moment is what chuck schumer made clear, and he does not want to have votes through the dead of the night, and he is going to want the senators to have speeches, and that is going to happen over the next several days, and one of the key points of negotiation and that is going to happen. >> and mcconnell is getting the pressure from both sides and while chuck schumer and the democrats are going to have it happen in the dead of night, and he is also wanting to have it in the conference. >> and in the last extended break, lisa murkowski and susan collins and lamar al lenexander with mitch mcconnell in his office, and that is advocating
1:59 pm
for time they have been advocating to speak their mind beginning early monday, and there is pushback at the republican lunch i am told earlier today, the republicans and everybody was not happy about the idea of this being extended. they want this done at the end of the night tonight. mitch mcconnell needs the votings of 51 to move to the final vote, and four senators for witness, and four senators to break the ranks to get to the final vote or three votes, three senators really if it is 50-50 to fail, that is an issue for him to deal with. >> and for people who say that things don't work, you know, you are looking at with now is a high stakes situation where they are actually talking across the aisle. it is process and what they have to do all of the time, and for the impeachment trial for the senate to work, and we don't get to see it in plain sight, and
2:00 pm
because they are standing there, we will see it now, and continue to watch it, and when we get to see what the resolution is, because they will have to come up with one soon to figure out when they will take the votes. wolf? >> and for you guys, let me ask you a question while i have you dana bash and manu raja. obviously, the republicans want a vote on the motion to have new witnesses and new evidence, and a vote that the republicans will win and the democrats will lose we believe, and then after that, i know that there is some talk of senator mcconnell, the majority leader wanting to give the republicans and anyone else an opportunity to explain the votes one way or another. and what do the democrats want? >> they want some opportunity to offer amendments, and not clear what the amendments do. but they want to underscore the point of how this trial in their view has not been fair. so they want a set number of amendments and a number of floor speeches so that the members can
2:01 pm
go to the floor, and most if not all of the 47 democrats are eager to go to the floor to speak their mind about what is happening. so they want some time to speak. so that is part of the negotiation right now is giving all of the members time to speak. they are not concerned at all about wrapping this up quickly, and in fact, they would be, as you know, more than happy to have state of the union to go on while this is not wrapped up. >> and jake, somebody in there mentioned the question and the pressure coming from the democratic base. i mean, the democratic base, and they are if you are looking at the polls and talking to people who are kind of on the ground, are much more interested in the issues is of health care, and they are also interested in democrats fighting tooth and nail to the end to try everything that they can to get what they call a fair trial here. >> all right. it is the top of the hour, so we
2:02 pm
will recap where we stand right now. there is a pause in the senate trial of the president of the united states. you can see the chief justice left part of the screen standing there. and he is waiting for some sort of deal to work out. they have had completed what was supposed to be four-hours equal between the white house managers and the house managers with the witnesses and evidence, and they concluded the arguments. we anticipated a formal vote on whether or not there would be new witnesses and evidence that would be allowed. that vote has not yet happened and we anticipate it will happen by all accounts, and 51. and opposed to new witnesses, 49 in favor, and the democrats are going to lose that vote. and then a lengthy discussion of where to go on the final vote not only of impeaching, but convicting him from office. phil mattingly is up on capitol hill, and you are watching it
2:03 pm
carefully, and do you a clue what is going on? >> yes, and watching and trying to get a sense, because just to be clear it is fluid. what is happening is negotiations over the end game, and why this is happening and it is not about the witness vote, and the republicans have it locked up for that, and that is technically the next step to come, and what is happening after that is not prescribed at this point in time, but i am being told that there is a significant split inside of the republican conference of what is going to happen next. push through and no matter the motions that the democrats offer and to have the final vote tonight or tomorrow morning versus republicans in the conference who have made clear they want the opportunity to be able to speak on the floor and give their views about what they have seen over the course of the last nine days. what that means is senate majority leader mitch mcconnell does not have the votes to move forward on the end game. we have been talking about the last couple of hours about the potential resolution that the republicans were putting out there, and run the idea by the
2:04 pm
democrats to push this into the middle of next week and that is running into the issues with the republicans who want this to end as quickly as possible. and so what you is seen in the course of the floor for the last 10, 12 minutes is you have seen schumer and mcconnell speak together, and by their sides, the top secretary of the minor and laura dove, the secretary of the minority and the two chief procedure whizzes on the united states senate staff, and they are two of the most important people that you never hear about or see, and the woman in the white jacket who is talking to senator john thune is laura dove who is the most person in the united states senate that you have not heart about. why that matters is that it underscores the negotiations were needed. mcconnell can't move it on his own, because they don't have the votes to do that and that is why you are seeing the negotiations, and shut diplomacy, and also checking off one another to see where things are going, and you
2:05 pm
have saw or at least i have heard chuck schumer walked out of the chamber a short while ago and the understanding is that right now to some degree, they are buying time and trying to figure out if the republicans can figure out where the votes are for the end game right now internally, and if there is anything they can offer to the democrats that would be agreeable to them to set up the end game to that degree, but the reality in a pause, and buying time perspective at this point in time, because nobody knows how this is going to end. we know how is it going to end with the vote perspective, and that the witness vote is going down and the president is acquitted, but in terms of what happens in between the two things, guys, that is the biggest unanswered question, and that is why you are seeing the staff and the leadership getting together. and one final point here before i throw it back to you, one of the things that is happening over the course of the last nine days, because of the length of the trial and the length of the days, the senate operates by consent and floor staffs having agreements and knowing how the
2:06 pm
path is going to be moving forward and you can't operate in the senate if the majority and minority leader are not in agreement, and they can't talk to one another, and in the course of the trial, because it has been so long, and the days have been so long, and the senators cannot move or talk, and because the floor staff can't talk to one another, that has not happened at all, and we also have the reality that senator schumer and senator mcconnell have not spoken at all over the course of the not last couple of days or week, and their relationship is not exactly at a high point either at this point. so you are seeing the two sides coming to gt on the floor, and whether or not that ends up with a resolution is a question, but these are the talks that happens on the floor staff level regularly every single day when the senate is in session, and it has not happened because of the trial for logistic reasons, but now they are trying to figure it out and have a necessity to figure it out, and the reasons
2:07 pm
have a vote problem on how is it going to end. >> and do we know which republican senators want to speak on the senate floor and which ones want to get it overwith? >> we are told that senators susan collins, and lisa murkowski, and the moderate senators who have made clear they were up in the air on the witness vote to this point, and that i will split their votes. susan collins is going to vote in favor of the witnesses with the democrats, and lisa murkowski is going to vote no, and so it is our understanding that i should get the opportunity to speak on the floor to express their views. this is not out of left field, and in 199, they were in closed session, but given 15 minutes to read comments to the colleagues of why they reached the conclusion they did. and so there is a push from the republicans, and we don't know the entire republicans that want to do that and there is other
2:08 pm
senators like lindsey graham who know how is it going to go, and the acquittal is going to go, and because of that, push through. and there is a competing pressure from the white house who has the state of the union coming up tuesday night, and that they have made clear that they would not want this going on through the state of the union, and he would like to announce that he has been acquitted and move forward, but on the flipside, you have democrats who are one part they are not willing to agree a resolution that does not go past the state of the union, and that i want opportunities to offer the motions, and a certain number of motions that they don't believe they will win, and they wanted senator schumer today, he does not want this to happen in the middle of the night, but in broad daylight for everybody to see that the process has played out and a process he has referred to as rigged. he is disappointed how the witness vote is going go and you
2:09 pm
have cross fres sure kroscross point in time and it is not difficult if the republicans have 51 votes, but it is difficult if you have to figure out how to find more votes, so that, we are watching on the floor is important, and little bit lesser degree now, because it is obl republican is on the floor mostly. and so trying to figure out the path, and what democrats think they want or should get if they are to agree to a path forward. >> phil, senator santorum has a question for you. >> is anybody talking about doing the senator statements in public, because in the past, this is a jury deliberation, and the juries do not deliberate in public, but in secret where you have an honest exchange of the ideas, and so are collins and murkowski looking for the public statements as opposed to closed session?
2:10 pm
>> i don't want to attribute this to directly to collins or murkowski, but what i have been told, senator, is that our understanding is that the statements would be public at least in some of the discussions that senator mcconnell was working on earlier, and to mention it, you make a good point in 1999, the statements were behind closed doors and we could not see them and they were printed in the record, and people released the statements as well. so this is a wrinkle that we are all trying to figure out, and you have alan up there, too, and he knows more about the senate than i could learn, but if there is an agreement, obviously to do it in public, they could do it, and that is a departure. >> and the problem is to get a agreement, you need unanimous consent, and if i were there as a republican, i am not giving bernie sanders or elizabeth warren the opportunity to go on the senate floor and so you may
2:11 pm
have opposition just on that one issue gumming up the works. >> and dana bash is getting new information. what are you learn, dana? >> i am here with manu, and i have a text of somebody who is part of the discussions who said this point blank, lots of conversation still on the schedule, and no conclusion yet. so now you can see on the screen, the bottom right, that is the republicans talking there, but there are intense discussions, and lots of the cross currents that we have been talking about that phil is talking about that manu and i were talking about earlier, it is intense, and it is pretty unclear how they are going to go, and manu, you are getting the information from the sources. >> yes, it sounds like they are still looking at the final vote for acquittal next week, and that what i have been told at the moment, and we will see if that changes, but it is still what appears to be where they are headed, and ultimately the question is what happens tonight, and immediately after
2:12 pm
this witness vote goes down, because when it is going down, that is when the resolution and mitch mcconnell will detail the next steps of what will happen, and what the democrats will plan to offer the amendments on that resolution, and there is some discussion right now about a handful of democratic amendments and one person told me potentially three amendments that chuck schumer is looking for, and these discussions are fluid and looking to change, and it looks like the chief justice is arriving there, anding at th does not appear to be in session, and mitch mcconnell is coddling there with his colleague, but it is a process to allow the democrats to get the votes on the limited number of amendments and then the senators could speak publicly on the floor of the senate, and that would happen early next week into the final acquittal vote, and in the moment, it is
2:13 pm
wednesday, and still sounds like wednesday, and we will see if it changes. >> if question is, when you are talking about the amendments and people watching are probably thinking, amendments to what? they are going to vote on the witness, and final vote on both articles, and then what happens? >> well, we will have to see. it looks like the chief justice is coming back. back to you. >> throw it back. >> okay. we will squeeze in a quick break and while this moment is taking a moment of pause, we will take one, too. stay with us. when you look at the world,
2:14 pm
what do you see? we see patterns. relationships. when you use location technology, you can see where things happen, before they happen. with esri location technology, you can see what others can't. ♪
2:15 pm
build a clear plan for retirement. one that covers health care costs, taxes, and any other uncertainties. because when you're with fidelity, a partner who makes sure every step is clear, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. a partner who makes sure every step is clear, ( ♪ ) ♪ the sun is risin' ♪ ♪ as the day begins ♪ time for reflectin' on family and friends ♪ ♪ and hey, we got somethin' ♪ ♪ just for you (sniffing) ♪ it's a cup of your favori-i-i-ite... ♪ (loud splashing) (high-pitched laughter) dang woodchucks! with geico, the savings keep on going. just like this sequel. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. (paul) do you get confused byi don't blame the most reliable. the most awarded. the best, the fastest, the best and the fastest. it's too much. sprint's doing things differently. they're offering a 100% total satisfaction guarantee.
2:16 pm
i mean i think sprint's network and savings are great. but don't just take my word for it. try out the network and see the savings for yourself. switch and get both an unlimited plan and the samsung galaxy s10 plus included, for just $35 a month. for people with hearing loss, visit this one's for you. the heroes who won't let your disease hold you back. you inspired us to make your humira experience even better with humira citrate-free. it has the same effectiveness you know and trust, but we removed the citrate buffers, there's less liquid, and a thinner needle, with less pain immediately following injection. if you haven't yet, talk to your doctor about humira citrate-free. and you can use your co-pay card to pay as little as $5 a month. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common
2:17 pm
and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. ask your doctor about humira citrate-free. the same humira you trust with less pain immediately following injection. all right. there has been a pause what they are calling a quorum call in more than a half hour, and this is the chief justice john
2:18 pm
roberts who stood up and that is dianne feinstein who just came over to welcome him, and you can see on the left side of the screen, the house managers, and the democrats, they are gone and the right side of the screen, and the white house counsels are not there, and so there is stuff going on, and we are trying to figure out what is going on, and gloria, this could continue for a while. >> yeah, it could. i mean, i am looking at the original resolution here, and it is very clear that there is a hole that you could drive a mack truck through which is following the disposition of the questioning of witnesses, and other motions in order. other motions in order and the big question that we have right now is what other motions that chuck schumer might be thinking about that could be so important to mitch mcconnell and that we reserve the right to call john
2:19 pm
bolltone. >> -- boll tton. >> and they want to call john bolton. >> and not a measure to say they will be calling the witnesses -- >> well, that is voted on right here. and that is what if they -- >> well, not the specific witness, so they can say it in an attack ad against susan collins. >> after this information was released, they still voted it up. >> and so would chuck schumer have to tell mitch mcconnell right now in these negotiations what his amendments are that he might offer or does he not have to tell him? >> yes, he will tell him and limit the number and substance and leader mcconnell will have to agree or disagree. >> and how much time for debate of those amendments? >> two hours. >> and we don't control the cameras, and c-span does not control the cameras, because in
2:20 pm
this process, the senate has taken control, and so we only have this one shot. on the right side of the screen is a close-up of what you will see on the left side of the screen, and right there, you can see the republican leaders of the senate, and mitch mcconnell in the foreground and tom barrasso, and eric hirschman. >> yes. and jay sekulow came back into the room, and both of the house managers and the president's team had left to go into the side room, but then the president's team came back, and barrasso and cruz were the first to approach them, and whether they are updating them on the negotiations or having a chattings chat in but pat cipollone came right over. >> and a question is whether the
2:21 pm
lawyer's arguments throughout the trial were persuasive talking about the process issues and we are looking at the intensity with which the senate is taking up this process issue, and it makes me wonder if all of the process arguments that the particularly defense counsel made resonated with the senate. >> and this is the chief justice of the united states john roberts who is on the top left. if you are looking on the left side of the screen, you will see in the top left near the american flag, that is the close-up on the right side of the screen, and that is chief justice roberts who is presiding over the trial, and he is talking to two democratic senator ben cardin and ed markey. so you were saying that what you thought is that the democrats are trying to get as much as they can in this one period to have leverage over the process? >> well, it is a political exercise. the votes are in, and so now it is what do you want to
2:22 pm
accomplish? the interesting thing is that the four democrats who are running for president are not factoring into what the democratic decision is. they want to stay here and have debate, and there is a situation in the trial tonight they reconvene on wednesday, but you not going to get all of the debate time in wednesday if you do that, so it is interesting how they seem to be pushing for something that may disadvantage their own members. >> isn't that one of the maybe points of contention if they were to break over the next couple of days the time of when they come back. >> and hold on for a moment, because we will squeeze in a quick break. we will be right back. when it comes to using data, everyone is different. which is why xfinity mobile is a different kind
2:23 pm
of wireless network that lets you design your own data. choose unlimited, shared data, or mix lines of each and switch any line, anytime. giving you more choice and control compared to top wireless carriers. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, save even more with $150 off galaxy a70. click, call or visit a store today.
2:24 pm
2:25 pm
2:26 pm
be stronger... with nicorette coated ice mint. layered with flavor. it's the first and only coated nicotine lozenge. for an amazing taste... ...that outlasts your craving. nicorette ice mint. for an amazing taste... ...that the number of craving. uninsurising.ricans, the cost of prescription drugs, rising. the threat to people with pre-existing conditions, rising. the good news, so is support for the one candidate
2:27 pm
who'll do something about it. as mayor, mike bloomberg helped expand coverage for seven hundred thousand people, including hundreds of thousands of kids. including hundreds of thousands of kids. as president, he'll lower drug costs and ensure everyone without coverage can get it. that's a promise. and unlike him, mike actually keeps his. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. americans come to to compare and save on loans, credit cards and more! but with the new lending tree app you can see your full financial health, monitor your credit score, see your cash flow and find out how you can cut your monthly bills. download it now to see how much you can save. welcome back. time is standing still on the floor of the u.s. senate where there is a pause as the democratic and the republican leaders try to figure out what comes next and which way forward if you are looking on the left side of the screen, and the senate camera, and then on the right side of the screen, you will see the close-up, and those
2:28 pm
are senator marco rubio of florida talking to at least mike lee of utah and then two of the president's attorneys, pat cipollone on the left, and jay sekulow in the center wearing the red tie. and dana bash is on capitol hill, and she has information about senator susan collins, one of the few republicans who are actually willing to vote in favor of new witnesses such as john bolton, and collins, part of what is going on, you tell us, dana, in terms of the negotiations of what is coming next. >> right. so part of issue as we have been discussing that they are trying to work out is balancing for mitch mcconnell, and for his own caucus, and am moamong the republicans how much to spend, and some say go through tonight, and finish it, but others are saying, no we wa, we want more o speak, and susan collins is one of them, and she is trying to help with the solution, but that
2:29 pm
she wants the members to speak, but she is not saying that she wants people to speak for long periods of time. and they are trying to clarify that, but the important point is that she is, as our team is reporting here, senator mu murkowski is needing to express back home what their manu raja is here with me, and there are still negotiations. >> yes, they are still looking to structure them and republicans are pushing to end it tonight. but people like senator lisa murkowski want some more time, and others want some type of opportunity to speak on the floor and democrats in particular want an opportunity to speak on the floor and a lot of them in the 47-member caucus
2:30 pm
want to do that and they are talking about, the democrats, of delaying and having the votes on a handful of amendments and early next week leave and not be here this weekend and come back and allow the speakers to speak on the floor and then go into acquittal vote wednesday. >> that is important, but before we toss back, we will talk about the amendment in context for people, and this is additional ways for democrats to get on record with things that they want, and they are not getting. so they will force the votes on the record for things. >> yes, to underscore what they are pushing, the points they are pushing, and they will ultimately fail. it is all a prelude to the inevitable which is president trump acquitted next week. >> going down kick and screaming. >> and we have seen break, and the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell says a dinner break
2:31 pm
and the cameras are off and everybody is going a waind why not this time, and why are they still in session, as opposed to a formal break to figure out what to do next and then bring the cameras next? >> that is a really good question. he could have done, that and alan may tell you if there is a parliamentary reason for that. >> and former senator santorum. >> i can tell you why, because they want everybody to stay in the chamber, and they want to force a solution so when they get it, they can move immediately to a vote. if they take a break, everybody goes, and it may be as you have seen 15 minutes breaks last an hour, so you want to keep them there and the threat of the vote to keep people close at hand. >> good point. all right. we will bring in jeffrey toobin, and jeff, you are watching this, and it seems that fairly confusing for a lot of people out there, but there must be some logic to what is going on. >> well, not necessarily.
2:32 pm
i mean, this is 100 ego ma mani legislatures trying to get their way. >> i take exception to that remark. >> and i don't know how is it going to turn out with the ultimate result, but i have covered congress somewhat, but nothing like dana and manu, and this is, this stuff happens with some regularity, and there is a lot of standing around, you know, chatting with each other while the leaders are trying to find a way out, but when you cover congress, you cover a lot of scenes like this. people are standing around chatting with each other. >> it is clear to me that the ball is in the democrats' hands, because you can see the white
2:33 pm
house lawyers are there, and the republican senators are there and then the democrats are pretty much off and huddling. the democratic managers and you don't see adam schiff and it is cipollone and the ball is in their court right now and they are trying to figure out what the response is. >> and what they would ask for. if you want amendments, what are they. >> and the timing of the debates. open, closed. >> and exactly, exactly. >> and mia, i don't know if there is much more the democrats can exact out of this, because they have the attack ads written for those vulnerable senators who are up for re-election who are going to be up to vote to acquit president trump, and so maybe we will learn as to what they think they can get out of here. and also the question of who wants this to end before the state of the union and before the super bowl when president
2:34 pm
trump does an interview with sean hannity in the fox broadcast of the super bowl, and the president wants it done by sunday if not thursday. >> right. >> and maybe not even mitch mcconnell wants that? >> well, maybe some holding over the president's head for the next couple of days keeps him quiet and makes the state of the union not as boastful. so we will see. we have seen scenes like this with legislation, but usually when it is with legislation, we don't know the outcome or where people are going to vote on a big piece of legislation, and thinking about obamacare and john mccain in the last minute sort of saving it and voting against donald trump. here we do know the outcome. we don't know who is going to speak in the end, and is susan collins going to give some floor speech or does lisa murkowski want to give one and susan
2:35 pm
collins. >> all right. they are gaveling in. >> i ask consent to further proceed on the quorum call be dispensed with. >> without objection. >> the democratic leader and i have had an opportunity to have a discussion, and it leads to the following. we will now cast a vote on the witness question, and once that vote is complete, i would ask that the senate stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. >> thank you. without objection, so ordered. the question is shall it be in order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents? the yeas and nays are required under senate resolution 483 and the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. alexander. >> no. >> ms. baldwin.
2:36 pm
>> aye. >> mr. barrasso. >> no. >> mr. bennet. >> aye. >> mrs. blackburn. >> no. >> mr. blumenthal. mr. blount, no. mr. booker. aye, mr. bozeman, no. mr. braun? no. mr. brown? aye. mr. burr? no. ms. cantwelcantwell, aye. ms. capito, aye. mr. cardin, aye. mr. carper, aye. mr. cassidy, aye. ms. collins, aye. mr. koons, aye. mr. cornyn, no.
2:37 pm
ms. cortez masto? no. mr. kramer, no. mr. crapo, no. mr. cruz, no. mr. daines, no. ms. duckworth, aye. mr. durbin, aye. mr. enzi, no. ms. ernst. ms. feinstein, aye. ms. ernst, no. mrs. fisher, no. mr. gardener, no. mrs. gillibrand, aye. mr. graham? no. mr. grassley, no. ms. harris, aye. ms. hassan?
2:38 pm
no. mr. hawley, aye. mr. hirono, aye. mr. hoeven, no. ms. hyde-smith, no. mr. inhofe, no. mr. johnson, no. mr. jones, aye. mr. kaine, aye. mr. kennedy, no. mr. king, aye. mrs. klobuchar, aye. mr. lankford, no. mr. leahy, aye. mr. lee, no. mrs. leffler, no. mr. manchin, aye. mr. markey, aye. mr. mcconnell, no. ms. mcsally, no.
2:39 pm
mr. menendez, aye. mr. merkley, aye. mr. moran, no. ms. markowski, no. mr. murphy, aye. mrs. murray, aye. mr. paul, no. mr. perdue, no. mr. peters, aye. mr. portman, no. m mr. reade, aye. mr. rish, no. mr. roberts, no. mr. romney, aye. ms. rosen, aye. mr. rounds, no.
2:40 pm
mr. rubio, no. mr. sanders, aye. mr. sass, no. mr. schatz, no. mr. schumer, no. mr. scott of florida, no. mr. scott of south carolina, no. ms. shaheen, aye. mr. shelby, no. ms. sinema, no. smith, aye. ms. stabenow, aye. mr. sullivan, no. mr. tester, aye. mr. thune, no. mr. tillis, no.
2:41 pm
mr. toomey, no. mr. udall, aye. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. warner, aye. ms. warren, aye. mr. whitehouse, aye. mr. wicker, no. mr. wyden, aye. mr. young, no. mr. blumenthal, aye.
2:42 pm
>> are there any members in the senate chamber wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 49 and the nays are 51. the motion is not agreed to. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess subject to the call of the chair. all right. that is it. history has just been made, and the very important motion to get witnesses and new evidence allowed in the trial of the president of the united states
2:43 pm
fails 51-49, and not a surprise. we anticipated that only two republicans would vote in favor, susan collins and mitt romney and as a result, it did not get what they needed. they needed 51 in order to pass it, and they had 51 opposed. >> when you are stepping away from the move to remove president trump from office, and that is difficult, because of the context, and to step away from the qualms of the way that the house impeachment managers have conducted the case or how the house democrats have conducted the impeachment, and just looking at the motion, and what this motion was doing which is to allow subpoenas for further witnesses or further documents, and it is striking that there is a national security adviser for president trump, john bolton who is out there basically waving his hands saying that i would like to be subpoenaed and testify. he has a manuscript, and according to "the new york
2:44 pm
times" in that manuscript he claims to have had a conversations with president trump in which trump asserts a quid pro quo. they cannot have this military aid, security aid $391 million unless, unless according to new york times story they deliver on the allegations into the bidens. in addition to that, you have the president's former chief of staff john kelly, retired marine general, and rock river republican out there talking to people saying that i think that the senate should call new witnesses, and i believe john bolton even if the president denies it. even if that context, the senate voted the way they did with every republican except for susan collins and mitt romney saying that i don't have to hear anymore, and even if you believe what john bolton is saying and the quid pro quo, it is not enough to remove somebody from office. >> and gloria, it is clear that 51-49 against witnesses -- hold
2:45 pm
on a moment. >> and they are speaking now. chuck schumer. >> no witnesses, no documents. an impeachment trial is imperfory and one of the worst tragedies that america has overcome. and america is going to remember this day when the senate did not live up to the responsibilities, where the senate turned away from the truth and went along with the sham trial. this is -- if the president is acquitted with no witnesses, no documents, the acquittal will have no value, because americans will know that this trial was not a real trial. it had no witnesses, no documents, and it is a tragedy on a very large scale. i will now go up to my caucus to discuss what to do next and i will not talk about it here. >> and this is the senate
2:46 pm
democratic leader trying to do what nancy pelosi did a few days ago which is to assert that this trial, and we expect acquittal is not an exoneration of president trump, because new witnesses and new documents were not allowed. we should note that leader schumer there asserted that there were no witnesses and no documents, and that is not the case. there have been more than a dozen witnesses who were brought in, and video testimony from the house impeachment inquiry, and thousands of pages of documents and the question is whether to compel new witnesses and new documents, and it is true -- >> and they voted against it. >> they voted against it, and it is true, no senate impeachment trial without new witness, but there have been witnesses in this trial, and we should point that out. let's bring in dana bash, and coming to you, senator, but you have new information? >> hi, there, jake. somebody was saying that we wanted to try to explain what was going on, on the senate
2:47 pm
floor, and senator schumer sort of did it, but when we heard mitch mcconnell say that we are going to go into recess subject to the call of the chair just to do some translation from senate speak into english, that is another pause button just like we saw with the quorum call, and senator santorum knows because he was on the leadership on the republican side, and a quorum to get everybody close, but they did not get to the solution or the compromise of the rules of the road after this dramatic witness vote that we saw. that is what they did, recess to the subject call of the chair which is a longer break to continue to have the conversations, because they still don't have a plan for how to di vise h devise how the buit ram of the trial. >> so are you saying that the senate could come back into session tonight? >> well, at any time. i will defer to my colleague
2:48 pm
from pennsylvania there, and rick santorum who can be more specific, but yes, they can and will come back and hopefully if they come up with a compromise, they will tell us all what it is. >> yes, three pause buttons. one is a quorum call where you keep everybody close by, and in the case you would, and not normally, but in this case you would and the second is the recess, and the moment that the leader wants to call them back in, you simply go up, and the senate is back in, and the third is adjournment, and in that case, you are done until the next day, so they are saying, stay around. probably not going to have any votes, and my guess is they will not tonight, but it depends upon the negotiations. >> i wanted to ask former congressman charlie dent, another great panelist. and so were you surprised that the republicans were so unified in voting against new witnesses especially when bolton is out there saying that i would like to testify? >> yeah, i thought that since
2:49 pm
"the new york times" did that piece on bolton coming out, i thought that it would have changed the dynamic a little bit, and gotten a few votes for witnesses and the firsthand account, and quid pro quo and no question about it, so right now, i think that the democrats are mad. they lost. republicans are divided and that is why they have gone into a recess, and any time the majority does not have the act together, they recess to the call of the chaira and that is what is happening now, and the democrats will do everything they can to slow it down. they feel like they are in a commanding position, and they have the knife and inserted it and twisting it, because they can and it is fun for them. and that is where we are. but i am stunned that there was not more republican votes for witnesses, because i think that we should hear from them, and everybody thinks that we should hear from them, and bolton is >> the president wants to over as kwiquickly as possible. he has a "state of the union"
2:50 pm
address on tuesday night. he doesn't want this to go on and on and on. >> sure, he doesn't. the sad part of this whole thing is he'll be acquitted, but there will be no consequence from the senate for what many of them have acknowledged to be very bad behavior, at the very least. a guy like lamar alexander. i never liked ce ner erkcensure this point it wouldn't be a bad idea to bring a censure resolution. they voted against acquittal, let them vote for something. democrats, i tried to push that vote on them. see what swing states would vote for censure. >> i don't know if democrats would vote on it because they would feel it isn't enough. i don't know if you could get enough republicans to go through that. >> they may remove, but -- >> i don't know what's permissible as far as amendment to a resolution, but they may do something like that. i'm not suggesting they would, but the democrats may offer an amendment to provide for a debate on censure.
2:51 pm
that's one of the possible amendments. potentially. >> let's go to carrie cordoba for a second. bringing in john bolton is not going to happen. tell me what you think he might be able to add to the case. i guess we'll hear from him when his book comes out and he does interviews, so we are going to hear what he has to say, just not in the way that affects the senate vote. >> and the way it will affect history. i wondered if they would wrestle with the conduct on the part of the president that was alleged. i think from the fact they have not voted to hear from a witness who so clearly obviously has material, relevant information to provide that it shows that there are at least some of the senators who have been able now to get through this entire trial
2:52 pm
without ever really having to deal with all the facts. on the other hand -- >> how can you say that? >> because john bolton ais a material witness who they did not subpoena to testify. >> they just sat through four days of arguments, and the house managers had two days, 24 hours to lay out, quote, all the facts from a body that said, we have overwhelming evidence, it's crystal clear, and then you're saying, well, the senators don't care. that's just not a fair analysis. >> carrie, i'll come back to you in a second. i just want to bring this news because mitch mcconnell just issued a statement, the senate majority leader saying, a majority of the u.s. senate has determined this numerous witnesses and documents already in evidence are sufficient to judge the house members' accusations and ends this impeachment trial. there is no need for the senate to reopen the investigation which the house majority chose to conclude and the managers
2:53 pm
themselves describe as overwhelming and without any doubt. never in senate history has this body paused an impeachment trial with questions of executive privilege that would require pro tracted litigation. we have no interest in establishing such a precedent, especially from individuals whom the house chose not to pursue. the senate will continue with the house managers and senate counsel to declare the next steps as we conclude the trial. carrie, go ahead. >> this is a process of how they're going to resolve it and how they'll be able to come to a conclusion with some of these senators being able to save face politically with the vote they just took. because there was a wide body of house evidence presented by the house managers, they've left evidence on the table, and that evidence is john bolton. now, with respect to john bolton, it didn't have to be this way. john bolton could have appeared before the house voluntarily like other people who are still in the government -- >> or pursued the proper legal course with the court.
2:54 pm
>> no, they said they were going to sue till whenever and that would have taken forever to go through the report. the purpose of doing it through the senate is the senate could have resolved the legal issue. >> this is the point mitch mcconnell just made. it is not up to the united states senate to make a determination on executive privilege. it is up to the courts to make that derptermination. this is a constitutional right that the senate unilaterally cannot make a determination, nor should they. >> we should just point out, though, in terms of the conversation between bolton and president trump that there is a strong case to make, and carrie has made it, that because trump has commented publicly he has weighed his rights for that assertion between himself and john bolton. >> they said, we will determine next steps as we prepare to conclude the trial in the coming
2:55 pm
days. that means it's not going to conclude tonight. there is not going to be a final vote even at 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning. in the coming days, we're talking either tuesday or wednesday. >> yeah, and i think it's obviously not going to happen tonight, but i'm curious about something else in his statement where he talks about never in senate history has this body paused an impeachment trial to pursue additional witnesses with unresolved questions of executive privilege. so does that mean that what schumer wants is more votes on witnesses, or was he just talking about this? >> yeah. >> but in the clinton impeachment, of course, there were witnesses. and they did pause the trial to vote. they had already been deposed. >> they had already been depoetd deposed. there were no new witnesses in the clinton impeachment trial. >> i guess they have to think
2:56 pm
what do the republicans want, and what do the democrats want, and have they all agreed on what they want? >> chuck schumer, give us the big picture right now of what we're seeing. >> trump won. he's going to win this trial. he won on the issue of witnesses. he's going to get acquitted, and that's how history will remember what went on here. i think history will also record that there are at least one, and perhaps other, pivotal, pivotal witnesses who were available to the house of representatives -- to the senate to talk about the precise issue that is the subject of this impeachment trial. and the senate decided not to hear from him. the idea that john bolton is out there with a book and giving
2:57 pm
speeches for money and said he's willing -- and having someone leaking the contents of that book daily to the "new york times," and the senate decided not to hear from john bolton is just an absolute travesty. >> jeffrey, it's because, as you heard from many senators who have commented since, you will hear from many more, they believe that the house case as presented in the articles of impeachment is not sufficient on its face to vote to remove a president. >> so then they're not going to deal with the substance of the allegation because of a process issue, which is why it seemed they were so engaged on the process issues, and what they never dealt with was the president's conduct. >> if the house articles of impeachment in the eyes of senators are not sufficient to remove a president, who cares what the case brings? >> that's exactly the point. so they just looked away from the facts. >> they're not looking away from
2:58 pm
the facts. >> could the house call bolton tomorrow? what keeps the house from calling john bolton tomorrow? >> i'm sure nadler could call him any time he wants. >> there have been discussions of calling john bolton. he wanted to speak in the senate trial, is what he wanted to do. >> i think people say, we should hear from john bolton. given this revelation in the books, we should hear from him. i still can't get over dershowitz, what he said the other day, that if the public s republicans are acting in the public interest, prisons are engaged in quid pro quo. >> especially pennsylvania prisons, i might add. let's go to the representative
2:59 pm
from the southern district of new york, 51, all republicans saying, no, we do not want to allow any new witnesses or new documents. >> i agree with the adjectives that have been used by other people. it's a travesty. i go back and forth between thinking, do you call it a sham or do you call it a shame? it's probably both those things. john bolton is going to testify in a manner of speaking night after night on television and on the road and on the radio and in editorial pages for weeks and weeks and weeks. this is different from a case where you might not have a person speak out publicly. he's going to end up, i believe, winning the battle with respect to his book which will be an important legal battle to watch in the coming weeks, then he'll be free to speak in some way or another. the fact that there is a former senator there on your panel that says there is a technical argument that the senate trial was based on even without
3:00 pm
witnesses or documents. it was based on the limited record provided to the house. that's not how people are going to perceive it. >> that is not what i'm saying. just be very clear because everybody is misrepresenting what i'm saying. i'm not talking about the record. i'm talking about the articles of impeachment themselves. not the witnesses, not the record. the actual allegations made against the president in article 1 and article 2 are, of themselves, insufficient to remove a president. that's what republicans are saying. you can argue all you want about witnesses, you can argue about documents, the point that's being made is it's almost -- we'll demur. i'll accept everything to be true. still not guilty. >> senator, that wasn't a motion to dismiss. that was a motion to seek witness testimony. and people understand, no matter what legal or technical argument you're going to make about sufficiency or you're going to make about the closed record of the house -- >> why would you bring witnesses
3:01 pm
to a charge -- >> i know you used to be an elected official but we're both private citizens and i think i should be able to finish my sentence. common sense reigns supreme. people understand when you have a person like john bolton who is close to the president, after the president's lawyers were saying week after week after week, you have no evidence of someone who has firsthand knowledge, and this person has firsthand knowledge and is prepared to testify, the public is going to perceive that as a sham. and i think that they will. there is a reason why i think there is a debate in the senate right now about how much deliberation there should be, because senators who understand that it's a sham, and that common sense renders it a sham, don't want to spend a lot of time on this and have to explain. some people do want to explain because they have constituencies who ask them the question, you have a guy who has firsthand knowledge who undermines the chief defense of the president of the united states. why don't you let him testify? >> we're going to let senator
3:02 pm
santorum respond, but i want to reset for our viewers who are joining us right now. we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. this is a special edition of "the situation room." we're watching history unfold in the u.s. senate. they have just defeated a motion to allow new witnesses to appear before the trial of the president of the united states, new evidence to be made available it the trial, the impeachment trial of the president of the united states, and now there is a pause, and jake, it's clear right now that according to the senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell, that next step could come a few hours from now, could come in the next few days, but it's not going to be over with until the coming days, and there is a push by several republican senators right now to not have the final vote on conviction and removal of the president, which will fail -- you need 67 senators,
3:03 pm
the democrats don't have that, clearly -- until saturday. >> the u.s. senate pretty much in a party line vote, although two senators, mitt romney and susan collins, broke the ranks and voted with the democrats. the u.s. senate voted against the idea of any new witnesses or new documents. and the fact that this was done and senator santorum and former u.s. attorney barra were just debating this, john bolton, a conservative icon out there saying he's willing to testify if he's subpoenaed -- which is a change. he didn't have that position, then he announced he was willing to do that. the "new york times" is report that go this book, in the book, bolt bolton claims to have firsthand testimony in which he says president trump was directly linking $391 million in security assistance to ukraine with his
3:04 pm
demand that they announce investigations into the bidens. that's what the book says, according to the "new york times." and in addition to that, the former chief of staff to president trump, john kelly, marine general, very conservative, is out there saying the u.s. senate should hear from john bolton, and even though trump claims what bolton is saying is not true, i believe bolton, even though kelly and bolton used to fight all the time. even among all that, 51 republican senators said, we don't need to hear. we don't need to hear, and that's just remarkable. i understand that there is all sorts of issues as to why they did that, and senator santorum is here to explain that. but it is remarkable on its face. two very prominent conservative conservatives, kelly and bolton, saying there is more to the story. >> they've heard enough. john king, i'm anxious to get your thoughts.
3:05 pm
>> in terms of that conversation, mr. mcconnell thinks by the time the election rolls around, people will have forgotten this. it is a risk for those senators. we only know pieces of what's in bolton's book. we don't know if bolton starts talking if others will start talking. we don't know if there is a request or some other process that the redacted materials make it hard to understand what's clear. so they are taking a risk that by november or next year or five years from now, some of these things do take time, that they'll be embarrassed. but mr. mcconnell's calculation is this is the president's party, this is what the president wants. the leader believes that he needs to keep his senate majority and that he can do it this way by getting it over as quickly as possible. that's the bigger calculation about these votes and keeping republicans in line. now he's looking for an offramp for this trial. democrats just lost. the base is mad at chuck schumer.
3:06 pm
why couldn't you get lisa murkowski? why couldn't you get lamar alexander? the democratic base does not want this to end, or at least land a few more punches before it does, and susan collins wants to speak, murkowski wants to speak. do you do it in a public setting? do you do it in a private setting? he's negotiating in two separate groups. the family one, at least he does, it just isn't edy. to me there is a rawness and the senator has mentioned, the other application is four senators who don't want to leave. i think the bigger problem for russell is he's got four senators saying, can we land a few more punches, but get me out of here. >> john is talking about the risk some of these senators are going to face if more information comes out, and likely there will be from the
3:07 pm
bolton book and reporters breaking news on this. the other risk is that the president has basically been emboldened by this, right? i think nancy pelosi, democrats came in thinking that impeaching the president in the house would send a message to him, to not do this again or face the music. it seems like information from a political o'popponeopponent, it like the president might be emboldened by what he has to say. >> republicans, 51. democrats, 0. >> what are you learning, dane? >> the republicans are in one room, the democrats in another just in and around the senate floor, and they are basically having discussions within their tribes, trying to figure out how
3:08 pm
and what and where the exit strategy is. this is a really colorful but very clear quote from john thune to our colleague clair foreign. he said, we're trying to figure out how to land the plane. that really sums up from where they are right now. i just got a text from a series of amendments tonight to try to continue to make the point that we're hearing on the panel. we heard from senator schumer about the fact they don't feel thfls a fair trial. unclear if they're going to get that. but more importantly, on the republican side, they're dweelg some internal dynamics where you have some key republican center. they want this done, they want this done soon.
3:09 pm
never mind that this is the impeachment trial of the president of the united states, so it's understandable that thecthey want this done quickly. they are deliberating amongst themselves and in their own tribes, if you will, and at some point they'll need to come together to figure out how -- not when and if they can -- what that path of moving forward is to begin the final debate and final votes on two articles of impeachment. >> dana bash on capitol hill. let's bring in jeffrey toobin. the lunch meeting was contentious. they found out the trial might not finish tonight. lots of anger. the question now is not about what schumer wants, it's the four moderates holding things up, meaning lamar, murkowski,
3:10 pm
susan collins and mitt romney. they were supposed to take 40 minutes, they took of 60. and there is anger at them. >> yeah. i mean, there are marginal differences among the republicans, but let's keep in mind that they are all, perhaps with the exception of romney, maybe susan collins are going to vote the same way. i want to go back to something rick santorum said a little while earlier, and i think he's exactly right, which is that the republicans take it as a given. this is the argument that alan dershowitz made during the trial, which is even if you accept every single thing that adam schiff said and the other managers said as true, this is not an impeachable offense, so it doesn't matter what the witnesses say. it is completely okay, it is completely not impeachable that the president went to a leader of a foreign country and said,
3:11 pm
you are not getting the taxpayer dollars that the congress authorized for you unless you give me dirt on joe biden. that's fine. that's totally fine. and we don't need to hear any witnesses on that. and i think -- you know, i think rick is exactly right, that they don't need any witnesses because they think that's fine. >> well, first off, i'm not saying and the republican senator is saying they think it's fine. there are some who are lined up squarely with president trump who said, the call was perfect. but not very many that you've heard comment since this impeachment trial has taken place. in fact, everyone that i've heard comment talked about one word -- did you get -- republicans are recognizing that what the president did was not perfect, or in some cases, not close to perfect. the question is, what any.
3:12 pm
they're asking to throw the president out of office nor skpr ta ta . this is a high crime that deserves the death penalty, and bill clinton in my day when i voted impeachment because the president committed perjury, tampered with witnesses. crimes, but they said it wasn't a high crime. i understand their point of view. what i don't understand is when i hear you say, it's an outrageous claim and it's not a high crime. it's not. democrats in 1999, i said, look, i understand their point of view. i don't agree with it. but to say you can't give any quarter to someone who feels that way is just harsh. >> we can disagree with the
3:13 pm
seerns president, and they are afraid of him, and that they are killing themselves to get this thing done by the "state of the union" so donald trump doesn't get mad at them. this is hardly any condemnation from the republicans who run the u.s. senate. >> all i can tell you is all the democrats in 1999 voted to dismiss it even before witnesses. >> i know you'd like to weigh in as well. >> i actually don't think it's an absurd position if in good conscience, democrat or republican, after hearing all the available evidence and evidence that's begging to come into the trial, decide, you know what? this is a terrible thing the president did, and for various reasons, consistent with what i think the constitution said in my own oath, and my confidence, with a mix of people and you
3:14 pm
have john bolton who clearly has important information, came in late in the process, wants to come forward. i think those senators who voted against hearing him notwithstanding the arguments you keep making which shows or doesn't show. complex americans, the way in which they live, they will kind of approximated. >> i'm going to agree with you. i think that's a risk republicans are taking right now in which i said the presidents will take the same risk. you hear them call process, process, process and the
3:15 pm
democrats ignore that process. etch veryone stick around. we're going to sneak in a quick break. we'll be back with the senate impeachment trial of the president of the united states. stay with us. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection.
3:16 pm
be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. car vending machines and buying a car 100% online.vented now we've created a brand new way for you to sell your car. whether it's a year old or a few years old, we want to buy your car. so go to carvana and enter your license plate, answer a few questions, and our techno-wizardry calculates your car's value and gives you a real offer in seconds. when you're ready, we'll come to you, pay you on the spot, and pick up your car. that's it. so ditch the old way of selling your car, and say hello to the new way-- at carvana. my money should work as hard as i do. so i use my freedom unlimited card to buy all the latest tech stuff. today, i'm earning on a charger. so, just the charger then? ummm... ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪
3:17 pm
yeah! (sarcastically) fantastic. earn 1.5% cash back on everything you buy with freedom unlimited. chase. make more of what's yours. robinwithout the commission fees. so, you can start investing today wherever you are - even hanging with your dog. so, what are you waiting for? download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood.
3:18 pm
3:19 pm
welcome back to "the situation room." the republicans decided they didn't need to hear witnesses. a 51-49 vote to not hear new witnesse witnesses. there is a break now, a pause. they'll probably resume sometime tonight. what are you learning, dana? >> i have with me senator amy
3:20 pm
klobuchar. she is here and not in iowa which is three days away now. first of all, what can you tell us about what is happening behind the scenes. >> the caucuses are meeting and trying to work out what's going forward. we're so disappointed we failed with one vote, 51-49, not what we wanted to have happen when every single hour new news is breaking about things that mr. bolton has said. i keep telling my colleagues, it's not going to be five months from now or five weeks from now where the truth comes out, it's probably going to be five days from now. right now we're looking at amendments that we could do to maybe be more specific about witnesses or giving more time. maybe with each and every day it will change their mind on allowing witnesses. that's what our discussion is about. >> i'm looking at you talking to me here in the capitol three days before the iowa caucuses. i know you're doing your job, but are you dying inside? >> not that i'm a competitive person, but i know we have an
3:21 pm
incredible staff out there. we have more endorsements of legislators than anyone, it's not even close, and former legislators of all the candidates. they're all out for me and i got the endorsement of the iowa city newspaper in addition to quad city. we just got seacoast in new hampshire in addition to the other two. i feel like i've been working on this for a year, and all the motions are in place. hopefully i'll be back by sunday to see our people and rally them on, and that's just the way it is. i've got to believe that people in iowa and beyond understand that i have a constitutional duty to do my job and that they see it as a positive. because i'm in the arena pushing for the truth and that it's a plus. >> talk to me more about what was going on on the senate floor right before the witness vote and then afterwards. there is a sense that, you know -- we know that the way the original resolution was written, it wasn't entirely clear what
3:22 pm
the path forward would be, which is why you're having all this back and forth. >> yes. >> is there kind of a point where the whole notion of reaching out to the base, which is what democrats are doing, making it clear that you're going down kicking and screaming -- because you know where the votes are. that's my point. >> remember, we didn't know where senator murkowski would be until today. >> i'm not talking about the witnesses, just the final votes. >> again, i think we have some amendments that we want to see what happens, and then we go from there. but, remember, general kelly today said that they should do their job and that it's a half job if you don't have witnesses. we keep having more and more people speak out, who knows what will happen tomorrow. >> we might have some news. thank you for now and i'll toss it back to jake. jake? >> thank you so much, dana bash, and senator klobuchar. for the last several hours, washington has been consumed with what is going to happen next. during this period there has
3:23 pm
been a vote against allowing more witnesses or documents, but our own manu raju on capitol hill has some breaking news about what we believe is going to happen next. what are are the next steps, manu? >> i just caught up with members of the senate republican leadership who are leaving a closed door meeting about the next steps in president trump's impeachment trial, and essentially what they're saying is this. there is a deal between the leader of the senate republicans, mitch mcconnell, and democratic leader chuck schumer for an acquittal vote for president trump next wednesday. and the way that this process is going to work, according to those two senators who came out of the meeting, this is going to start tonight. tonight there are going to be four or five democratic amendments that will be offered by democrats to try to push what they believe will make for a fair trial in the democrats' views. those democratic amendments will fail. then afterwards essentially they'll be done for the evening. there will not be a weekend session. then afterwards, they'll return monday. that's when closing arguments would occur.
3:24 pm
both the democrats and republicans will make their closing arguments for a period of time, then senators will be allowed to give floor speeches during the time monday, tuesday and wednesday of next week because a lot of senators who have been sitting in the chamber, they have not been able to speak during the trial at all, and a lot of them have been eager to speak. they'll be allowed to do that, voice their views about the process and everything that's happening. they'll make their floor speeches monday through wednesday, and that will set up that key vote wednesday afternoon, that major vote about president trump and whether he should be convicted for high crimes and misdemeanors and abuse of congress. the president is expected to be cleared, and that acquittal vote will happen on wednesday next week. the white house wanted an acquittal vote to be done by tuesday, because tuesday president trump is giving his "state of the union" address. he wanted to use that as a triumph of acquittal by the
3:25 pm
republican-controlled senate. because of the process, because of the way it's playing out, and because of the timing and the demands by senators to have their own opportunity to speak on the floor, this is ultimately going to be delayed until wednesday. so some republicans are not happy about it. they wanted to go through the night, power through the night, finish it up tonight. democrats do not allow it. they have the power in this process to delay things a bit. essentially they have delayed it until next wednesday, so that's the vote we'll all look for next, a quitting the president of the united states. so his trial will last a few more days, but the inevitable outcome is the president will be acquitted by middle of next week. >> you might not know the answer to this since it's a work in progress. we haven't seen the actual revolution you're talking of. there has been a request for all senators to be present during the trial. there have been other rules, no
3:26 pm
phones, no reading materials, et cetera, but that has been very disruptive for the four senators running for president as well as other senators that have other business and legislation and hearings and things that they want to do. is that rule going to hold for monday, tuesday, wednesday when senators are going to be giving these speeches? in other words, if i'm bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, amy klobuchar or michael bennet, do i have to be in the senate monday for the iowa caucuses. >> no, they do not have to be in the senate, because you'll remember they were not allowed to speak. they won't be formally in the impeachment trial when these senators will be allowed to speak. they'll be essentially in senator business so senators can speak during regular senate business, and they'll be able to speak up to 15 minutes each. that's why they'll be allowed to speak. that's why senators don't have to be attendance, only the presiding officer of the senate will be in attendance.
3:27 pm
i assume chief justice roberts won't have to be in attendance, either. when the closing arguments happen on monday, when the republicans make their closing arguments and the defenprosecut make their closing arguments, then the rest of the body will not have to be present. >> manu, i'm sorry to interrupt. did you just say they do have to be there monday night when the house managers, for the closing arguments on monday night? >> i would assume so. i've not seen the text on this, but that would be the closing arguments of both sides. i would assume they would have to be there monday. i don't know if it's nighttime. 1:00 is when this has started and it could be up to four hours of hearing. closing arguments, amy
3:28 pm
klobuchar, pete buttigieg, and the rest of the candidates, they would have to be there. tuesday when floor speeches happen, they don't have to be there. for the acquittal vote they would have to be there. >> it's going to be a very busy week. we're talking about the super bowl on sunday, the iowa caucuses on monday, the state of the union address by the president on tuesday, and a final acquittal vote -- and there will be an acquittal of the president -- on wednesday. >> i have to say, if you're running for president, bernie sanders who is, according to polls, one of the leaders in iowa, if not the leader. >> it's not like a primary
3:29 pm
night, everyone is voting. these are caucuses. i went to five caucuses or six caucuses on caucus night. you go to the bigger caucuses, you get a chance to speak. this is a huge blow if it's true. a huge blow. >> i want to know what these amendments are also. >> these are -- they have already voted legally. what will they take care of these candidates. >> a note from the financial or something? >> the senate rule says the sergeant in arms can go and get you. >> i have no idea what these amendments are going to be, but john king, if i'm reading houmd
3:30 pm
senator cory gardner even didn't vote for whatever these a amendments are. >> this has been a political process since the beginning, and now we know the end map. chuck schumer wanted more time, he said he wanted to do things, so mitch mcconnell is giving him his amendments and pushing off the vote. it would be extraordinary -- i'm not sure the senate impeachment rules would allow it -- they have to be there for the closing impeachment laws. the senators will get to leave late tonight or first thing in the morning and be in iowa saturday and sunday. but to the senator's point, especially the democratic caulk ausz -- caucuses, and if they have to be back on monday, that will
3:31 pm
be tough. >> we'll see details of it and all the specifics of when the timing is and when people can beware. if they have to be there monday, if they can be sort of wandering around tuesday and wednesday, it doesn't really help them on tuesday and wednesday, because the iowa caucuses, if you're bernie sanders and amy klobuchar and michael bennet, you'll need to be there on the ground. we saw a little bit of drama on the floor, them trying to figure this out, and behind closed doors, it looked like they figured this out. we began this day thinking it would end today. then as the day went on, it liked -- >> senator santorum, you won the iowa caucuses in 2012, as i don't need to remind you. if someone had told you, you get to campaign saturday and sunday,
3:32 pm
but monday rp, the day of the caucuses, you cannot be in iowa, you have to sit through these speeches, what would your reactions have been? >> think of sunday. it's super bowl sunday, examian kansas city chiefs, most of it, are kansas city chief fans. in the north part they rule for the chiefs or maybe the bears. a big chunk of iowa are chief fans. you better not knock on any doors or expect any rallies during the super bowl. it's a very interesting dynamic that i would be furious, incensed. this is going to cost -- if this is the case, and again, we don't know -- it may cost them a win. >> how is that going to be if you're the president who wanted to go on the super bowl, having been vindicated or give of the
3:33 pm
state of the union. he won't be able to do that to an audience of tens of millions of people. >> there may be some, maybe mitch mcconnell, maybe some others, might think that having a state of the arlt. >> yanl mick mulvaney might be that machiavellian. >> you obviously narrowly beat mitt romney in 2012 in iowa. you spent a lot of time campaigning in all 99 counties in iowa, and you say that if bernie sanders and elizabeth warren, if they can't be there, it helps biden and buttigieg.
3:34 pm
>> yes. a race that is so close by all indications. >> sanders and warren, there is a competition there as well. this is important for everybody. but if senator klobuchar disappoints, and she feels she is actually building some momentum to get in the top four. how many sill bells do you get out of iowa. >> that's right, i have senator angus king. thank you so much. he put out a statement and told me how upset you are about the witness vote that failed. >> i've been taking notes through this whole thing. i wrote twice in my notes, how can anyone possibly vote ghens? it's pre pomt. you have a guy saying there saying i'm prepared to give sub
3:35 pm
stantive, important efrd, and i don't know houcht. the vote itself is anti-climactic because we heard lisa murkowski and lamar alexander were entering a no vote. i thought this would change people's minds. >> the "new york times" reported another part of what they have seen, at least heard about in the transcript of the bolton book. >> sure. >> was there any discussion, any scuttlebutt that maybe that could change any minds? >> well, adam schiff brought it nup his argument. he mentioned the more recent story but it didn't seem to. so the people who voted no wharks if it comes out no.
3:36 pm
they'll say, well, i voted no, knowing it might come out, and i'm going to acquit. i don't know how you justify that. there is a legitimate debate about whether this is impeachable and those kinds of things. but to say, but we don't want the evidence just doesn't pass the test. >> this is unprecedented in many ways, but the big year sfrlt. how much, based on what you're hearing back home? will itly. >> and your republican colleague voted that way, susan collins. sdplz you've seen the polls. 49% nationwide, 51% the republicans. i can't speak to what the
3:37 pm
campaign is going to be like at any given place. i can figure out neither the merits nor the politics. >> senator, thank you so much for stopping. appreciate it. >>ly always giftd. we'll return to the trial of the president of the united states. we'll take a quick break and be right back. hi guys. this is the chevy silverado
3:38 pm
with the world's first invisible trailer. invisible trailer? and it's not the trailer right next to us? this guy? you don't believe me? hop in. good lookin' pickup, i will say that. oh wow. silverado offers an optional technology package with up to 15 different views - including one enhanced view that makes your trailer appear invisible. wow. - that's pretty sweet. - that's cool. oooohh!
3:39 pm
that's awesome. where'd the trailer go? i love it. it's magic. oh, hi, samantha. you look more like a heather. do you ever get that? it's nice to finally meet you in person. you're pete nocchio? oh, the pic? that was actually a professional headshot. i'm sure that's it, yeah. i, uh, i think i've lost a few pounds recently too. i'm actually doing a juice cleanse. wait! you don't... (glass breaking) (gasp) ah! oh...! with geico, the savings keep on going. just like this sequel. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. a former army medic, made of the we maflexibility to handle members like kate. whatever monday has in store and tackle four things at once. so when her car got hit, she didn't worry. she simply filed a claim on her usaa app and said... i got this. usaa insurance is made the way kate needs it - easy. she can even pick her payment plan so it's easy on her budget and her life.
3:40 pm
usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa most people think as a reliable phone company. but to businesses, we're a reliable partner. we keep companies ready for what's next. (man) we weave security into their business. (second man) virtualize their operations. (woman) and build ai customer experiences. (second woman) we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. like 5g. almost all of the fortune 500 partner with us. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation...
3:41 pm
verizon keeps business ready. my hands are everything to me. but i was diagnosed with dupuytren's contracture. and it got to the point where things i took for granted got tougher to do. thought surgery was my only option. turns out i was wrong. so when a hand specialist told me about nonsurgical treatments, it was a total game changer. like you, my hands have a lot more to do. learn more at today.
3:42 pm
welcome back. wee we're starting to see the many ripples from this one. the head of the conservative cpac has just announced that mitt romney is formally not invited. romney's offense is he voted for more witnesses. we did not know yet how he was going to vote on acquittal next week. in addition, we're told from kylie atwood at the state department, that ambassador marie yavonovitch who was on a leave of sorts after she was removed from her post as former ambassador of ukraine, she has retired. she is the fourth u.s. state department official to leave during this impeachment inquiry according to our own kylie atwood. let's bring in our partic parliamentarian who can give us the lay of the land on what to
3:43 pm
expect going forward. alan, i guess we're going to have a vote on the motion of how to proceed, and then there will be some democratic amendments? is that what you gather from this? >> the lay of the land is typically unpredictable. there really is no lay of the land of which i'm aware at this point. majority leader mcconnell can offer another resolution similar to the one that we're operating under, but that resolution isn't endable. it's endable under the impeachment rules without limit. every amendment, every resolution is subject to two hours of argument, and so the democrats have the opportunity to express themselves. they know they've lost the critical vote on hearing witnesses. they still want to make their case, and the way they make their case is by offering amendments, and there's really no limitation, no subject matter limitation to the content of
3:44 pm
those amendments. i don't know how frustrated they might feel, how angry they might b be, the extent to which they will look to push the envelope on these amendments, but in typical senate fashion, the road map is murky, it's loaded with potholes, and nobody really knows where it's going to lead. >> if anybody knows what's going on, it's manu raju. manu, you've been breaking the news all night -- well, he's not ready yet, but jake, manu is doing an amazing job reporting that there will be amendments tonight and there will be discussion monday and tuesday. manu, you reported that a final vote on acquittal of the president is coming wednesday. >> yeah, it's coming wednesday. i was just told by senator roy blunt of missouri, remember, the republican leadership, that will be 8:00 eastern on wednesday to acquit the president. there will be two separate votes, one on abuse of power and the other on the other vote of obstruction of congress. of course, the president will be
3:45 pm
cleared on both. we'll see if any republicans defect. i just asked lisa murkowski, the republican who has been a swing vote but voted for no more witnesses. she said she had made a decision but wouldn't tell me what the decision was. susan collins is one of two republicans who broke ranks and would not answer my question about whether she has made a decision on a quitting the president. mitt romney, i asked him as well. he also declined to comment. he said he wasn't going to discuss whether he made his own decision on acquitting the president. first there will be some procedural matters that they believe will push for what they're calling a fair trial. they're going to offer four amendments on the floor of the senate today. we don't know the contents of those amendments yet, but there are four amendments that they will offer and there will be another fifth vote that will occur on a resolution that mitch mcconnell is going to offer, and
3:46 pm
that resolution essentially sets the ground rules for the final steps of the trial here, which would include a monday closing arguments on both sides and then senators would also be allowed separately to make their case, make their own speeches for up to 15 minutes each starting on monday, continuing into tuesday as well as wednesday, and then wednesday afternoon is that acquittal vote i was talking about where the president's trial will finally be over. of course, that will come a day after the state of the union. the white house has been pushing to get this done before the state of the union. i asked roy blunt why not go through the night, why not push through the weekend to get this done by the state of the union. he said it was the belief of mitch mcconnell's office that they would not be able to do that, because democrats have within their power, the ability to drag it out past the state of the union, and they were not willing to concede on that point, so that's why we're seeing that ultimate agreement that's been reached between mick mcconnell and chuck schumer for a final vote to occur on
3:47 pm
wednesday. >> just walk me through what's going to happen monday. >> we expect them to get through the resolution that sets the groundwork for the end of the trial, and the democrats have the opportunity to amend that resolution. each of the amendments have up to two hours of debate on both sides. presumably this could take a long time. we're not expecting that. i'm told from republican senators that they've been told by the democrats that they're not going to use all of their time. we'll see if they decide to do that and the defense team which will argue the republicans case, because they're want planning to use this if. 9:00 p.m., 10:00 p.m. as you know, the schedule slides pretty easily and pretty
3:48 pm
quickly, but president. there will be vots on the floor for amendments, one was a resolution pho set the stage for ending the trial and then they'll come back for those last steps before the president is acquitted next week. >> sometimes politicians in the house and the senate introduce new resolutions, and the only purpose is to embarrass the other party. not that that's what's going on here tonight, but do you have any idea what they're going to be. are they going to draw out any. more >> they're going to try to score points on the votes. that happens all the time up on the hill. both sides doe it. democrats do it now.
3:49 pm
what they're not allowed to do is offer more amendments to subpoena documents or witnesses. under the resolution that is currently governing the trial it does not allow to further votes on motions to subpoena witnesses and documents. if that first vote that happened this evening to fail, which it did, to move forward. that failed along party lines. the democrats can't go forward on that aspect but they can go forward on others that they believe would showcase a fair trial. democrats are not saying what that will be. it will be a bit of a surprise when chuck schumer will read allowed, send the amendments to the desk, allow the chief justice to essentially present it to the members, and then both sides make their arguments and the senators vote. the outcome will be party-line vote after party-line vote and set the stage for an acquittal vote.
3:50 pm
>> stay with us for more. americans come to
3:51 pm to compare and save on loans, credit cards and more! but with the new lending tree app you can see your full financial health, monitor your credit score, see your cash flow and find out how you can cut your monthly bills. download it now to see how much you can save. garcy young woman: yeah, thanks mom mother: of course and i love these flowers young woman whispering: hey, did you bring the... the condoms? young man whispering: what's up? young woman whispering: condoms young man whispering: what? young woman whispering: condom father: condoms charlie. she wants to know if you brought any condoms. young man: yeah i brought some. announcer: eargo, a virtually invisible hearing loss solution with high quality sound and lifetime support. in 2016 i warned thatt donald trump was a dangerous demagogue, and when the republican congress wouldn't hold him accountable, i went to work helping run winning campaigns in
3:52 pm
twenty-one house seats. it's time for the senate to act and remove trump from office, and if they won't do their jobs, this november you and i will. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. mucinex cold & flu all-in-one. fights... oh no. no-no-no. did you really need the caps lock? mucinex cold and flu all-in-one. yeah. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. con liberty mutual solo pagas lo que necesitas. only pay for what you need... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
3:53 pm
3:54 pm
rowithout the commission fees and account minimums. so, you can start investing wherever you are - even on the bus. download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood. we're told the impeachment troil of president trump will resume at the top of the hour. dana bash is up on capitol hill. what are you learning? >> one of the questions you were discussing there with this news that manu broke is if the arguments are happening on monday, iowa caucus day, what happens to the four senators who are running for president who would want to be in iowa?
3:55 pm
my understanding is that unlike what we've seen for the past two weeks, which was pretty much mandatory for the senators/jurors to be here, that it won't be as strict. it's not entirely clear how it's going to work. but my understanding in talking to people who were involved in this is that they feel pretty comfortable that these candidates can be in iowa for most of if not all of the day, because the debate and the discussion will continue on for a couple of days. and it's obviously wednesday is the key day where they will have to vote on both articles of impeachment. wolf and jake? >> just, dana, if the senate is in session for -- and the chief justice is presiding, they're in impeachment. what manu described was that that would be the time when they're actually in impeachment session. >> and monday night when it's closing arguments. >> then recess and be in regular
3:56 pm
senate session, chief justice wouldn't be there and the other senators wouldn't have to be there. but when they're in impeachment they'd have to have something in the new resolution that would exempt or change the rule which says they have to be there seated and all the other things. >> perhaps. >> the question is is that what's happening? >> perhaps. but there's a growing level of confidence from the people in and around running for senate that feel that they can make it to iowa. >> it's interesting, john king, that on wednesday, now we're told approximately 4:00 p.m. eastern on wednesday, the president of the united states, this trial will wrap up, he will be acquitted, not be removed from office. that will be a victory for the president of the united states. but for the rest of his life people are also going to remember, he was impeached by the house of representatives. >> he was and as nancy pelosi kept saying, because she understood, it was going to be
3:57 pm