tv The Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump MSNBC January 31, 2020 2:00pm-6:00pm PST
chief justice. cornyn came over to them and then went back. >> now barrasso and it looks like blunt are down there talking to mcconnell and that's really bad that i can recognize the slight bald spot on blunt's head. it's cory gardner's bald spot or blunt's bald spot. >> we have cameras in this building. >> i don't want this to come out sounding cranky or cynical, claire, but if you are going to cosign basically the lamar alexander line on this which is really, i mean, it ranks as one of the more honorable positions, i guess, donald trump did something wrong. it's proven beyond a doubt. the facts are in dispute. i'm not going to impeach him. why did he get fuss y now? >> i think they are nervous on the polling on witnesses and documents. they know that if they just shut it, many of the republican senators know if they just shut it down tonight, that's more of the same.
it's shortcutting a process that should not be shortcut, and i think they realize that the political ramifications of shutting down witnesses and documents, and then shutting the whole thing down without anybody ever talking and even worse, they were talking about, let them talk all night and vote at three in the morning, well, you know, that is what mob families do. they make their decisions in the middle of the night. >> the miscarriage of justice has happened. i mean, i guess what i'm saying is what do they think they can salvage now. they have green lit a president who sold our national security for a political errand in the words of fiona hill to get dirt on joe biden, so says john s. bolton. what is this about? >> it is posturing after the fact, which is like the only tool they've got in their tool kit at this point because, you know, the dye is cast they have some kind of -- i mean, it's so interesting to watch this from a distance as opposed to being there because let me assure you,
i'm sure i've made this mistake we're talking about. saying, well if i can just explain it afterwards, you know, everything will be okay. >> jim comey. >> but watching from a distance, you want to say, hey, suckers, it's done. you can't fix it now. >> the thing about republicans that we tend to be really good at is when we leave the room, we want it to be clean, so they will take the steps necessary to clean up the room before they leave. because when someone comes into the room and looks at what was done, they don't want to have to explain. so that's why, you know, the whole idea, if mcconnell could script this the right way, there would be, if there was any discussion, debate, it would be closed off from the public. it would take place. it will happen and it will be done. so what you have now is to what claire is saying, a little bit, a peek behind the curtain. wait a minute, this is a little bit of a mess. and now they're trying to clean it up as best they can.
>> and i would add to that, as we look on the right side, we've got the zoomed in shot that brian was highlighting earlier, the mitch mcconnell there. you can still see him standing in the lower right corner. to the point that we're discussing and why this is difficult, politics is about winning. justice is about why. and any mixed issue of politics and justice is still, even for the most politically oriented senator who says i trust my president, i did it to defend my president, i think every senator still knows if it involves a question of justice or claims that you even took a little bit of it seriously, you still have to go back to your state and explain why. >> ari, have you met lindsey graham. >> i have. i met many of them. when i worked as a staffer in the united states senate, they do believe they can explain. i mean, look at joe biden who was on msnbc last week still explaining his iraq war vote,
explaining why something you cannot just argue on basis of any plolitics but on the higher lvl level of explaining to your constituents why you think it was right at the time, i know i'm off topic but i listened to joe biden it wasn't a vote to go to war, it was a vote to get the weapons inspectors in, and we're a did a plus out of that. these senators, i think, understand particularly because the trump era is not done and we don't know which way it goes over the years. they want to be able to explain these votes and so i've got to imagine, claire, there are senators here who may be very wedded to their positions but are still very concerned about what the next day or three or four looks like. so that they can say forever more why they weighed this out, and why they explained it. look, lamar alexander doesn't do a lot of tweet storms. he did a 15 tweet thread that i was reading late into the night last night, and he's retiring. but he had reason to want to lay it up. a lot of other senators haven't
had the spotlight that he's had. they haven't had a tweet thread and they haven't had the same press level interest and inpreeg -- intrigue in their decision. angus king of maine is over on the republican side, interestingly, as part of this huddle. includes ted cruz. i wonder if the control room can give me a counter zoom over to the chief justice who it looks like is talking with senator blumenthal. look at that. that's power. >> they're good. >> senator blumenthal of connecticut. senator bennett remains up on the short porch. >> yeah, bennett is talking to elizabeth, the parliamentarian, and i was right, that was roy blunt's bald spot because he walked over and was talking. debbie stabenow came down and was part of the scrum.
i'm confident the conversations with the chief justice have nothing to do with the trial. you just don't get a chance to shoot the breeze with the chief justice as a senator that often. you don't really mingle in that respect. so i'm sure many of them are just paying their respects and saying hello, and passing the time as they wait. now elizabeth is probably explaining to michael bennet what the issue is, and why they are pausing so long to figure out how they can proceed because she is very aware of what motions can be filed and what motions can't be filed, and what margins by which they have to prevail. she's the one that has the encyclopedic knowledge of how this should proceed. she knows even more about the rules maybe just by a hair than ar ri me ar i melber. >> have the managers left the room? >> i will be correct when i say this is not the managers' call.
this is about how the process -- >> but they have to leave the room at that point so the senators have this time? i'm just curious if they're not there. >> if this was senators only, you wouldn't see all the staff in there. >> can you explain the steno woman in the white blazer and why in 2020 in this electronic age they have a roving stenographer. >> not one but two and one on back up. they wander through the back lobby behind the senate chamber. >> like a paper ballot. >> they pick up their machines and there are a number of them, and they change out in shifts, one comes in and both of them go for a while and then they break. i don't know why we're still using an old fashioned stenographer in the senate, but it looks like to me they have upgraded it to digital at this point. >> yeah, it looks like she's carrying a cash register. >> yeah. yeah. >> she can't write anything down right now, though, because the senate is not in session.
>> a subgroup breaking up now in the foreground. cornyn remains at the center of a lot of these conversations. >> what's interesting about this, usually there is a break like this when someone is behaving badly. like this was -- happens when ted cruz decides he wants to read "green eggs and ham" or rand paul throws one of his stupid fits, i'm not going to let you do anything until you let me have an amendment. a lot of the senate runs on unanimous consent. typically when somebody is throwing sand in the gears, if you're on the floor, you can see the two scrums, you know, the scrums of this is the one they're trying to talk off the ledge and these are the people trying to figure out the way forwardme. i can't figure out who the problem is here. it doesn't appear mitch is negotiating with anybody other than ted cruz.
>> i think what schumer has gone off to talk about, whatever he and mcconnell talked about. >> they were together a few minutes ago. >> and we saw sekulow. he's back in, if he ever left. >> i guess claire, my question is, do we know this is about something substantiative, or could this be about schedule. >> okay. so she's looking at her phone. >> here's some of the stuff i'm getting. >> all right. >> this is a fight with the white house evidently. mitch suggested doing deliberations monday. tuesday -- monday and tuesday and vote wednesday. white house said no. he then suggested final arguments tomorrow, debate vote on monday. debate and then vote monday. they want to vote before tuesday night, they, the white house. white house wants to just slam it through. no deliberations, done tonight. mitch trying to get them off that. he has members who don't want to stay all night and again,
there's this little game on sunday. and my friend who is a senator said, you know with a smiley face, and they're all of course making fun of me. >> history has been made, claire mccaskill just read a text from a sitting senator on our air so i'm going to say wow. >> they're off the floor, that proves. >> yeah, they went to the powder room. >> let me, i have 30,000 questions about that. >> okay. what does -- first of all, how do they know that? these republicans are leaking about what a pain in the you know what the white house is being. >> that's never happened. >> let me clear something up. republicans talk about what a pain the white house is 24/7. >> no matter who's in the white house. >> especially this white house. you don't have a hard time. if i was on the floor right now, i could walk over to any republican member and say you poor thing, this is really bad, and they would go, yeah, he's a nut. i had lindsey graham tell me we
know he's crazier than blank. >> he ended up saying that on tv, that was the republican party. >> this was after he was in the white house he said this to me. >> we can imagine what the blanks are. >> now, the smiley face emote cone. >> con -- emoticon. >> i'm not going to tell you. you'll know how old we are. >> that's my light contribution. >> they mentioned mahomes. that's all i want to know. >> all of the senators texting me -- >> the question came up earlier, okay, what leverage does chuck schumer have. and i think just to spell this out for viewers as we watch what looks like a pretty quiet, slow affair, the republicans on the right side of your screen hanging out, claire giving us the washington intrigue about what the white house is demanding, by the way, if you're a defendant in a trial, and you can dictate not only the verdict but when you get it, you are one
special defendant. but putting that aside in the obvious brazen coordination with the white house aside, schumer's leverage is that when this vote is over, if they lose on witnesses, and the current whip count suggests they do. >> right. >> it says under these rules on page 3, following that, other motions shall be in order, meaning that even if you think a lot of this is headed in a certain direction, other motions can include the attempts by schumer and others to try and get those in. and that's why you need to have some larger deal that you can then make a new set of rules or a new schedule. if you don't have that agreement, claire was walking us through, if you don't have your 53-51 on that. what's currently going to sit is chuck schumer trying to do some version of what he did the first night. if you have 51 and you're all in agreement, you replace, right with the new rules, claire. >> what mitch would do, i assume
is bring forth a new rule. >> right. >> it would apply beginning going forward and that rule would say deliberations on the articles of impeachment will begin at 7:00 p.m. on friday, january 31st. and will continue until monday at 3:00 p.m. at which time the house managers can make closing arguments and after which time a vote would be held. he could do something like that, for example. >> with 51. >> 51. so the reason he doesn't have 51 is the white house is trying to get him to do tonight. like file a motion that deliberations will one hour of deliberations and a vote. >> mcconnell doesn't look that stressed out. do you think he told the president no or what do you think. >> by the way, roberts is seated, but he's not responding to any signal from the majority leader.
>> because he's still standing there. if this is a frantic negotiation with the white house affairs off office and running down to the oval to bring the president around, it doesn't look frantic on this end. it looks like the white house is the frantic party. >> probably a message back to the white house, and waiting to hear what the white house is going to say at this point. there's only so much they can do after a fashion because if the white house to ari's point is dictating the terms on which the defendant will not only be acquitted, but when they'll be acquitted, that puts them in a tough spot, if schumer and other members in the republican caucus are saying, no, we want to do another thing or we want to do something different. i don't know how quickly they get that reconciled if the president is adamant that he wants this done so he can -- >> laura is now looking for gary, i'm betting. gary is her equivalent on the other side, and -- >> from her hand movements, i'm
guessing you're right. >> and wherever schumer is, gary is there, along with his chief of staff, mike lynch and others. figuring out what if any leverage they have, what they can do to lengthen this process, to try to shine more light on the wrong doing of the president of the united states and you know, it will be remain to be seen if they've now got the 51 votes, then probably laura is just telling them heere's what' going to happen. we're going to be here. anybody that wants to talk, talk all night and is that feinstein talking to barrasso and cornyn. >> yeah, that's diane. >> and shelby is down behind the majority leader but i concur she was gesticulating in a way -- >> those three pages, you know, how lucky or unfortunate would you be to be a page right now. >> this is a new class because they just thanked the outgoing page class a few nights ago.
>> correct. they're always there at their perch, sitting on either edge of the desk, and they do everything. >> well, you know, they don't do as much as they used to do. we used to have the paper on the desks every morning and some of us got together and said what a waste this is. nobody ever opens this paper on the desk, so we made the default position, you don't get any of that paper on the desk. if you want it, you can ask for it. it's the previous day's journal, it's things that nobody looks at. you don't sit on the floor, you're too busy to thumb through the previous day's journal, and the pages have a lot of their workload ko workload cut down, they bring water, they open doors, they make copies. >> we have seen their athleticism, they have been running the cards down to the desk. >> they run questions to the chief justice, all of the above. >> here we are, in the middle of time-out, the senate term is the absence of a kwar rum -- control
room i am looking at sherrod brown talking to a microphone. should we listen in since he's out in the hallway, and maybe speaking to the process we're watching unfold. >> that was it. thank you, senator. >> claire, what governs the rules about whether or not they can come and go from inside the chamber? >> well, first of all, there really is -- there may be a rule somewhere about when you can come and go. i can't imagine it would ever be enforced. >> so someone could run back to your office at this point. >> sure, sure. and you don't want to miss a vote. you don't want to miss something important being said, especially if you're in an impeachment trial. at the end of the day, there's a lot of reporting that somebody
went off the floor and did a press conference. somebody went off the floor and made a fox news performance. as long as they're comfortable explaining to their constituents, there won't be a penalty against them. under penalty of imprisonment, i don't think that would ever happen for anyone who decided to leave the chamber for a period of time. >> that's too bad. >> sherrod brown reappeared. >> claire, how tied to what the white house wants are senators? i mean, is it determi native, o do you remember mcconnell pushes back. >> you have everything from david perdue to susan collins. david perdue, you know, if trump said, you know, i want you to come tell me a bad joke every five minutes for five days, david perdue would say, is it okay if i don't sleep. you know, so, he totally
captured by donald trump, and there's others like him. but somebody like susan collins or lisa murkowski, or lamar alexander or even some of the older senators that have been there a long time like richard shelby, they're not -- they want to do what trump wants but they're not going to let trump dictate senate process and procedure. it's the institutionalist. we're the senate. we get to decide what our time agreements are, and this is all boiling down to a time agreement. they're trying to figure out a time agreement. >> we are going to just pause in our coverage. we're going to take a break with this assurance. if any actual action or activity breaks out on the senate floor we will come busting out of that commercial, but we'll be here when you get back. here when you get back.
it took plenty of work to get here. but it's still important to be prepared for what's next. at fidelity, we can help you build a clear plan for retirement without the unnecessary fees you might expect from so many financial firms. we'll make sure you can cover the essentials, as well as all the things you want to do. because when you have a retirement partner who gives you clarity at every step, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. ♪ here's wishing you the bluest sky ♪
break, the white house counsel were coming back in the room, senators lee and rubio have joined this group with three of the white house lawyers. nothing substantiative to report. senator langford there on the far right, since we have been away on a break. npr is reporting that marie yovanovitch has retired from the foreign service. >> wow. >> this afternoon. >> so that is a bit of news to pass along again crediting that story to npr. >> you know, she's been thrust back into the news this week by that isolated incident, if you will, of a disclosure from democratic congressman eliot engel's office two days ago that john bolton unsolicited suggested that his committee look into her removal and then in the excerpts or the portions of the manuscript from the bolton book that are discussed and revealed in today's "new
york times" scoop, there's more reporting from john bolton on the efforts to oust her. he implicates mike pompeo, the sitting secretary of state who we learned from andrea mitchell just so happens to be in ukraine today. and what's so amazing about these revelations and what's so disjointed, they're obviously making small talk because they're on a break, but this is a slow motion car crash. this is a slow motion turning inside out of a witness -- firsthand witness's account. john bolton's on the pages of the "new york times" and this vote, if they take it today, will be against hearing from him ever in the context of donald trump's impeachment. >> somewhere between car crash and dumpster fire, surely. >> exactly. >> senator blunt wandering around. claire, anything more from your inside colleagues with phones who have been reunited their phones? >> no, i've got a couple of questions out, so hopefully here
in the next five minutes or so, we'll get some more insight. it certainly appears to me that this is now negotiations between white house counsel and republican senators. i don't think schumer is -- has a dog in this fight at this point. >> you know, brian, there's so much talk about the clinton precedent, to offer a fairly straightforward observation, the clinton precedent did not involve this level of coordination on substance or scheduling with the defendant present. it certainly did not do so in such a brazen and public manner, i mean, we are just telling people what we're learning and the facts which is what we do, but i would add that the facts are unusual and they do not follow not only the precedent but the notion of an independent senate reaching an independent judgment because of the level of coordination, and so just that we bear witness to that, much like we bear witness to the absence of witnesses at the trial, i think is relevant because we're looking at a change in how the senate does
impeachments. now, the president's defenders can say that's changed before. there were only a couple of precedents, here's a new one. deal with it, as the president's chief of staff might say to paraphrase, but that is a shift, because in the clinton precedent, for one thing, the effort and initial bipartisanship in process created rules of the road that then were carried over over time when they agreed on three witnesses, they did depositions, they move forward. here we're witnessing this pause, uncertainty, open negotiation is a product of the prose that is de facto partisan. it's all about what mitch mcconnell can get to a bare majority and there's not even a hint. not even a semblance there might be a bipartisan process even if we know the wrangling is partisan. >> it's not even that it isn't bipartisan, it isn't senate inspired. they're waiting for approval, permission from donald trump to move forward with a partisan republican lock down on how to move forward.
it went beyond being partisan to now being not even senate inspired. >> and that's a very interesting and i think underrated point in this whole process. one thing you raise history, the important thing to take away from history for donald trump is he didn't want another larry hogan senior. he didn't want a republican who would break off and would be the catalyst that would create momentum and movement and energy around ousting the president. so you have that scenario where members leave the capital and go down to the white house to have a conversation with the president. so for trump it's been from the very beginning about managing all of these features that touch on this process. some of it very bold and glarg. you kn -- glaring, this is what we're going to say and get everybody in line, say and get everybody in line,
very subtle and involved in pushing this things in various directions. who are the leaks, who are the troublemakers corralling the senators that needed to be corralled early, keeping them as close as they could along the way, and then tightening that as we got to this vote as we have seen over the last 24 hours. >> tom rail sback, forever associated with his turn against richard nixon. to the control room i'm wondering if you can give me half a frame of the headline graphic we had prepared this morning. as kind of a -- >> just security of all the headlines, right. >> a silent reminder that whatever vote you cast, and no matter how much -- i see portman. >> no, a resolution was just handed to the desk. it looks like to me, i mean, a piece of paper by laura, that's probably the typed out copy of a they're going to propose. so i would assume they're
getting close. >> mcconnell remains in conversation. rubio telling a story to senator lee, and -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt. >> that's all right. >> i'm vamping because i think we're trying to recall that graphic from this morning. >> you know, to michael and ari's point, though, about sort of the historical touch tones, it's remarkable to me how immune they are from them. i have tried to peruse fox news, it's as though nixon didn't exist, it's as though this hasn't happened. >> a collection of obituary headlines showing all these people with a spectacular other achievements, congressman sandman from new jersey, caldwell butler from virginia, and hogan who you just mentioned were nonetheless remembered for
their involvement in watergate at the time of their death. >> and it's just amazing, you know, it goes to a conversation you and i were having earlier, michael steele about the role of fox news, and hgand, if nixon h news he never would have been impeached. >> and it speaks to the idea of taking this drama outside of the senate. >> right. >> and playing it on the streets a la fox news, and getting it into people's homes. i would tune in to fox from time to time and watch what they were not covering. >> right. >> at various times doiuring th. that was just as much a part of setting the narrative and shaping it for that republican base as what the president was doing with the senators in the chamber. >> joe manchin having an animating conversation with cipollone and sekulow, looming
over the two of them as he goes on his way. portman remains on the periphery of the conversation. >> who has been added to the scrum is schumer's, there's gary. gary is standing right next to mcconnell and schumer is there too. it's schumer and gary, next to mcconnell and laura. that's what makes things happen. is that those four people. the two leaders and they are two lieutenants that are the staff people that run the floor. >> let's drop that banner again, and risk that people will suddenly forget which network they're watching, just for a second so we can see. we're getting there. that's laura and mitch mcconnell, chuck schumer, and gary mirick, those four people run the senate. >> watching from a cautious distance to the far left. >> who's to durbin's left there. >> that's one of durbin's staff
people. >> and we can go ahead and assume that what happens in t conversation will result in whatever the next action is on the senate. >> and claire, this is such a small space, the overhead cameras give it a level of grandeur, but it's really tight quarters senators are very tight quarters they don't tend to bring their aid. in this proceeding a few extra people added, you would be reminded, this is tight, you can over hear people and you're packed in there. >> you learn that the hard way. i'll never forget when i first joined the senate, i said something to another senator on the floor and my sister happened to be sitting in the family gallery at the time, and i went back in the cloak room and looked at my phone, and she said you better turn the volume down, if there were press sitting there, they could have heard every word you said. so you learn.
>> it's a good sister. >> you learn very quickly, if you're not careful, if it's quiet and you're the not careful, depending where you are, everyone in the gallery can hear what you say without amplification. >> gary just went over to the hopper, grabbed a piece of paper and came back to the scrum with it. >> trying to take some kind of amendment to the motion they're doing. they've clearly are almost there in terms of working something out. it looks like to me they've gotten sign off from the white house or not, they're just going to go ahead and now i think they're -- obviously mitch mcconnell would love to say, leader and i have agreed on how to go forward. >> i'm checking to see if donald trump's live tweeting any of this. >> i believe is he in transit. is the president in transit?
>> it doesn't stop him. >> all right. i have another text. >> we're all ears. >> this is from another different senator. this is the same fight they have been having all day between the hard core trump republicans and moderate republicans we are all just sitting around watching. >> just like us. >> just like us. >> this better happen while you're here because you're our parliamentarian. >> i've got a football game to get to. don't forget. >> there goes gary and the majority leader has brought his lectern in. things are moving now, claire. fast paced. mr. mahomes needs you. the chiefs need you. >> i still have 24 hours. i'm in good shape. >> while we still have you and okay. >> does this ever get acrimonious or by the time they
get down there, they know the i eyes of everyone are on them. >> when people lose their stuff is somebody like a david vitter or rand paul decides they're going to throw, as i said before, sand if the gears and disrupt the whole thing over something they think they ought to have. this isn't the kind of body that you do well when you throw p petulent selfish fits. it's bad manners and the senators can get very frustrated. especially, keep in mind, one of the things that's cynical about people in america, they think when the senators aren't there, they are filing their nails or going to a football game. i am going to a football game. i'm no longer a senator, but most of the time senators want to get out of there is because they have made commitments to be places in their states, a speech they have committed to give. >> a family commitment. >> but a lot of it is official
stuff. t it's not family stuff. >> they scattered like a raid commercial. here we go. >> consent the further proceedings 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'll 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 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 ayes and neighs are required. the clerk will call the roll.
>> mr. burr ras sew. >> no: -- burr rno. >> mr. bennett. >> aye. >> mr. blumenthal? mr. blunt? >> no. >> mr. booker? >> yes. >> aye. >> mr. boazman. >> no. >> mr. brawn. >> no. >> no. mr. brown? >> aye. >> aye. >> mr. burr. >> no. >> ms. cant well. >> yea. >> mr. cardin. >> yea. >> mr. carper aye. >> mr. casey. >> mr. cassidy. >> no. >> mr. coops. >> aye. >> mr. cornyn.
>> no. >> mr. cortez masto. >> aye. >> mr. cotton. >> no. >> mr. kramer. >> no. >> mr. crapo. >> no. >> mr. cruz. >> no. >> mr. daines. >> no. >> ms. duckworth. >> aye. >> mr. durbin. >> aye. >> mr. inzy. >> no. >> ms. ernst. >> yes. >> mrs. feinstein. >> mr. ernst no. ms. fisher. >> no. >> mr. gardner. >> no. >> mrs. gillibrand. >> aye. >> mr. graham. >> no. >> mr. grassley. >> no. >> ms. harris. >> aye. >> ms. hassen. >> aye. >> mr. holly. >> no. >> mr. heinrich.
>> aye. >> ms. hirono. >> aye. >> mr. hoven. >> no. >> mrs. hyde-smith. >> no. >> mr. inhofe. >> no. >> mr. johnson. >> no. >> mr. jones. >> aye. >> mr. cane. >> aye. >> mr. kennedy. >> no. >> mr. king. >> aye. >> ms. klobuchar. >> aye. >> mr. langford. >> no. >> mr. leahy. >> aye. >> mr. lee. >> no. >> mrs. loeffler. >> no. >> mr. mancion. >> aye. >> mr. markey. >> aye. >> mr. mcconnell. >> no. >> ms. mcsally.
>> no. >> mr. menendez. >> aye. >> mr. merkley. >> aye. >> mr. miran. >> no. >> ms. murkowski. >> no. >> mr. murphy. >> aye. >> mrs. murray. >> aye. >> mr. paul. >> no. >> mr. purdue. >> no. >> mr. peters. >> aye. >> mr. portman. >> no. >> mr. reed. >> aye. >> mr. rish. >> no. >> mr. roberts. >> no. >> mr. romney. >> aye. >> ms. rosen. >> aye. >> mr. rounds. >> no. >> mr. rubio.
>> no. >> mr. sanders. >> aye. >> mr. sasse. >> no. >> mr. shots. >> aye. >> mr. schumer. >> aye. >> mr. scott of florida. >> no. >> mr. scott of south carolina. >> no. >> mrs. sheheen. >> yea. >> mr. shelby. >> no. >> ms. cinema. >> yea. >> mz smith. >> mr. stab knnow. >> mr. sullivan. >> no. >> mr. tester. >> aye. >> mr. thune. >> no. >> mr. tillis.
we're going to get to ball game for the foreseeable future and wherever john bolton is, he's off the hook for appearing before the senate. >> i don't think that's good news to john bolton. i don't think that's good for the country and i don't think that's good for the 51 republicans who just voted against hearing testimony from a firsthand witness that the conduct that isn't in dispute. the republican defense descended into yeah, he did it, but don't impeach him. >> here we are. this is a new beginning in this conversation, and as i said a little bit earlier today, it's time for the american people to step into this, and the senate has acted, the only thing left now is to acquit. and we have to process all of this and assess for ourselves now outside of the, you know, the formalities of a senate trial what this means for the country, and what this means going forward, in terms of the rule of law, the constitution, et cetera. >> and what the senate just did, we're using shorthand when we say, the senate blocked witnesses of any kind at the trial of president trump.
it also did more than that. and people interested in gathering evidence and facts will say it did something worse than that. it ruled out of order any debate over any subpoena for any document and any witness whatsoever. that's what was on the tablement bolton obviously being the star witness and has necessarily gotten a lot of the attention. for members of the senate in either party, we're looking at chuck schumer right here. stepping to the microphone, and he may make some news of his own. >> waiting for his -- >> quorum. >> leadership team. >> claire, do you think the air came out of that room, or do you think it was just a known step. >> the air probably came out of the room with lamar's statement last night. i think everybody was, you know, a little bit of a zombie walk today. you know, we've got to be here, we've got to finish this out. this is not good. >> i'm going to make a brief
statement. >> okay. to not allow a witness, a document, no witnesses, no documents, in an impeachment trial is a per, a grand tragedy, one of the worst tragedies that the senate has ever overcome. america will remember this day, unfortunately, where the senate did not live up to its responsibilities, where the senate turned away from truth and went along with a sham trial. 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. it is a tragedy on a very large scale. i will be now going up to my caucus to discuss what we're doing next. i will not talk about it here.
okay. thanks. >> senator mccaskill, the democrats will now gather. you know that majority leader very well. minority leader very well. >> yes, i do. and he is a dear dear friend. i give him five bucks if he could take that back and not say perfity. >> we're busy looking it up. >> it's bad. but it's a travesty. it's disgusting, there's a lot of good, you know, my hero harry truman always believed in nickel words, not $25 words, and so he is frustrated but i think they have watched the republicans fight today, so the republicans know they're in a little bit of trouble or why would they be so worried about appearances now, and that's got to put a little wind in the democrats' sails, that they have fought cleanly, and hard for witnesses and documents which the american people get. and they support.
and they are the party that fought with everything they could to get witnesses and documents along with a stellar performance by the house managers. so we'll see now whether or not they're going to try to go into the wee hours or whether they're going to adjourn until monday. >> and claire it's more than appearances, i mean, it's -- they've now, in a position where they've done the white house's bidding. they've marched off a cliff over daily revelations from the sitting national security adviser who was there, and the firsthand witness for the conduct which trump was impeached. they don't know what's going to be in the paper at 8:00 tonight or 10:00 tomorrow morning. >> we paused briefly as we saw chuck schumer come out and as claire said, use some, was it a 50 cent word. >> he used a $25 word. >> here's a nickel word. messy, this was messy the moment that mitch mcconnell tried to alter the senate rules, and faltered and had to realter them
on day one. it's messy today as yes they shut this down without witnesses and documents but if mitch mcconnell knew what came next, he would presumably have just announced it, brian. >> sorry for those seeing stars, it just happened on your screen, senator chris murphy, democrat of connecticut is standing by to talk to us, senator, in your words, what just happened? >> well, i don't think senator mcconnell knows where to go next. i mean, that was a terrible terrible vote for the country. the idea that the senate is now engaged in a cover up, bolton's story is going to come out. there's no question about that. it's going to come out when his book is released or beforehand, and so the only benefit of stopping his story from coming out now is so that the american public can't pressure republican senators to vote against acquittal. so we are about to meet democrats to try to consider
what our options are going forward here. we believe we may have parliamentary options still available to try to force some of these votes, it may be that mcconnell is going to keep us through the night to get it done as quickly as possible. clearly as i heard you talking about before i was brought on the air, they are nervous that the drip drip drip of these bolton allegations is going it make acquittal harder and harder so there's big pressure inside the republican caucus right now as we speak to get this done as quickly as possible. i hope that's not the conclusion. i hope we have real deliberations, either behind closed doors or in public. but that's all being decided as we speak. >> senator, what was the sense today, i know it's been a bit of a roller coaster, at least for us watching from the outside, of the reading tea leaves of the republicans who seemed potentially open to go-tdoing w 75% of americans wanted which was to hear from witnesses. was there a moment when today's
revelation came pushing the time line back, implicating the president's lawyer in the impeachment proceeding. did you have any conversations, did anyone sort of look clenched or girded for the political for that may follow their vote today in. >> i people, there is going to be real political pain here. people need to understand that voters won't forget this. as more and more of these revelations will come out, more and more vote letters wonder why on earth the senate didn't consider information available to them. and so i from the beginning was amongst those who thought there would definitely be witnesses. if not because it is in the best interests of the country, because they knew there would be enormous political damage to them if they engaged in something could be easily seen as a cover-up. first and foremost for the country but i think this makes the job of re-election for a lot
of my republican friends much, much more difficult. why they don't understand that, maybe due to the fact trump just has death grip on this party right now that makes them blind, even to their own personal political fortunes. >> chris, this is clear. today we got the revelation from bolton that cipollone was in one of the original meetings that hatched up this plan. and i'm curious, has anyone thought about what action you can take against cipollone being a fact witness and trying to be a lawyer at the same time and making representations as lawyer that he knows to be untrue based on bolton's revelations that we learned about today, is anyone thinking about ways you can hold him accountable, vis-a-vis his law license? >> this is all happening so fast, claire. you're destroying manage the schedule of impeachment while at the same time dealing with these enormous revelations.
there have been some casual conversations amongst senators about what the potential avenues of address are. we have a little better window into why pat cipollone did not want at all costs john bolton to come before the senate. john bolton would directly implicate the president's chief lawyer who is making the case in the corruption scheme but yeah, there will be conversations about what the next proper steps are for a lawyer who has very possibly grievously misrepresented his own role in this case. >> chris murphy, democrat of connecticut. we're wooching other screens your colleagues to go into caucus. the statue behind there, in a marble building the net locations next on each other with no buffer and it is, i don't know how they can speak. >> it is hard sometimes to hear
yourself talk. he was a good sport. it is such a good point and it is so trumpian that every disclosure, there discloerk you are was about trump's role in ukraine, ends up implicating someone else. they're all in on it. this was the testimony of gordon sondland, the testimony of fiona hill, lev parnas, the other bombshell that dropped today. the other bombshell. >> like four hours ago. >> i think one of the things in listening to a number of folks here on this, the thing that keeps sticking in my head. you see this unfold. wait a minute. they told us ten days ago what this was going to be. you know? and we went through the whole machinations of having schumer put amendments out there and have they will vote it down to get witnesses. on the idea that oh, we'll go through this and then we'll listen. >> right, right.
>> how do you now look at the country, to look country in the eye in light of everything else that will come out, today, even, and say, nah, there's no need for any witnesses. i don't know how republican ts think they reconcile that with voters. i think the senator was correct in saying, when you go back home, unless you're in a really deep red state where everybody is yeah, yeah trump, this fall your opponents have some great commercials to run against you. and you'll be doing a lot of explaining to you are why constituents how you can cut off justice. >> port willman needs to work on his fake phone call game. he just walked past the cameras is that was clearly not on the phone. >> we're all guilty. >> i've done a fake phone call. >> we couldn't get away with that when i was chairman. >> pick up your game.
>> do you know what's different about this conflict? than other conflicts? it reminds me of the health care vote. it was emotional and passionate. when i did town halls around the health care vote, i may have said this on the air before but i'll 97 forget it. we always started our town halls with a prayer. and the preacher got booed in jefferson city, missouri, while he was praying. that's how high the emotion was. they were tough, tough town halls. people were angry, red faced. and that's the way democrats across this country are going to be for thoets senators when they come home. it will be that same level of emotion. and i think about my state. for roy blunt and josh holley, it is very hard to get where they want to go you would the going through st. louis and kansas city.
thro those are rough airports for them. rough cab drivers. in those two places, they're dominated by the democratic party and they are very under happy with what they're doing. and that will be true all over the country. they're going to feel this. this isn't going to be, oh, the phones will die down next being and everything will be fine. this one will hurt. >> the republican process, the polls always reflected that. the polls never really intersected. 51-56 percent on removal from office. which would be a headline, a banner in any other time in the time of trump. we sort of figured that was the amount of people who wanted him gone. but it grew from 61 to there 71 to 75% of all americans who wanted witnesses. so this is a stop you in the airport and scream in your face moment. i've had a few of those myself and this is one of them. >> we just watched some vignettes. >> getting passed in the hallway
from chris murphy returning from our interview. lindsey graham has been speaking to print reporters. a quick break for our coverage. we won't go anywhere. we hope you don't. we'll be back in two minutes. bes 1917 has been nominated for 10 academy awards, including best cinematography, best director, and best picture of the year.
♪ ♪ ♪ applebee's new irresist-a-bowls now starting at $7.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. 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, it's an honor to tell you that [ applause ] thank you. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. i love you! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ 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®. we are back. however misleading, the senate stands in recess at least for now. >> what's amazing, what is riveting, i've had some friends text me, can i go, they have kids to pick up. they're afraid to leave their tvs. there is this feeling that nobody knows what happens next. >> well, they'll do something tonight. i would imagine they'll begin. the question is will anybody be allowed, chris kind of referenced it obliquely. will anyone file any motions to know voted on? that's what mcconnell will try to avoid of the. >> what does that mean? >> by the way, there's some disagreement not the democratic caucus.
for example, if schumer filed a motion to call bolton right now. well, there are some democrats that say, why should we give some of the other republicans a chance to say yes and mitch would say it's out of order and the parliamentian would rule, and mitch would call vote and they would vote 51 votes to overrule the parliamentarian. so i think they're trying to negotiate how long they talk, when they start talking, and both caucuses, there is mixed pressures. the moderates in the republican caucus want this or the more like the clinton trial, you go delays of deliberation and this is methodical and laid out in front of the public. the white house wants it over ten minutes ago. the democratic caucus, you have presidential candidates that want to stop until monday. please let us stop until monday or tuesday. so there are different winds
within each caucus. >> who has the edge? >> i would assume you always give the edge to mcconnell. he has the majority. and he's mitch mcconnell. he will bend the rules to his will if he feels the need. we should call merrick garland and ask him how it felt. >> this vote just now, there breaking news vote where they have rejected, the senate, republicans on a very party line vote, any witnesses or documents, also exposes some of the members of the senate. i think this would be the time to note it because it's happening now. republican senator go langford started saying how it would at least get his pause on the bolton manuscript in private. he just voted against allowing votes for documents or evidence. >> he can pre order it on
amazon. >> he could also have supported a process to subpoena the manuscript. they can do that. the senate has put itself on record with this republican vote that they're comfortable having john bolton's literary editors know more about this matter thank not the united states senate. >> unbelievable. unbelievable that john bolton, he seemed to have some wind at his back for a few hours today and a few hours yesterday when former white house chief of staff john kelly came out and. on the question of john bolton's credibility, if it is john bolton's version of events versus donald trump's version of events. and then today john kelly coming down and indicting the process of a notion of a trial without witnesses. >> didn't bolton, i don't mean to interrupt, didn't bolton have the ability if not the right to be bold and to seek out a journalist to give an interview to? >> he still does.
i said earlier -- the lines are all open. >> the night is young and there would be nothing like an exclusive interview with bolton to raise the temperature on this entire proceeding. >> i think ari's point, the vote has been had. they will not hear from bolton. >> the senate will not hear from bolton. i think both points stand. to brian's point, if the system isn't working, if the mechanisms of fact finding are being shut down, then having that on the record, everyone can see it tonight. then do any public officials say, yeah, tonight is the night to call the control room of whatever channel. tonight is the night to call "the new york times." there may be questions on an abundance of caution you don't answer while confirsting what you think the public needs to know. and general john kelly just did that. and done that. so mr. bolton, brian put up some of the obituary headlines
earlier from a round-up by security, the national security website that reminded everyone how people's standing in the nixon case pro and connell defined them. that is also true for the people in the arena, for the witnesses. and some have spoken out and some have not. so john bolton's silence turns into a kind of quailing, a kind of timidity at this point now that it's clear he won't be brought into the congressional process. does he still want to speak? >> by the way, does he know how mad people are at him? >> i believe he does. >> i wonder if he mass awareness. and by the way, it is a love-hate thing. unlike most of the smart people who have worked for this president, he has spoken out. >> none of them. mattis didn't say a word.
>> right. so yes, i love him for that i get that he probably didn't want to go and subject himself to nunes and have nunes do back channel things would be harm tofl what he is trying to accomplish but it is so frustrating to most americans. he has really important stuff to say and we don't understand why he is not saying it. it is like he's playing a giant game. and it does lend itself to this argument that he is trying to make money on a book which hurts his credibility. we don't want his credibility hurt. he has real credibility with a lot of people, including republicans. the longer he strings this out, i think the worse it is for him. the strategy for me a little bit is lost on the whole bolton piece. you know the book is coming out. the back side of it, i think he may have mentioned this yesterday. the consequences, people are like, i don't want to read the book now. you couldn't step up to the plate at a time when the country needed you to step up to the
plate. to your point, just to an interview. say here's what you need to know. i'm curious as to what that strategy is. who is advising him? is it just him saying, being obstinate, saying no? or is there a strategy that they are maybe suckering the republicans into with the move they just made, knowing that this drip, drip, drip, it can be worse than a hammer down the line. >> the nearest journalist. >> here's what i know. who is advising him? his lawyer chuck cooper has had a pretty public profile. he started a lawsuit on behalf of mr. kupperman. you want to look back at strategic errors, that might have been one of them. waiting on that lawsuit which was moot even before the judge ruled. i remember you saying from the train, i can barely get through law and order. what the heck is this lawsuit
over? there is no subpoena out. the vote has been done. there was another, a door opened for john bolton sunday night when somehow "the new york times" got ahold of some knowledge of what was in the manuscript. that door stayed open from sunday until 25 minutes ago. and i think when you look back on this, that will be the period where maybe you rehash and reexamine some of your decisions. i wish he had spoken out. i do think, john bolton's story, the book was written by john bolton. if you're in the room, and you're chris christie, you've seen some of that stuff. he sent it to the mueller report. donald trump doesn't abide by norms and laws and who has sxleernls who doesn't. so chris christie has been in the room. never said anything like what john bolton had the courage to say. mattis wrote a book. said nothing hfl more scathing criticism for donald trump and his resignation letter than the entire book.
and i read every page waiting for it. others were there for all the russian shenanigans. they've said nothing still. they say nothing. rex tillerson has let things slip out. what i thought was possible, if the bolton revelations came out, they would almost inspire some of the people who said i saw a lot of that, too. >> having made the argument for bolton speaking out, in this situation as of tonight, as of this vote, i can offer some of the legal construct against him speaking out. and i don't mean to be alan dershowitz speaking out against myself. but it is worth noting in all seriousness, that mr. bolton stands like people who have serve in the government and got on the wrong side of this president. he stands now threatened by the arm of the state that told him, his manuscript they think does
have classified. all caps, top secret. that they'll approach it that way. this administration investigated jim comey on that pretext, investigated andrew mccabe, his deputy. the "new york times" reports another new investigation into james comey for classified material. mr. barr, this very weak has changed the approach, as claire and pointed out left over from the mueller probe to try to lighten his recommended sentence and install a loyalist in the pivotal office of the district of columbia u.s. attorney. >> the mccabe case. >> there is a lot of credible evidence of efforts to use the article of the state to intimidate people and to say you will be under investigation, if not worse. so it is having said why mr. bolton should speak, could speak. there are reasons why him and his counsel may say, you've gone far enough. you don't need to speak in a way that makes you the target of investigation. >> what does dough with the manuscript sitting there due to
hit amazon in three weeks? >> it is in pre publication review. it allows them to say we gave to it them in ample time. at least they did it where a live interview may not. i say that not to be large cappist but to be clear, he is not the first former administration official to find himself publicly accused of potentially mishandling classified information. at a time where on the floor of the senate, i can say, this is known. adam schiff is saying, they're abusing the classification authority. so this all runs into how it is used. >> there are no high definition this secrets in television. we're seeing the republican caucus breaking and senator, we also just saw senator klobuchar go by the cameras and make the universal symbol for cut. and it appeared that we saw klobuchar leaving with two the aides. here now come republican members led by shelby.
what do you know about what is going on, if anything? >> well, there is discussion about what mitch is going to try to do in terms of going forward. it appears to me from going forward, it's hard when you're texting back and forwards and you can't talk to them. the democrats are angry and frustrated. and let me be very clear. i am, too. i don't want anyone to misinterpret me giving schumer a hard time for using that word and i don't understand his frustration and anger. we're all frustrated and angry that those of houston love our country and know that an average of 72 people in america wanted witnesses and documents, based on all the polling and averaging that out. but i don't think you'll see democrats voting for anything in a positive way that mitch
mcconnell tries put forward. >> i think mitch mcconnell has just put out a statement that while relatively broad and generic, has an interesting line. >> go ahead. >> well, it just says near the end, we will confer among ourselves, the house managers, and with the president's counsel to determine next steps as we prepare to conclude the trial in the coming days. coming days, claire mccaskill. you don't need to be a deep scholar fong doesn't say tonight. >> the big question is whether or not the vote is on monday or whether or not it is on tuesday or wednesday. >> give never choices again? >> monday, tuesday or wednesday. >> not tonight of the. >> i don't think the final vote will be tonight, no. >> or tomorrow. >> that's not clear to me that it is absolutely ruled out tomorrow. i think the hard liners and trump want it as soon as possible. if this was clinton model, it
would be late next week before there would be a final vote. >> man raju. there goes joe manchin to the right. there's portman. is there any chance that the dems running for president will go over to the national airport, fly west of des moines? can they leave? >> they have a very major event in their campaigns. one they've worked for months and months, grinding out an incredibly difficult schedule. they want to be in iowa. if there won't be votes -- >> there's bernie -- >> that are on the substance of
the impeachment articles. if they're just procedural about how long we'll talk. then i can see missing the votes and i think the people would understand, if you missed a vote, it was process vote that wasn't your opportunity to weigh in on the guilt of the president of the united states. >> could you see bernie and klobuchar and warren, and bennett, not coming back? >> i think it will depend on when the votes are. i can't imagine they will missing a vote on the articles of impeachment. >> i think that's a bridge too far. >> do we have audio at this location to listen to whatever chris kuhns and others are saying?
>> mcconnell is having trouble keeping his caucus together. so it feels like that they're done for the night. waiting for confirmation. >> i would be surprised if there's any more vote coming out. >> and i think mitch was trying to get some democratic votes to find that, and i think that's not going to happen. i don't think the democrats will give mitch mcconnell an inch. he'll have to do it all himself. he'll have to unite his caucus if he wants to go forward. >> there were republicans, even as late as today, talking about particularly when they felt the momentum was moving in their direction. talking about, the final vote meaning conviction will be a bipartisan vote. that there were some democrats like a manchin in the reddish
states that would play. i think after tonight, the way this was handled, the vote would be hard to get to claire's point. >> hey, jeff bennett, i'm told you're wired up. you may have some intel for us. >> well, here's what we can tell you. to state the obvious. the republicans are having a hard time landing the plane. trying to figure out how to just wrap up the trial. there are two camps emerging. you have the side that says, days of deliberations are just fine. the clinton standard is what? three and a half days of public deliberations. we're told that lisa murkowski has advocated for that. you can throw mitch mcconnell in that camp where they said we'll make a determination over the coming days. then you have the trump wing that says we have a clean win here. why prolong the inevitable? let's get this thing wrapped up. certainly before the state of the union. they don't want president trump delivering a speech from the well of the house with nancy
pelosi standing there behind him. this impeachment trial still ongoing. it would appear that there could be some votes tonight. maybe potentially on some of those he said as. they would adjourn and pick back up on monday. here's the brink tuesday. tuesday as you know is the state of the union address. unto itself is a huge security undertaking. you have he have member of congress, members of the cabinet, the supreme court all gathered on the house floor sitting there watching the speech. you can nag capitol police, secret service has concerns managing that. while you have whatever proceedings happening on the senate side. so you can probably count tuesday out. the question now, is it wednesday on this vote on the final judgment as senators refer to that vote? or is it monday? that's what they're trying to figure out right now. i suspect when they're done with this dinner breakering with could get more clarity on this or not. >> jeff bennett in one of the
most impossible places to speak when someone speaks right next to you. >> do you know what's interesting about mcconnell's statement that he was just alluding to, the reasons seep to be some of the same reasons you heard from staff to the house intel committee. we don't want to get good stuck in prolonged litigation. in the never before have we pursued additional witnesses with unresolved questions of executive privilege that would require protracted litigation. what is so stunning about everything in this presidency, and everyone that touches it, especially those who try to defend it, and sand off the edges of fact patterns, is that the explanation always changes. now it's we've never, ever, ever paused for this when you have a risk of executive privilege being exerted which might or might not result in protracted litigation. we're so far away from the house didn't on their job. this is such a narrow excuse on
witnesses. >> that statement is fact check irrelevant. the only modern precedent is clinton. so yes, more things were resolved. the other argument was we don't want it to take too long. if you back load this with a doj investigation run by prosecutors, it takes much longer. so this statement when you boil it down to what they've on the record argued is, we don't have more time for something we said would be as fast as possible. schiff offered night week private depositions. and also, every takes too long but also, we can't wait a week. we want to do it tonight but we might not be able to but we have to maybe wait a week to wednesday or later. i think it is striking for senator mcconnell who is lauded for controlling his caucus, he has the votes, he started it without a very clear coalition on some basic stuff on day one hflt to change to it handwritten.
and as of this hour, he had to adjourn saying i have no plan. >> there's a scrum coming up the hall with one of the republican senators. let's hear it from the capitol hill police department. they are stressed. they've been working nonstop. that's john thune. and we remember that one of our own, a former member of the capitol hill police, ladies and gentlemen, chris matthews who we'll be hearing from later on. quick break. we'll be gone about two minutes. please don't go anywhere. if anything happens of note, we'll bust out of a commercial to bring it to you. a commercial to bring it to you f blowers. you should be mad your neighbor always wants to hang out. and you should be mad your smart fridge is unnecessarily complicated. make ice. making ice. but you're not mad because you have e*trade which isn't complicated. their tools make trading quicker and simpler so you can take on the markets with confidence. don't get mad get e*trade and start trading
commission free today. [ 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. ♪ ♪ g♪ i want to go, go,es 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.
colleague. he says the leaders have agreed to a res pollution will do the following. it will allow for four amendments tonight. nothing happening over this weekend. the senators would come back on monday. monday is when you would see the closing arguments. six hours, three hours for the president's defense team. tuesday and wednesday would be devoted to the public deliberations, and then vote on the final judgment. the two afrls impeachment would happen at 4:00 p.m. eastern, 1:00 p.m. pacific. so the interesting thing here, there is no process for any closed deliberations that happened during the clinton impeachment process and this does include days of deliberations which tracks with the clinton standards. so that's the news. something happening this weekend. some votes amendments we would imagine this evening. monday, closing arguments. tuesday and wednesday, deliberations by the senators.
every senator who wants to would be able to state his or her case on the record. all of it culminating at 4:00 p.m. eastern. >> thank you form reporting. chair mccaskill, do you know anything further? and a pack-up question for me. what if john bolton shows up in a televised interview between now and all of this? >> well, i think if he shows up on a televised interview, it is more trouble for the president. i'm not sure that it changes the ultimate outcome in terms of acquittal. we've already seen lamar alexander said he believes it. he did it. he just doesn't think he should be removed from office for it. so if that's the hill they're going to die on, this conduct occurred and this was terrible, we don't want to remove him from office. that's the hill they're going to die on. i think they'll regret it down the road when this kind of
conduct occurs again. >> these votes tonight, are they shell votes? >> they kind of are. if you are frustrated and you want to make a point, then you drive and you make that point as long as you possibly can. they want to fight we have breath they have in them to the very end of the line. the motions will be had all docs, you a witnesses, a vote on bolton and one other thing. so four democratic votes they'll get tonight. and then they will vote on mcconnell's rule to finish out the rest of the process. which will put in to the resolution all the dates that jeff just gave us. >> and jeff bennett just gave us some news. the clinton deliberations were closed. there was an effort to open them up on the theory that a matter of this import, the public should hear the senators deliberate. we were talking about the power
of explanation. there was a majority that wanted to do that last time but not a super majority. it was about 59 senators last time so wasn't public. what jeff bennett is recording, they're looking to get public deliberations. that would traditionally take a super majority which itself is interesting. for all of this that we've been covering, both sides would see it. they have enough mutual interest in doing this in public to get over 67 senators on that issue. that would be a new thing. >> i think part of that goes to the fact some republicans want to explain publicly as much as they can. >> being a shell for the white house. >> that's right. their vote. and to that point, to actually be out there defending and standing and making the president's case. >> because sometimes twitter is not enough. >> twitter isn't enough. >> senator maze ie had hirono h,
tell us everything chuck schumer said. >> he would kill me if did i that. i wish i could rely on that. i'll just kidding. we just took a vote that was really the crux of our whole approach to this impeachment trial. we wanted witnesses, relevant witnesses and documents. so we just took a vote on that. which to me was the most critical vote of the whole thing until now. the way things are looking, i don't think that the two senators who voted to have witnesses, i don't know how they'll vote on conviction. i'm prepared to talk about how significant this vote was. so continue to hold the line for this president who is totally
vindictive and he has $40 million of money to go after anybody who dares to speak out against him. that would be double for any republicans who cross him. so there you have it. and i think this is a sad day for our country. we can expect this country to continue to do things that will be probably impeachable. so we know that he has very little impulse control. and who knows what else he's been doing? then the bombshell today. we've been hearing for hours from the republicans that there was no connection between the holding of the aid with the investigations. and then the bombshell today in the "new york times" that there was in fact a meeting in may where all these people were there including crip lone who probably has some huge legal, ethical issues that he'll have to contend with. because he argued that there was no connection.
and you know what? if the revv haitians were accurate, he's lied to the tribunal. he has some issues he will have to deal with. going forward, we'll have a president who truly thinks he can do anything he wants. and i framed it as we were witnessing the crowning of the president with mitch mcconnell holding his crown and the republicans holding his train. >> if the republicans are as in line to acquittal as they were on witnesses, is it safe to assume at least vunl will vote the acquit this pattern. from a fact pattern that they aren't disputing. that he sought to cheat in the 2016 election. that he was pursuing investigations into joe biden. what are your fears with the election ahead? >> what this vote says is, he
did it, so what in so that's lamar alexander. assuming he did all this, in fact, the trump team acceded to that. they pretty much said, he did it, so what? so that means the president can ask some other foreign country, which he already did with china, to enter gear the elections. he might find another pot of money the use as bribe to get another country to do what he wants. so we'll have an unfair president. and he still has a lot of time to do damage. we've watched this president. he has very little impulse control. he will probably expand his muslim ban because the supreme court went his way. he will probably add more countries. we'll probably go after people's social security benefits because he's already said that, to pay for the $1.5 trillion in tax
cuts. he said time one with pre-existing conditions when it is his administration and attorney general barr in court right now to totally eliminate contact, including all the protections for people with pre-existing conditions. so health care will be a huge issue going forward. he's already been doing all kinds of things to undo the health care act. and then he will go after social security and continue to go after immigrants. stoontd, he'll continue to do what he would do. i think it is incumbent upon the rest of to us point out the dangers to our country. one more thing. for checks and about as, as he president who believes he can do anything he wants under article two of the constitution and that's the reason that he decided he could ignore all the
subpoenas. he could tell his entire administration, none of you will testify. this is the kind of posture of someone who believes he can do anything he wants. he has no regards for checks and about as. so that's pretty much out the windows. this whole decision, where the republicans are on presidential power does not make it very likely that there will be much cooperation from this administration. for us to do our oversight responsibilities. >> senator here hirono from the noisiest location. >> i want that three jets are taking off tonight with three
senators. >> right around 10:00. >> so they'll still be able to get in. very interesting. we're waiting for one more member of the senate to get wired up. control room, talk to me. quick break. that's what i thought they would say. >> 6:33 eastern. a quick break in our coverage. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (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! 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. 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®. try eucerin advanced dry srepair lotion. it helps stop dryness from recurring by going beyond ceramides with natural moisturizing factors found in skin eucerin advanced repair lotion for healthier looking skin. just further proof that when senator hirono of hawaii speaks, people listen. she has her own press corps carrying her down the hallway as she goes in. half caucus, half let's get something to eat gathering. claire mccaskill who knows her way around a caucus room, claire, i asked you in the break. what about all the private jets?
with candidates for president. as you said, have just devoted months of their life to this room. when do they get out of town for des moines? you think it will be before the end of the night? >> oh, yes. by my calculations, thinking how long it will take around 10:00, maybe a little earlier. i'm sure they can be wheels up out of national probably no later than 10:30. and then get a good night's sleep and all day tomorrow and all day sunday and all day monday, and try to bring it home. >> and they're back. do they have to be back monday for deliberations? will some of them sfrech and come back monday night? >> that will be interesting. i assume that it is the managers arguing on monday. six hours of it.
it is like an hour before caucuses. if you're needed at that point, you have a problem. >> right, your work is done monday night. >> i would say monday afternoon. they may come back for the arguments but i bodies their supporters would understand if the white house lawyers, including one of the co-conspirators argue that he's innocent. let's say you're a senator who could win the iowa caucus with all the people watching. this would appear to deny that. >> if you're someone who thinks you might win, then you might skip the arguments. you can always watch them and stream them on your phone.
it's not like you have to be in the chamber to hear them. you can be at home or in the back room of a hotel following the caucus results and following the arguments. >> so that begs the question, when do they stop being jurors? they're still sitting, the rules would still apply that you're not allowed to be outside the chamber. when does that stop for them when they can be in iowa on tuesday? >> that's a good question. i know nothing will happen to them if they don't show up. >> her thinking is so fogd right now. here's he senator blunt. >> as certain as everything is done until it's done. i would much rather have seen it
done right now. i would rather stick with it until it's done. i think they can make the case, they can extend this with various motions and other things through wednesday at about 4:00. so accepting that argument, we decided the best thing for everybody involved would be to come to that certain date. but try to eliminate any needless pain and suffering as if it hasn't been painful enough already. >> you know, the belief of the leader and his staff was that democrats if they wanted to, and they appear to be willing to, could take it into wednesday afternoon. so i guess that would mean they were not willing to get this
done until the state of the union on tuesday. >> i'm not aware of it. >> we are joined by maine independent senator angus king who caucuses with the democrats. senator, thank you. i know this was a painful experience for you. at least i'm guessing. tell us what just happened. i was listening to the debate. i wrote in my notes a couple times, how can anybody vote against this? this is one of the most important trials, it is the most important trial or proceeding that any of lust ever be involved in. the charges are very serious and
somebody is standing on the side line saying, he's ready to come talk to us and give us evidence about the heart of the matter? and people said no. i don't see how you go home and explain that to the people at home. it would be one thing to call witnesses and we don't who know they are. when you have the witnesses and you have this tantalizing material, and i still don't know what john bolton will say. he might say, yes, what you've seen in the paper but he also might say some things that would exonerate the president. our fundamental responsibility is getting at the facts. to willfully say i don't want the facts. i'll just, as you can tell, speechless. that ain't very common for a u.s. senator. >> our conversations with you have been one of the highlights. for me, because of your honesty. wefg watching the senate floor
when it sealed like mitch mcconnell was waiting for refraction the white house. we saw you walk over to the republican scrum. did you know at that point what would happen next? were you seeking information? because you seem to be someone who has relationships on both sides of the aisle, was there any shame in the vote that they marched their members over the cliff over? 75% of americans would like witnesses. that caucus split it against 75% of the public. >> that wasn't really the discussion. i talked to him about what it was like to have alan dershowitz as a law professor. >> what did he say? >> emhe was the best professor he ever. i think he really hurt his cause the other night. i think it was unfortunate. not terribly substantive. i am concerned that we not let this really tough, hard problem
divide us to the point that we can't do anything else. we have to have some relationship that's the we're going to get anything done. when this is over, we have prescription drugs and health care and energy and a lot of important things to do. i told somebody yesterday, i'll a catcher in the rye. i'm trying to grab people before we fall over the partisan cliff entirely. >> in keeping with your theme, you've always been very gentlemanly. but they know you're 2-0 on this question. you both voted together on this. >> and i think that's right. i think susan collins did the right thing. she and mitt romney were the only republicans to vote for
witnesses. she's pretty much telegraph that had for a couple weeks. and i think she realizes that. so i think that was an important vote. ultimately, if we didn't get to 51, it is all for not. >> the hypothetical i just poetsed to claire mccaskill, john bolton does an hour-long, two-hour long television interview with damning information, the kind we can pre order on amazon. does that challenge the debate? >> first, it is frustrating to me that there is some editors in new york, book publishers in new york, folks in the basement of the white house who all know about this evidence, and we, the u.s. senators who have been hired to know this don't know
it. the sad thing is it wouldn't matter. remember trump's owed line, i could shoot someone on fifth avenue and my followers would still follow me? if they voted today to not even hear the evidence, fids the evidence came out, if john bolton came out, people will would say, he wasn't under oath, he hasn't been cross examined so it doesn't matter. it won't change my mind. i'm a perennial optimist but i think in this case, the votes are locked in. >> what do you do with the information? beyond the context of impeachment, in a traditional oversight role, it seems the republicans in the chamber aren't sure it does. what do you do with the allegation that john bolton went to the justice department, told the attorney general, william barr, he is concerned that donald trump is doing favors for dictators, and nothing happened. what do you think that he seems
to be a will participant the, if it turns out it is to extort a political leader what do you do with the body of information that at least john bolton and lev parnas have put out there. >> the first thing is there can be follow-up investigations of specific insubstantials of the kind that you talk about. one thing that i was talking with my colleagues a few minutes ago, we need a statute that says you can't enlist from foreigners for your campaign. it is already illegal to take a contribution. but i think we need to clarify this. i remember this was a question. what will be the result of this trial if it just goes away?
remember, ol'y, ol'y income-free. i think we need to talk seriously about the fact that we are not going to tolerate foreign interference in our campaigns. that doesn't mean you hire an advertising firm and they live in canada and they are buying air time for you. but it means substantial interference in our election. one of the problems we have, it is, they're using our strengths against us. our strengths are the first amendment. freedom of expression. a vibrant media atmosphere. and that makes us vulnerable. and we have to figure that out. and somehow i think part of it is going right back to the framers. they were pretty occupied with
the threat of foreign interference. >> thank you very much for always being so generous with your time. angus king. the great state of maine. >> a little new stuff. >> tell us. >> so the way this is going to work, they're going to begin closing arguments by the managers monday morning. and that is as part of the impeachment. so risky for candidates to miss it. i think they're going to begin around 11:00 monday morning. candidates will have to decide whether or not they can afford to miss the closing arguments of the managers in the impeachment trial with the chief justice sitting on the dais. tuesday everything changes. they'll sit fast in morning business. that's like a normal time. when you see the senate floor and it's empty and somebody comes down and gives a random speech. they always say, i would like the speak fast in morning business. you can give a speech with the
girl scouts at home or about the iraq war or anything you want. they'll speak in morning business without the chief justice sitting. this will all be done publicly but none of the other members have to be on the florida. it will be lying it normally. is it will be interesting to see how many show up to listen to their fellow senators' arguments. >> is that what they're calling deliberations? >> that's what they're calling deliberations. >> so they may not need a simple majority. they're grandfathering it, hey, deliberate. >> this is what will be in mcconnell's resolution that he will follow tonight. when these amendment that's the democrats want, once again, documents and witnesses have been voted off the mcconnell will offer a resolution to close out the trial and lay out all these specifics. the house manage letters argue on monday. and then the senators will sit fast in morning business on tuesday of the.
>> very interesting. will they be gathered? the point of a jury deliberating is facing each other. >> sounds like now. >> if you're lamar him, and you just announce that you think he did it, you just don't want to punish him, you are facing other senators, that's the jury deliberation. you are saying this sort of in a cute way gets a little bit around that? >> absolutely. if a member wants to sit on the floor and hear all of their fellow senators make their arguments, talk about deliberations and gather. they can sit in their offices and hear it all or sit on the floor and hear it all. but it will be interesting to see who feels the need to be on the floor for all of their fellow senators' speeches that can be -- >> are you down with that? >> you know, i think this was a mcconnell compromise, i assume, that somebody wanted them to be closed with the chief justice
sitting and some people wanted them to be open with the chief justice sitting. and then other people are tired of sitting. >> wow. >> and it sounds like to me this is what he worked out within his caucus. no democrat -- i am not aware of any democrat signing off on this. this was decided internally in the republican caucus. >> we have to hear nor details, but to me what is being described and we will wait and cover what we see on the floor and read it, i haven't read it yet, but if it's that, it feels like a rerun of is this a real trial, and is this a real constitutional dlib rakes. >> may not be a good look. >> i agree. i couldn't agree more. >> it's a process. >> believe me, i am not here to defend mitch mcconnell. >> for dog owners used to that work, the morning business, at least we know the derivation of the phrase. senator amy klobuchar is with us. senator, thank you very much for being with us. we were just talking about you
guys and wondering if you are, let's say you are a candidate for president, you have an -- >> let's say. >> let's say you have a campaign operation spooling up without you there in des moines. when are you able to get out there and when do you come back? >> i still don't know. we are, of course, pushing for these amendments, and part of the argument here, and i thought your discussion just now was right on, that there had been no agreement with us about this plan. because of the fact that new stuff keeps coming out every single day. it's not just the new revelation this morning and the reporting that there had been an earlier meeting in may, but now we have, you know, general kelly, the former chief of staff to the president of the united states, saying your job is half-done if you don't have witnesses. john warner, the former republican senator from virginia calling for witnesses. and the more information that comes out and commentary, you know, that's why they want to
get it done so fast. it's very unfortunate, we are having amendment votes, i assume we are pushing amendments, so many we proposed to try to get witnesses in different ways. we have argued that chief justice roberts should decide on the witnesses for more time, you name it. >> senator, john bolton will testify. the book is written. it's been submitted for publication review. the pub date is march 17th. it should drop in three, four weeks. >> exactly. >> what as a candidate for president, what pieces of this story are important for all americans regardless of their party to know? and then in terms of the pieces that are important to know, what have republicans done tonight? >> i literally can't believe that they are doing this because we know it's not going to take five years for the truth to come out. it's not going to take five months. it's going to be five weeks or maybe five days. and they will have denied the public, 70% of whom want to see
witnesses, that opportunity to see people actually testify under oath. and in terms of the themes and the things that i have been talking about in the campaign, i have been the one from the beginning saying, yes, we know this is an economic check on this president, but it is so much deeper than that especially for independents and moderate republicans that we need to build a big coalition. it's a patriotism check. a decency check. the fact that they are shutting out witnesses is part of the argument that i will be making when it comes to appealing to people that maybe didn't vote last time or maybe even voted for donald trump. but they understand that there is something bigger than this guy in the white house. and that's the heart of america. >> senator, we want to wish you sincerely safe travels. iowa in the winter is no joke. >> we're good. we just got another endorsement. the iowa city paper, brian, as well as the sea coast. i keep sitting in that chamber wanting to be there, but getting good news.
>> i understand that. thank you. senator amy klobuchar of minnesota. so there you have it. >> i mean, and i guess i'm interested, clare, on your thoughts, because trump has benefitted by the volume business of mayhem. there is that insurance ad campaign about mayhem. >> i'm your mother-in-law, right. >> he is mayhem. it seems like there are some just things that have really broken too through in ways not all the trump shenanigans have. one being the sham trial. >> yeah. there is scandal fatigue. it's a bed of nails. you don't feel all the nails because there are so many nails. but this one is poking out. this is a spike coming out of the bed of nails that is really pricked the conscience of an average of 73% of all americans, including a plurality of republicans. so this was a bold move. it's broken through. it's simple. people get it. they don't like it. >> we are going to step away for just a minute or two.
at the top of the hour, former capitol hill police officer chris matthews will take over. our coverage will be live and rolling all evening. the senate is due to come back in for these, this series of votes starting any moment after the top of the hour with wishes for a good game. >> thank you, good luck. >> on sunday, and good luck to mr. mahomes et al. we will see you at the top of the hour. what does help for heart failure look like?
♪the beat goes on it looks like emily cooking dinner for ten. ♪the beat goes on it looks like jonathan on a date with his wife. ♪la-di-la-di-di entresto is a heart failure medicine that helps your heart, so you can keep on doing what you love. entresto helped people stay alive and out of the hospital. heart failure can change the structure of your heart, so it may not work as well. entresto helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant;
it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ♪the beat goes on ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure yeah! entrust your heart to entresto. ♪the beat goes on
♪ good evening. i'm chris matthews in morning tonight. the lp majority voted against calling any witnesses whatsoever. catch that. any witnesses whatsoever in the impeachment trial of president trump. 51 republican senators denied the opportunity to hear witnesses or receive critical testimony. only two republicans, utah's mitt romney and maine's susan collins, broke with their party voting in favor of hearing any new witnesses. at any moment, by the moment, any witnesses. at any moment the u.s. senate is expected to vote on the next steps in this proceeding establishing a timeline for finishing up the trial. closing arguments on monday. it looks like monday closing arguments. nothing tomorrow or sunday. a vote on removing the president on wednesday, the day after the
state of the union. chuck rosenberg, joyce vance, david jolly, and maya wiley. let's go to geoff bennett. give us the future. we know the past. >> reporter: yeah. the text of this resolution that the senate body will vote on now is now out and it tracks with our reporting and what you just said. so we expect that after they do vote and adopt this resolution there will be a debate on four amendments. we are not sure how long that debate will last. we are told it won't last that long. then nothing is scheduled to happen this weekend. so those three senators, those three democratic senators running for president can go back to iowa and campaign. that's senator sanders, klobuchar, warren. monday at 11:00 a.m. eastern time closing arguments will convene. the house manage ergs wirs willt followed by the president's defense team. we expect that will be somewhere between four to six hours split
evenly among them. tuesday you will see the public deliberations. the senators themselves standing on the floor of the senate. each senator getting 10 to 15 minutes to state his or her case where he or she stands on this issue of removing president trump from office. wednesday at 4:00 eastern, 1:00 pacific the senators will take the vote on the final judgment. voting on those two articles of impeachment. >> let me ask you about the two considerations. the weekend off. under senate precedent saturday is a day they meet. was that to help the senate candidates, i mean the senators who are candidates for president out there in iowa? >> reporter: well, this resolution, remember the republicans own this process at this point. now, certainly this is something that benefits the democrats, right, because they get to go back and campaign for at least four, potentially more, days. they talk about how they view this trial as being a sham
trial. president trump, once he is acquitted, we expect he will be acquitted, he can't fully say he was exonerated because the trial didn't have witnesses, new evidence. this works to the democrats' benefit. interestingly enough, this is a process that mitch mcconnell hashed out to be fair with senate minority cleeder chuck schumer's aides. but this is really an agreement that republicans themselves had to forge. you had two camps. you had sort of a more moderate camp that wanted days of deliberations to run parallel to the clinton precedent. there were 3 1/2 days of deliberations in that process. sort of the trump camp said, look, we have a clean wing wanting to wrap this up as quickly as possible. according to the resolution, the mcconnell side, of course, has won out here. >> okay. thank you. great to have you on all the time, geoff. thank you. you connect us with current truth. thank you so much. house impeachment manager diminish schiff cited the bolton reporting in making a final plea
to senators to hear from witnesses. >> 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 are 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. >> the president's defense team disputed that argument. >> whenever an legal system, civil and criminal sides, there is a way to side right upfront in some quick way, whether there is 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 is not here. there is no need for that because these articles of impeachment on their face are defective. >> well, that was a concluding statement. you know, if hartwell were back tonight, which i dearly love to moderate and host each night, i would have opened up -- i had the script written. unfortunately, we are still in the process of covering these events tonight, i would have said hear no evil. that's what the republicans basically decided. hear no evil. >> the first impeachment trial with no witnesses and, in terms of it dragging on too long, even if they go through wednesday night, it will be roughly exactly half the length of the bill clinton trial. so none of those arguments bear out. you could see in the arguments of the two sides over the question of whether to call witnesses, the house managers' arguments were all about substance. it was all about shouldn't we know what john bolton knows? the way we can get to the bottom
of this is through having witnesses. the trump team's attorneys, it was all about procedure. and frankly it was complaining about how procedure and why they were treated unfairly. it had nothing to do with substance. chris, republicans want to hide the ball on this because it is damning for the president. every additional piece of information, every day this goes on is damning for the president. republicans have made a political decision, not a constitutional law and order decision. >> what do you think will happen between now and wednesday, which is a long way off in this world right now? it's saturday, sunday. >> sunday. >> monday. >> monday. >> tuesday, wednesday. wednesday newspapers. "the new york times" is still working. >> one question, are we going to continue to see leaks around john bolton's book that gives continuing information? >> by the way, it's like a chinese torture, the water torture idea. drip, drip, drip. somebody is letting it out a sentence at a time. >> well, as someone said earlier
today, and i'm going to crib it, but absolutely right is more damning with each drip. >> yes. explain why today is worse than the days before. >> today is worse than the day before because not only was donald trump trying to get this quid pro quo earlier than the house managers' presentation, but that the conspiracy goes to the top echelons of his administration. >> everybody in the room together. >> everybody in the room to the, including -- >> cipollone. >> cipollone. so cipollone, his defense attorney, apparently is a fact witness who, and i haven't combed through the transcripts to say whether or not this was true -- >> is there a disbar. possibility here? is there a disbarment possibility here? he was trying the case, he was in the room with giuliani, mick mulvaney, and the president. >> and he participated in the obstruction. >> it's a fraud on the court. this is a fraud. >> the bar association committee on this, guys, you hear that the guy was defending somebody.
wait main, he was part of the crime. >> an attorney should never litigate or argue in a case in which he or she may be a witness. that's prohibited by every bar rule in every bar in every state. that's not even a close call. whether or not it results in disbarment, losing your license? >> i was thinking including jail. >> no. look, there are sanctions for doing this. we need to establish, chris, and i hate to be so nitpicky, is the facts, what he knew, when he knew it. >> he knew it all. >> maybe. >> well, i will say -- >> he was involved in setting it up. >> no president, including this one, would engineer this type of arrangement by himself. it doesn't work that way. he has to have people around him. >> so the president of the united states is basically in the defendant's box here, if it was a british trial or something. he is in the box. and he says the guy i want leading the defense, this cipollone guy because he is really good at defending what happened because he was there,
anyway, and part of the team. chuck schumer called tonight's vote to deny senators' witnesses a grand tragedy. here's schumer. >> to not allow a witness a document, no witnesses, no documents in an impeachment trial is a grand tragedy, one of the worst tragedies that the senate has ever overcome. america will remember this day, unfortunately, where the senate did not live up to its responsibilities, where the senate turned away from truth, and went along with a sham trial. if the president is acquitted with no witnesses, no documents, the acquittal will have no value. >> so, joyce, is this a day in infamy? per fitty is rough. >> yeah, everyone is struggling for adjectives bad enough to describe the damage.
i saw that someone had gone into wikipedia and they had amended the entry for the senate and said the senate died today. there is no longer an upper body in the congress of the united states. maybe that's an overstatement. here's what happened. the senate, the people after all responsible for writing the law this thin this country, defied , held a trial in blatant ignorance, as you said, hear in evil, blatant ignorance of the facts. it is every bit as bad as a day in infamy. >> i don't want to lose the cipollone point here. he is a lawyer for the people. he is not donald trump's personal defense attorney. so there is a certain kind of misrepresentation and fraud upon the senate if he is standing up there as part of a government lawyer, a government lawyer saying nothing happened here. no facts that support, that
donald trump himself directed this, if he was in the room when donald trump directed this. now, i agree. we don't know. but i don't think we should lose the fact that he is not jay sekulow. he is the white house counsel. >> we have reason to believe because contemporaneous testimony to a pal is always part of what happens in court. you say to somebody this guy did be something to me and you tell your best friend, that comes into court. here this was put in the book months ago. this wasn't done to screw the defense team here. this was put into a book that had gotten to simon & schuster in december. >> it explains bolton's behavior. was it gordon sondland who said everyone was in the loop? we know from the timeline that bolton was never signed up for this. he called it a drug deal, he didn't want anything to do with it, questions around the timing when he left once the aid was released. the book clearly makes it known that he was very much aware of this.
and it's interesting, you know, the attorney for lev parnas that sent the letter to mcconnell and to schumer said my client can corroborate that bolton was being pressured by the president of the united states to make the conditionality argument to the ukrainians. >> it wasn't just the house managers arguing for witnesses. trump's former chief of staff john kelly, another fellow here, a witness that is credible, said a trial without witnesses is only half a trial. he told new jersey advance media today, 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 yourselves up forever as a senate that shirks its responsibilities. here is the political reality. mow producer told me today that nine states, we were talking about this, hold a majority of the u.s. population. a majority of our 330 million
people live in nine. they are coastal mainly except for illinois or something. they live on the coast. if you look at a map of the united states there are a small part of the united states. if you blew it up by population, they would be the predominant american reality. these senators represent geography, david. they don't represent population. so that means that 41 states have half the population. and 41 states are represented by 82 senators. so this representative body is representative of our geography, our 50 states. it doesn't represent that 75% that we keep hanging on and banging on, fairly enough, because it does represent the american jury, but it doesn't represent the senate jury. that's why they can with friskiness go out there and say no witnesses because they are not -- those people aren't back home in idaho or north dakota.
here we go. here is mitch. >> to provide for related procedures concerning the articles of impeachment against donald john trump, president of the united states. resolve, that the record in this case shall be closed and no motion with respect to reopening the record shall be in order for the duration of these proceedings. the senate shall proceed to final arguments as provided in the impeachment rules waiving the two-person rule contained in rule 22 of the rules of procedure and practice in the senate when sitting on impeachment trials. such arguments shall begin at 11:00 a.m. on monday, february 3rd, 2020, and not exceed four hours, and be equally divided between the house and the president to be used as, under the rules of impeachment. at the conclusion of the final arguments by the house and the president, the court of impeachment shall stand
adjourned until 4:00 p.m. on wednesday, february 5th, 2020, at which time the senate, without intervening action or debate, shall vote on the articles of impeachment. >> justice. >> mr. majority leader. >> i ask unanimous consent that the democratic leader or his designee be allowed to offer up to four amendments to the resolution. further, that i be recognized to make a motion to table the amendment after its been reported with no intervening action or debate. >> is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the democratic leader is recognized. >> mr. chief justice, i have a parliamentary inquiry. >> the democratic leader will
stateet inquiry. >> is the chief justice aware in the impeachment trial of president johnson, chief justice chase as presiding officer cast tie-breaking votes on march 31st and april 2nd, 1868? >> i am, mr. leader. the one concerned a motion to adjourn. the other concerned a motion to close deliberations. i do not regard those isolated episodes 150 years ago as sufficient to support a general authority to break ties. if the members of this body elected by the people and accountable to them divide equally on a motion, the normal rule is that the motion fails. i think it would be inappropriate for me and an un-elected official from a different branch of government to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed. >> mr. chief justice, i send an amendment to the desk to subpoena mulvaney, bolton, duffey, blair, and the white
house, omb, dod, and state department documents and i is ask that it be read. >> the clerk will report. >> senator from new york mr. schumer proposing an amendment 1295. at the appropriate place in the matter following the resolving clause insert the following. section notwithstanding any other provision -- >> the amendment be considered as read. >> without objection, so ordered. the majority leader is recognized. >> i move to table the amendment. >> is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. alexander. >> aye. >> mr. alexander iowa.
mr. barrasso, aye. mr. bennett? mr. bennett no. mrs. blackburn. mrs. blackburn aye. mr. blumenthal. mr. blumenthal no. mr. blunt. mr. blunt aye. mr. booker? mr. booker no. mr. bozeman? mr. bozeman aye. mr. braun? mr. braun aye. mr. brown? mr. brown no. mr. burr? mr. burr aye. miss cantwell? miss cantwell no. mrs. catito. mrs. capito no. mr. garden no. mr. carper? mr. carper no. mr. casey? mr. casey no.
mr. cassidy? mr. cassidy aye. miss collins? miss collins aye. mr. kunze? mr. kunze no. mr. cornyn? mr. cornyn aye. miss cortez masto? miss cortez masto no. mr. cotton? mr. cotton no. mr. cotton aye. mr. cramer? mr. cramer aye. mr. crapo? mr. crapo aye. mr. cruz? mr. cruz aye. mr. daines? mr. daines aye. miss duckworth? miss duckworth no. mr. durbin? mr. durbin no.
mr.enszy? mr.enszy aye. miss ernst? miss ernst aye. mrs. feinstein? mrs. feinstein no. mrs. fisher? mrs. fisher aye. mr. gardner? mr. gardner aye. mrs. gillibrand? mrs. gillibrand no. mr. graham? mr. graham aye. mr. grassley? mr. grassley aye. miss harris? miss harris no. miss hassan? miss hassan no. mr. hawley? mr. hawley aye. mr. heinrich? mr. heinrich no. miss hirono? miss hirono no. mr. hoeven? mr. hoeven aye. mrs. hyde-smith? mrs. hyde-smith aye.
mr. enhough? mr. enhov aye. mr. johnson? mr. johnson aye. mr. jones? mr. jones no. mr. kane? mr. kane no. mr. kennedy? mr. kennedy aye. mr. king? mr. king no. miss klobuchar? miss klobuchar no. mr. langford? mr. langford iowa. mr. leahy? mr. leahy no. mr. lee? mr. lee aye. mrs. leffler? mrs. leffler aye. mr. mansion? mr. mansion no. mr. markey? mr. markey no. mr. mcconnell? mr. mcconnell aye. miss mcsally?
miss mcsally aye. mr. menendez? mr. menendez no. mr. markly? mr. murkly no. mr. more an? mr. moran aye. miss murkowski? miss murkowski aye. mr. murphy? mr. murphy no. mrs. murray? mrs. murray no. mr. paul? mr. paul aye. mr. purdue? mr. purdue aye. mr. peters? mr. peters no. mr. port man? mr. port man aye. mr. reed? mr. reed no. mr. risch? mr. risch aye. mr. roberts? mr. roberts aye. mr. romney? mr. romney aye.
miss rosen? miss rosen no. mr. rounds? mr. rounds aye. mr. rubio? mr. rubio aye. mr. sanders? mr. sanders no. mr. sass? mr. sass aye. mr. shotz? mr. shotz no. mr. schumer? mr. schumer no. mr. scott of florida? mr. scott of florida aye. mr. scott of south carolina aye. mrs. shaheen? mrs. shaheen no. mr. shelby? mr. shelby aye. miss sinema? miss sinema no. miss smith? miss smith no. miss stab now no.
mr. sullivan? mr. sullivan aye. mr. tester? mr. tester no. mr. thune? mr. thune aye. mr. tillis? mr. tillis aye. mr. toomey? mr. toomey aye. mr. udall? mr. udall no. mr. van hollen? mr. van hollen no. mr. warner? mr. warner no. miss warren? miss warren no. mr. white house? mr. white house no. mr. wicker? mr. wicker aye. mr. widen? mr. wyden no. mr. young? mr. young aye.
we're watching what could probably be a foredoomed set of votes. we don't know yet, of course. three of the proposals are amendments by chuck schumer, the democratic leader. one is to subpoena an array of appropriate witnesses. mick mulvaney, john bolton, michael duffey, blair, both omb people. let's listen to the chair. >> the motion is agreed to. >> to -- >> that was a motion to deny
that proposal. >> to subpoena john r. bolton. i ask that it be read. >> the clerk will report. >> the senator from new york, mr. schumer, proposed an amendment number 1296 at the appropriate place in the revolving clause insert the following. section notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution pursuant to rules 5 and 6 of the rules of procedure and practice in the senate when sitting on impeachment trials, the chief justice of the united states, the secretary of the senate shall issue a subpoena for the taking of witness of john robert bolton and the sergeant at arms is authorized to utilize the services of the deputy sergeant-at-arms or any other employee of the senate to authorize the subpoena by this section. >> the leader is recognized. >> i move to table the amendment. >> is there a sufficient second? there is.
the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. alexander aye. miss baldwin -- >> okay, we are going to go through this procedure at least four times. chuck, you have a thought about the vote last time. we had a vote to table. party line vote. >> it was interesting that it was a party line vote, 53-47 best i could tellusning to the roll call to deny an amendment that would have permitted four witnesses to be called. two from omb and mr. bolton and mr. mulvaney from the white house. that went down on a party line vote. this amendment is simply to call mr. bolton, one witness. i wonder if that will look like the vote we saw earlier today where susan collins, republican of maine, and mitt romney, republican of utah broke ranks with the republicans and joined the ind spends and democrats seeking that testimony. >> that would be consistent?
>> it would be consistent. one thing i think is so interesting about this resolution is, you know, mr. mcconnell is making -- senator mcconnell is making sure that whatever new evidence comes forward between now and wednesday cannot be introduced. >> the record is closed. >> the record is closed. so it says resolved that the record in this case shall be closed. when you close a record -- and no motion with respect to reopening the record shall be in order. what that is telling you is that whatever new relevant explosive evidence comes out in saturday or sunday or -- you get the idea. >> you know, that's an old senate method. they always vote. they get one to vote against something that fails or vote for it, and then they call for another vote and then they lock it in because two times you are dead. >> so they are dead. and this goes back to one of the reasons why mitch mcconnell can say, oh yeah, we'll give you
time to make your floor statements. we'll just close the record so anything embarrassing doesn't reopen and relitigate this question of witnesses. >> let's jump to the next resolution. it is fertile as hell. he says -- let's bring in bolton. subpoena bolton. that's repeating what they did in the second vote that's up now. but let's have one day of a deposition, one -- with the justice, chief justice presiding over that deposition. and then another day of live testimony. i assume before this tribunal, before the senate, and both would occur within five days of adoption of the underlying resolution. they are saying we want 53 republicans to have the nerve to vote against subpoenaing this guy for five -- within five days, no big delay, it will be over in five days, which would be saturday, sunday, monday, tuesday, wednesday. which happens to be the day of the vote. neat, huh? >> there is some subtext to this one, which is by putting the chief justice in the room, that means they get immediate rulings
on any assertion of executive privilege or other privilege by the white house. >> they would like -- >> well, we saw the chief justice look very unwilling at least to break ties. one would have to think that he would agree to make evidentiary rulings. maybe he could let it go out to the federal courts. but that seems very, very dicey. >> it's interesting because, so just security, which is ryan good man's blog, a great log,bl put out much more history behind the andrew johnson impeachment. so you heard the chief justice say, well, in the andrew johnson impeachment the only rulings that justice chase made, chief justice chase made was on adjournment. in other words, very transactional things. well, he did make rulings on evidence. he did make a couple of rulings on evidence. now, you can argue about whether the current senate rules should be read consistent with the practice during andrew johnson's trial, but you certainly can't
say that there is not a history of a chief justice making some evidentiary rulings. >> let's go to that because there are four resolutions. they are all going to be tabled, of course, by mitch mcconnell, try to avoid a direct up or down. he'll probably get those 51 or 53 votes. look how interesting they are. the third one is for a deposition from bolton and then an open day of hearings in the senate all within five days. now, the fourth resolution was put forward not by schumer but by chris van howen, the senator from maryland. he would offer a requirement that the chief justice rule on motions to subpoena -- rule on motions to subpoena witnesses. that he would decide. and on documents, and to rule on any assertion of privilege. in other words, he would decide whether to accept and expected if not delivered yet, expected to call for privilege. he can get ahead of the call for privilege. he can say you are not getting it? >> very much like what we heard
adam schiff suggest when he said there is a fine chief justice behind me. i can't see him, but he can rule on the issues. this is asking republican senators to go on record saying they are not confident in the chief justice's rulings, they can't trust him. >> but i think the white house has another play and it was intimated in an argument that they would go to federal court if they had to to seek an injunction or some other redress. so even if that amendment passes, and i doubt very much it will, i'm not sure the white house has to abide by it. they can go elsewhere and seek -- >> that's a key question. we will get to that -- no, we'll never get to that. this is tabled. let's go back to the floor.
>> are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the yays are 51, the nays are 59. the motion is agreed to. the democratic leader is recognized. >> mr. chief justice, i send an amendment to the desk to subpoena to subpoena john r. bolton. provided further that there be one day for a deposition presided over by the chief justice and one day for live testimony before the senate. both of which must occur within five days of the adoption of the underlying resolution and i ask that it be read. >> the clerk will report. >> the senator from new york mr. schumer propose an maefr12 --
>> who predicted a vote of 51-49? was that you? >> afraid so. >> explain how you knew that was coming. >> earlier today there was a vote on whether or not other witnesses might be called and that was the one we were watching so carefully and wondering whether enough republicans would defect to the democratic side. to open up that door. only two republicans defected. senator mitt romney of romney and senator susan collins of maine. the final vote was 59-49. two votes so far today. again, democrats seeking to obtain witnesses , and the firs one, and this is complicated, they ask for a whole bunch of witnesses. and apparently there was no taste on the republican side for that because the republicans held together and voted 53-47 to defeat that. included in that 53 were romney and collins. they said, no, we don't want a whole bunch of witnesses.
we were interested in bolton. the second amendment was just for bolton. and again we saw the vote revert to what we had earlier today, 51-49 presumably, i didn't hear the roll call, with collins and romney joining the democrats once again. >> okay. you got the hot hand at the craps table. >> oh, no i don't. >> the third resolution is coming out. the amendment calling for not just bolton, but also for a day of deposition of bolton and a day of live testimony by bolton. ergo, are you saying these two people, romney and collins will vote again with the democrats? >> you've got to know when to fold 'em, when to walk away, and whether to run. >> are they consistent? >> i think they shouldk. if they are not consistent, they are not consistent. >> could i make a point on this? you nailed it, chuck. but this suggests that collins and romney are really just bowing to some of the political pressure around bolton. the person we need to hear from is michael duffey, who was in the first motion. michael duffey was the budget
official who within two hours after trump's call with zelensky sent the email to dod saying freeze the money. if romney and collins were really interested in being fact finders on this, they would have voted yes on the first one, too. it's intriguing what led them to vote no. >> that's an important point, david. you are absolutely right. that is the pure approach. we are fighting over table scraps when in real life, in any federal court, where joyce and m mia prosecuted and defended the united states of america, we wouldn't be having this debate. you call whatever witnesses you need. the other side calls whatever witnesses it needs. there are no silly resolutions or amendments or motions to determine who is called and how long you have to talk to them. >> if you get a new witness that you didn't know had facts that were relevant to your case -- a judge is not going to say, no, the jury cannot hear from that relevant witness that has facts. >> so we're ready for the
results. let's see if we are right. the third resolution here. this seems to be a political move as well by the democrats. it seems like this is the kind of information they want to get to, make collins' re-election campaign all the more difficult, and set, you know, these are called 30-second ad votes. >> yeah, show votes. >> you coudo these things to ge the other side exposed. >> for viewers joining us, what happened in the last two hours, they reached the end of their original plan, which was the vote on witnesses, and then what do you do next. they had to figure that out. schumer had enough procedural moves to make this go on for four, five days and it would have been messy. roy bloupt sant said we knew the conceded he could take us to wednesday. what they did is mcconnell had to balance three competing factors. does his caucus want a chance to go to the floor and justify their votes, give a speech for the record? most sneers waenators want to. what schedule did the white house want?
did they want the president to be acquitted tonight? monday night before the state of the union, tuesday night, wednesday. and he had to know he had control of the caucus to shut down everything that schumer wanted to do. they said to schumer, here, you go offer your four political votes that you can make your ads on. we will vote them down. we will move forward. chris, what's interesting though is in no small way this really changes the dynamic of the state of the union on tuesday night. donald trump wanted the full acquittal. the republicans were going to cheer him. they will still cheer him, but it softens both sides on tuesday night. donald trump will be still sitting awaiting the final verdict in the senate. he can't take a legitimate victory lap tuesday night. and democrats will also have to know that that vote is coming on wednesday. in some ways, i think for the country it may be good because it softens some of the elbows tuesday night. it doesn't allow for the raw partisanship on a night that should be about the state of the
union. >> we have been reciting the 75%, the percentage of the popular vote, i have to emphasize, that wants to see witnesses. what do you think that is true, in colorado, a purple state, in north carolina, in iowa, states that will be contested this november? >> for colorado and cory gardner it makes it harder to beat john hickenlooper. he is putting his chips on the table, that this is a turnout election. that cory gardner's only path to re-election is to energize the republican base and get them out. cory gardner was saying i am not going to be able to pull over democrat leaning independents. i have to turn out republican trump supporters. >> same with north carolina? >> tillis showed us his card when he opposed donald trump on reprogram dod money to build the wall. trump came down on him, north carolina republicans came down on him, tillis flipped. >> i wonder if this will go down
in history as a legal judgment, but as a strangely political polarized vote that in a country w where 90%, certainly nine out of ten republicans tend to vote for trump no matter what the issue. the moon is made of cheese. yeah, i'm with him. he says so, you know? to the point it explains why people like gardner and those team and tillis, with the only exception of a guy, mitt romney, who is immune to politics as we know it. he is -- his family is utah. he is part of the utah family. he will be there and probably won't run for re-election. maybe the nervous collins, who is very nervous. >> and i think she should be nervous. one of the things that's so striking about this decision, this, you know, see no evil, hear no evil is that what it means to the constitution, what it means to the average person. many of whom may have to show up
into court one day and -- or who have been in court who know no one ever told me people who are going to come say bad things about me that were going to make me pay money out of my pocket or go to jail, no one got to block them from testifying. and when we heard the lawyers for donald trump say it is divisive to impeach, well, how divisive is it to be a senate that participates in a cover-up? >> these are senators who took an oath at the beginning of this proceeding to do fair and to do impartial justice. and so to crist' point as to whether this is political vote, not a vote for justice in america. >> if no, the yeas are 51. the nays are 49. the motion is agreed to. >> mr. chief justice -- >> the senator from maryland. >> mr. chief justice, i send an
amendment to the desk to have the chief justice rule on motions to subpoena witnesses and documents and to rule on any assertion of privilege. and i ask that it be read. >> the clerk will report. >> the senator from maryland, mr. van hollen, proposing apmaefrmt 1298 at the appropriate place in the matter following the resolving clause insert the following. notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the presiding officer shall issue a subpoena for any witness or any document that a senator or a party moves to subpoena if the presiding officer determines that the witness or document is likely to have probative evidence relevant to either articles of impeachment before the senate and consistent with the authority of the presiding officer to rule on all questions
of evidence shall rule on any assertion of privilege. >> leader is recognized. >> mr. chief justice, i move to table the amendment as to the a's and a's. >> is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. alexander, aye. >> you got it right. >> well, i just followed -- chuck got it right. >> you had two rights. the idea that people are recording this is obvious to everybody. most obvious to the senator herself in that case, and himself, they know that they have made their mark in history right here. they will know -- everybody at home who goes to the republican clubs shows up for meetings, kicks in some money, every single one of them knows how they voted on the issues. >> that's right. and i think that was why that vote, that second vote on bolton had -- and on testimony had to go the way it went because otherwise your statement and your vote for witnesses is
just -- just looks like the lie it would be if you didn't vote for john bolton. i mean, you couldn't make a consistent argument about witnesses. >> can i give you a raw data point? >> do you remember your votes? >> oh, yeah. >> ones that scared the hell out of you? >> i absolutely do. in fact, i was talking today, i remember that the one time i let leadership really break my arm, and i swore after that vote i am never going to do this again. >> they made you vote against your district? your conscience or what? >> conscience, yeah. i kinda struck a deal to go along and they pulled the rug out from underneath. the votes i remember that i am proudest of you, went against leadership. it was the right thing to do. here is the raw data point whether it comes to this vote and re-election. we were joking after romney had the adawesty to vote to call witnesses, cpac disinvited him. how dare you vote -- >> explain cpac to the liberals out there.
>> the conservative political action conference. >> it has some crack pots in it, too? >> it's gotten pretty far right. but just because mitt romney to hear a witness, they disinvited him this year. here's why that matters to senators except for mitt romney. cory gardner who says my state might be going blue but i'm sticking with trump, every candidate knows you have to keep your support among your party's voters around 92%. that's the mendoza line, to use a baseball term. if you fall below 92% within your own party, you are dead. you can't recover. in the trump republican party you start to cross trump, it is easy to fall below that 92%. at the end. day the dispassionate consultants that decide how to spend money to create your message they are looking at the numbers and telling cory gardner if you break from trump during the impeachment trial, you will be in the low 80s, maybe 70s, you might as well pack your
bags. >> in this case, not the wing that bru ones that brung you. the ones that brung trump? >> that's right. it's his party, right? >> yeah. >> look, it is his party because the republican party elevated him. we were talking earlier today. some have said that trump hijacked the republican party. he walked through the front door to their open arms and they embraced him as their hero. there were growing pains along the way. this party doesn't just support this president. they celebrate him. that's the oddity to see a man of such failing, just in his government service let alone some of his own personal traits, such failings be celebrated by the republican party. >> "the new york times's" nicholas fan dose tweeted this. quote, mcconnell called trump tonight before he introduced the resolution organizing the end of the trial per a person familiar, they discussed details and the president signed off. nbc has confirmed the reporting.
here we go again, joyce, coordination. what do you want to call it? collaboration? the whole deal. the defendant in this case getting along so nicely with his pals in the senate. >> well, mitch mcconnell told us straight off the bat that he had no intention of being an impartial juror in this proceeding. to be fair, there is some necessary level of organization between the white house and the senate in a setting like this. history will judge it. >> i will be working with the white house lawyers all the way along. >> absolutely, right? i mean, straight up the middle. here, though, i think it's sort of the key point to what we have been talking about, about the moral failings in this republican party. the fact is that their vote of bravery here is two republican senators voting to hear one witness. not voting to hear all of the witnesses. not entertaining thoughts about a president who sought to give up united states national security interests to secure his
own re-election, not whether he deserved removal. this party has failed the country. >> two votes from the republicans side. you have to have a book from a major publishing house ready to go with a pub date two and a half months off. that's what it takes. >> i said we are fighting over table scraps. that's so disappointing. we have spent a week talking about whether enough republican senators would have enough courage to step forward so we could call some witnesses. this is so an at ma to the systems in which we grew up as prosecutors. it's not the way it works. i understand that's the way it just worked in the senate, but that's not the way it was designed to work. >> orchestrated, not worked. >> this will become literally, literally the first impeachment trial in the history of the united states to call zerone witnesses. >> i think that's something that those of us who are not attorneys, who love courtroom dramas, have always loved them. going back to perry mason.
my dad was a court stenographer. he used to watch perry mason and practice on his steno graph. but we always loved that. there is that wonderful drama, the unpredictability of jurors, the sense that it was fair. i don't think i have seen many great dramas, whether the verdict or any others, that didn't assume the jury was okay. that it was a good thing. >> if no, the yeas are 53. the nays are 47. the motion is agreed to. >> the question occurs on the adoption of senate resolution 488. is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. alexander. mr. alexander aye. >> well, i do think people believe in juries.
your thought? >> yeah, i think people believe in juries. i think particularly more recently there have been some shows that have pulled out some of the dirty things that happened. i mean, when i say dirty things, there are people who tamper with juries, temper with juries and try to interrupt jurors being fair and obviously that is something that i think is fairly rare and it is hard to get away with. but it is that it doesn't happen. but i think more importantly it is, i think, rare. i think people are right to put their faith in juries except that we have a long history of all kinds of things bad around jury. we have black people excluded from juries even if they are the defendants on the notion that white people would be impartial about black people but black people couldn't be impartial about white people. and obviously that is unconstitutional now and that is a good thing. but it is not -- we have more of a checkered history than we would like to believe. >> so voir dire is when you pick
the jury. and they say how many women can you get and how many people of color can you get so question know how you stack or try to shape a jury. this jury was shaped already by the voters. it is a republican vote -- jury with a republican defendant. >> i have to push back and say i never looked at my juries that way. i was happy to take the first 12 jurors who were in the box. >> so you were normal. >> but what you wanted to do is screen out people who had prejudice. for instance a jury who said i have prejudged these issues and then ask the judge to remove that juror. >> how would they reveal that. >> you ask questions in voir dire and in my court it was usually the prosecutor. so then you would ask the judge to strike that juror for cause. here the democrats had to keep a jury that was stacked with people who were on record saying that they had already prejudged the issues and yet they were permitted to pass judgment, will be permitted to pass judgment -- >> chuck, why do you think -- and then to dave, why do you
think mitch mcconnell was to blatant in saying he was bias? >> well, if you're going to be really blatant in saying your buys as, some people might say he is open and transparent. he didn't hide the fact that he was coordinating with the white house. does he deserve credit for that? you decide. >> he went tufurther. he said i'm a bias juror. >> oh, no, i'm not. >> transparent meaning he was bigoted in favor of this president. to use a tough word. >> yeah, he was. and if the republican party was serious they would have a debate over what the appropriate accountability was for the president. when lamar alexander came out and said what the president did was wrong and rubio said it was wrong p but doesn't rise to the level of impeachment and what is it. what should you do. and interesting line of questioning from zoe lofgren during questions said what is different from the impeachment
of bill clinton that has you saying different things, miss lofgren and he said clinton committed perjury and it is on a private matter and in this case donald trump used the office of the presidency to commit wrongdoing. that is the gravity that republicans are ignoring. >> we don't have much time so i want to get to the heart of it. we saw the movie 12 angry men and the juror thought there was something wrong with the case and wasn't sure and they never made clear, if he was innocent but not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty so i thought that somebody had to take control of that closed room and i think they still smoked in those days, claustrophobic room and romney was the one to cast the right vote, a vote of conscious but he didn't organize four or others to lead them to make it more than four or do what a leader would have done, my thought. >> well, i can't say that i know all of the things mitt romney did or did not do.
i think it is clear with the statement of mitch mcconnell that there is no daylight between me and the president's defense that it was -- that he was going to use his authority at the top of that food chain in a way that was going to be very powerful and very hard to counter. what strikes me, particularly when we think about the nixon impeachment, is the republican party was circling the wagons around nixon for a long time until -- until the watergate tapes. it wasn't until the smoking gun or the smoking hall of the republican tapes that the republicans went, wait a minute, okay, game over. we have john bolton, not to mention the president himself or rudy giuliani, but in this case certainly john bolton should be a moment where people say, hey, wait a minute. >> and by the way, richard nixon, not to crown him king richard here, he knew he was
caught. that is a big difference. >> why did mitt nit n-- why did romney not be the man in the room, mitch mcconnell doesn't ask questions, he makes statements. he tells people this is the direction we're going to go. i will work with you to get you to where i need you to be but we're not having a conversation about whether or not we're going to get there. >> your thought in the comparison between this and the jury and mitt romney who did have a conscious vote but he didn't move anything. >> clearly he didn't move anything. we don't know what happened behind the scenes. did he try to lobby certain senators to come over to his side but it is remarkable that no one else other than romney had a conscious vote. i think senator collins had a vote of political ex pepedience. >> let's talk about bugs bunny,
that would be mitch mcconnell, if he had the vote on witnesses before they sat down and the first order of business had been witnesses, i wonder if he would have been so successful so all of the days to grind him down, even with the arrival of the unbelievable quotes from the bolton book, he took a bad day there, day and a half and quickly he ground them down. >> yeah. and i found that astounding because i said, i would have thought it would get harder and harder to hold the caucus in light of what was coming out, that it would have almost been better just to have the vote except that he didn't probably have the votes, right. but that it should have gotten harder and harder to hold them together. >> let's talk about the next five days. "new york times" is still publishing. i'll make a prediction. five days of "new york times" coming out and mike schmidt who could be good at the helm. >> but this deal is done. one, legally they closed record tonight and mitch mcconnell will say it doesn't matter, we're moving on. and in addition from the news
coming out and maybe it is parnas and does bolton do an interview and tuesday thiet state of the union will be nine ammic to watch. >> trump cannot say i was not impeached. >> he cannot say that. >> over his left shoulder is nancy pelosi. >> i was in the chamber when the monica lewinsky had broken about bill clinton. >> back to the trial. >> -- the nays are 57. the resolution is agreed to. mr. majority leader. >> mr. chief justice, i ask unanimous consent that the secretary be authorized to include statements of senators explaining their votes, either given or submitted during the legislative sessions of the senate on monday, february 3rd, tuesday, february 4th, and wednesday, february 5th. along with with the full record of the senate's proceedings, and the filings by the parties in a
senate document under the supervision of the secretary of senate that will complete the documentation of the senate's handling of these impeachment proceedings. >> without objection, so ordered. >> further, i ask unanimous consent when the senate resumed session on monday, february 3rd, tuesday, february 4th, and wednesday, february 5th, the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each for debate only. >> without objection. so ordered. >> and finally, i ask unanimous consent that the trial adjourn until 11:00 a.m. february 3rd and that this order also constitute the adjournment of this senate. >> without objection, so ordered. we are adjourned. >> so now we know the schedule for the rest of the next five
days. we're still going to get a verdict it looks like on wednesday and i turn over this gavel to my likewise named chris hayes. >> great to of you. great to be with you here at home. as chris said, it is a remarkable in the impeachment trial of the president of the united states. tonight the senate voted it will not hear if witnesses in the impeachment trial of donald j. trump before republicans vote likely to acquit him next week. the big vote today largely a party line vote. 51-49. the senator susan collins and mitt romney the only republicans to vote for witnesses and more evidence. even in the abstract. just witnesses and more evidence as a principle. here is the thing. two republicans who were considered possible swing votes ended up voting against witnesses, they did not do it because they believe the president is innocent. retiring senator lamar alexander released a statement last night saying it is not a question whether the president did what he is aaccused of. that is established. but his behavior, which he
called inappropriate, is not enough to remove him. alaska senator lisa murkowski said i have come to the:collusion there will be though fair trial in the senate and it is sad to admit that as an institution congress has failed. she is, of course, part of that institution casting a near deciding vote in a monumentally important question. now to be clear she said the trial is not fair and congress failed but also don't want to hear my evidence as we hear more damning evidence. new york time reports reporting that president trump john bolton to help in the extortion seem by setting up a meeting between the ukrainian president and rudy giuliani according to bolton's upcoming book. reading from the times, that conversation in early may including pat cipollone who is now leading the president's impeachment defense. the man standing in the well of the senate defending the president taking umbrage at any
question of his integrity and great umbrage in fact. he knew about the corrupt scheme according this reporting. today we learned the senate is fine not calling any witnesses to discuss that. the trial is not over. less than an hour ago they voted on the new organizing resolution to establish procedure on monday senators will hear closing arguments followed by speeches by senators on the floor to continue into wednesday which is crucially after the state of the union. the senate will vote on whether to convict the president on wednesday at 4:00 p.m. joining me now at table. former u.s. attorney for the northern district of alabama, joyce vance, michael steele and maya wiley and former florida republican congressman david jolly. my big takeaway from today is that it feels -- in some degrees like the kavanaugh trajectory. the votes were not there.
they wanted that open kennedy seat more than anything. they spent 30 years working for that, right. but the democrats fought and there were tremendous allegations and we heard from the witness, there was then an fbi investigation reopened and when it all was said and done, they voted to confirm kavanaugh. but it didn't mean democrats shouldn't have fought. sometimes in politics you pick fights and you go into fights that you don't have the votes for and you see where it shakes out and this strikes me similar with one big difference. kavanaugh was mobilizing and i don't think it is mobilizing for people who -- republicans who don't like trump. i don't think that witness vote particularly is a good vote. i think cory gardner was happy and proud to vote for brett kavanaugh and martha mcsally. they were not cross-pressured. but that vote today and i think and i'm curious what you think, that is a bad vote for cory gardner and martha mcsally joni
ernst and thom tillis. >> it is a hard vote for them. i think because the problem that those senators have gotten boxed into it is that trump kept pushing them further and further into a particular box. where you have to support me. you have to stay with me. otherwise i'll unleash the hounds and we've seen examples of that in this process for those who have kind of got outside of the rope line, they find a way to push them back. so now they have to figure out how they carry this water for the next six to eight, nine months. when they get back home b and get into the throws of the campaign, primary is not a problem. that is not the issue. the problem is in the general. and then the rest of the population begins to express its frustration about what you did. >> david, let me ask you this, because you represented a district in florida whose makeup is similar to some of the areas in scottsdale or colorado springs that mcsally and gardner
are going to have to do pretty well. normally i would argue that a process vote doesn't matter that much. i think this one is different. and think it sticks to them with those constituency. >> this is worse than voting to acquit. >> i agree. >> collins is getting it just right, not too hot, not too cold and she's vote for-- voting for witnesses. she'll vote to acquit. and you're right, it was a 50/50 district and obama won it twice and i won it twice. and if you could demonstrate a reasonableness and fairness, you can pick up a couple of points. what -- >> the margins matter. >> mcsally and gardner decided we're going fully to try to turn out our republican side. we're not going to get even the one or two to come over. i would say flip it on the head, though, i think it is good for democrats. not that we should talk about this in raw political terms but they are coming off a historic
midterm election and typically you can't sustain that energy for the next election two years later. this might have the unusual dynamic of sustaining the blue wave energy all the way through november of 2020. >> 100% agree. i want to talk about that. but i want to go to one of the
hundred jurors, chris van hollen from maryland. your thoughts at the end of the tumult kwus and for you i'm sure frustrating day. >> chris, frustrating and really disgraceful for the senate and the country. because today was really the final moment of truth. as to whether or not we would have a fair trial meaning calling relevant witnesses and documents which is the way you conduct trials all over the country and republicans voted no. they then voted down my amendment that would allow the chief justice of the united states to determine which witnesses and documents were relevant.
i could think of no more impartial, no more fair way than to resolve these issues than to allow the chief justice to do it just like in courts every day around the country and they said no to that. so this is the first impeachment trial in the history of the united states with no witnesses and documents and that is a disgrace on the senate.
we should be trying to seek the truth, not bury it. >> i would like to get yu reaction to the statements of your republican colleagues that they've put out. lamar alexander will take that for example and we'll dive into a variety of the statements but senator alexander saying that the the case was -- to his mind it was proven by the house managers. it established what the president did. but that the remedy is not removal, that you don't remove a president who is inappropriate and then later in an interview with "the new york times" saying but there is tax cuts and gutted regulation and judges on the court. what is your response to that? >> well, look, i read that very
carefully. senator alexander's statement. he said it was inappropriate, that the president had a lapse in judgment. this is like talking about jaywalking and a speeding ticket, especially after having found -- after having found that the house managers proved all of the facts in the abuse of power claim. having established that, in fact, the president and his lawyers are deceiving the senate and deceiving the country when they say the president did not hold up the aid in order to get these political concessions, essentially what senator alexander said is the house proved the case when it comes to abuse of power but we're not doing to have any remedy, certainly not in the form of impeachment. so i found the conclusion very dissatisfying and the problem we've got here now is establishing the precedent first for having a rigged trial with no witnesses and documents, and second for having no
accountability for the president for these incredibly wrongful acts and crimes against the constitution. >> i'm curious, because of the reporting about that may meeting that pat cipollone was present in, according to the characterize is of someone who read john bolton's manuscript, what it was like to be in the room with pat cipollone who is a fact witness who may have to a degree we're still not clear on been enmeshed in the very scheme at issue in the impeachment trial. >> well that is exactly right. he was in the room. that makes him a fact witness. he was part about hatching this plot and scheme from early on and now he's in front of the united states senate participating in what seems to be, as the truth comes out, clearly deceiving the united states senate. to be part of a legal team
knowingly misrepresenting the facts and that is true if john bolton is telling the truth and i suspect he is, then that really raises the question of that the president's lead lawyer in this case and there may well be ethics panels and others that review this situation when all of the facts come in. >> senator chris van hollen, thank you. i want to turn back to the panel. mia, to what chris van hollen was just saying, part of what is strange here, the trial is not over, we're headed toward a final vote on wednesday. but the cake has been baked. there is no sense of finality. in the clinton impeachment trial there was. in fact, i watched the two minute clip of him watching out of the rose garden dog faced and ashen, apologetic saying let's all come together. his approval rating went to 65% and huge political cost to republicans and everyone was like well we're done with this now. this doesn't feel done partly
because of what senators talked about vis-a-vis the revelations and what we don't know. >> the most important thing here is one of the reasons this vote for no witnesses is so staggering isn't because we have a history of having witnesses, quite frankly. if there were no new witnesses or witnesses with additional information i won't support it but you certainly could make an argument like a lamar alexander made that said, well they -- they proved the case. he did it. i'm just not going to vote for impeachment. that would make some sense. you could defend that and not say that's precedent setting because you have everything. when you have a lev parnas who was saying i was in the room or i have audio tapes with the president a year before this -- >> documents. >> saying how long could ukraine last without our support. it has to be authenticated. but that would be part of the
process. you heard today jay sekulow complaining about being able to cross-examine witnesses and part of the what the democrats were offering is that opportunity. so that is what makes it so shocking. the other thing that bill clinton had, which donald trump did not get today, bill clinton had republicans who crossed the aisle to vote for his acquittal. that is not going to happen here. >> well that is a great point and interesting point today. there was not a lot of question marks i think about holding the democratic caucus even though there are few members of the caucus who are in tough spots. doug jones would be -- and someone that i know you know and you're from the great state of alabama, voted with the democrats today, the caucus held together on all of those votes. what do you think about that vote and how hard or easy the witness vote was for someone like doug jones? >> it depends on why you're making the vote, right. if you're making a party line vote to try to protect your
election, well then you're suzanne collins. i haven't talked with doug but i read his twitter feed and what i see him doing repeatedly is tweeting about the importance of the process. this isn't the same process that jay sekulow was talking about. this is a process that underlines why we have a criminal justice system where we're looking for finality in trials and that is why we have witnesses and cross-examination and rulings on evidence. so at the end we have that sense of finality that you said we don't have here. that is why you need to hear the witnesses and that makes a vote by doug jones pretty easy. >> i don't think it was a hard vote, that on witnesses. the flip side on doug mansion and i want to bring in democratic senator jon tester from montana. senator, what is your feel being today? >> i don't think it was a stal ear day for the united states senate i'll tell you that. the fact is that this is a very
incomplete trial. i think the house managers did a great job in their prosecution but i think there is much more evidence out there, as you know, that is going to come out over the next days, weeks, months, years, that is just going to show that the senate hasn't done their job. and our job is to have a fair trial. our job is to get the facts. our job is not to stick our finger in the air and see which way the political winds are blowing, rather to find out what the facts are and make a good decision based on the facts. >> of course senator from montana and re-elected in 2018. it is a trump carry by a hefty margin. you have many constituents who are not democrats or republicans, conservatives, folks that may disagree with you on a lot of issues and i wonder what you think about how you plan to talk to or have been talking to your constituents about this trial and what it means and if there is a way to talk to them honestly about why you think this matters to folks that may not agree with you on a
lot politically? >> well, i will tell you basically i think all montanans like fairness. probly all aoss the country that is the way it is. and i think just having a fair trial is critically important. i also think that somebody that has worked on corrupting elections by going after political opponents which is what the impeachment articles are about, i don't think montanans particularly embrace that. i think that they understand that elections are pretty sacred and they need to be protected and they need to be honest. and i think what we've seen over the last ten days is a president who tried to manipulate a foreign country to do his bidding. and political bidding, personal bidding and i think montanan as see through that. are this some that will say jon, you're just flat wrong. of course. but i think majority of montanans want me to do the right things and get the facts and do the right thing. unfortunately, today, we're unable to get more witnesses.
why is beyond me. we've talked before. you know we're not particularly overworked here in the senate. >> no, you are not. >> we could absolutely get that done wop without any problem whatsoever and show the american people because that is really what this is about, that the senate could work. >> it is funny you mention that because i couldn't help by chuckle to myself as i heard long arguments from the president's lawyers about the utter hassle it would be to tie the senate up for weeks maybe months. i watch the senate calendar closely and i talk to u.s. senators like yourself several times a week, basically you guys sit around and confirm judges and then a week or two before the props go out, you pass -- and it is not long days in the work senate these days. >> you're exactly right. and actually that brings up another point, that senator mcconnell is sitting on probably 15 tor 20 bills to help with election security. the truth is there is a lot of work we can do that we don't do.
and i think the time issue is an excuse. it is not really what the problem is. the problem is is that the folks on the other side of the aisle just don't want to believe or think it is not good for them politically to find out the facts and make a decision based on the facts. >> last question for you and i want to channel some of the things i've heard from people that i've talked to, i think there is some real fear and i think some of it might be people c catastrophe and the integrity of free and fair election and foreign interference and possible interference from agents of the federal government opening investigations into political enemies and leaking the fact of investigations and things of that that -- of that nature, where are you on that, how is that keeping you up at night. >> i'm very worried about it. our intelligence community and law enforcement community have shown that russia played a
significant role in the 2016 election. for one person. that is not what we want in our elections. we want people. we want americans to decide elections. and i am very concerned. that if the president is allowed to walk, especially after the information we've heard this week and the information we've heard today, and it will probably hear more tomorrow, that it will just release him to do whatever he wants because he thinks he can do anything and he's above the law. >> senator jon tester, it is great to talk to you, sir. thank you very much. >> thanks, cri chris. >> i want to talk about lisa murkowski and why she tried to save chief justice john roberts and the meaning of the republican statements matter. all of that after this break. ter all of that after this break
trump, democrat senator richard blumenthal of connecticut. maybe we could talk about the amendments just offered and chris van hollen mentioned two that he authored. what was the idea behind having that kind of huddle and break and then coming back with those four amendments. >> great question, chris. what we sought to dramatize through those amendments was the fact that republicans on strict party lines, they whipped everyone in shape, was blocking witnesses who have firsthand knowledge, eyes and ears on the president, and documents that are black and white, absolutely critical corroborative proof. and i might just say, as i listen to my republican colleagueses sitting there on the floor, supposedly the greatest deliberative body and a place i aspired to be and i was so deeply disappointed and dismayed. there is no vindication and no
victory for the president and there is a court of appeals which is the court of public opinion. we have to take our case to the voters in november. >> i want to get your reaction to some of the reasons i've seen from some of your colleagues. senator rubio had a long statement in which he managed to never actually say what he thought about the president's conduct. there was a sort of series of thought experiments but he said this as an abstract principle, just because actions meet a standard of impeachment doesn't mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a president from the office and rob portman similarly saying stipulated more or less the facts here, the president engaged in this kind of extortion, it is not sufficient to remove him from office. what is your reaction to that argument? >> there is so much legal sofistry here and so much hypocrisy and so much alice in wonderland denial and i hope the american people see through it and we need to make clear to
them that all of this reasoning simply makes no sense. and so my disappointment extends not just to the votes but to what they said about them and my hope is that they will be held accountable. i think mitch mcconnell has walked his caucus off a cliff. he's made a short-term political calculation but they are risking long-term cost for exactly the kind of nonreasoning and hypocrisy that you mentioned. >> i want you to -- get your response to this. it has never been the case in the history of the american republic that a member of the united states senate has voted for the removal of a president of their own party. there were no democrats that voted for the removal of andrew johnson in 1868 and there were no democrats that voted for removal of of bill clinton in 1999. what do you say to people who say, look, this is essentially a
partisan affair, a essentially naked question of political power. >> just because it is partisan in the past doesn't mean it has to be partisan when it comes to the evidence. we're talking about the truth here. even if they may ultimately vote for acquittal, the vote against hearing witnesses and documents in this way is absolutely unprecedented. in past impeachment trials there were an average of 33 witnesses. there has never been an impeachment trial in the history of the united states, whether for judges or presidents, without new evidence. that is a stark bipartisan fact. and something broke in these past few days. we need to repair it. and my fear is what broke is our democracy, certainly today's vote was a defeat for our democracy. there is no acquittal here. no vindication, no victory. and as much as donald trump may
trumpet it, it should be regarded for what it is. >> senator richard blumenthal. with me here at the desk -- i want to offer a silver lining take or about the republican responses. it is striking me as and we're now getting on monday and tuesday, four speeches or formal text from the -- each i think each senator explaining their vote. it strikes me as those are important messages from the republicans. the vote is the biggest message, which said you can do what you want. but the text accompanying it does seem to me an opportunity to do a little bit of hand checking. a little bit of warning of the president, a little bit of on notice. not a lot. but it does seem to matter to me, i wonder what people at the table think. you're shaking your head. he doesn't care. >> we're going to disagree on this. >> so go ahead. it is an interesting and open
question. >> we've been talking about this for a day and a half now. >> trump won't care. >> no, he wouldn't. he doesn't like when people say things less than agile about him. >> and that is when he does care. and that is where i was going. so these senators are going to try to do their best version of lamar alexander even if they have to put on the plaid shirt to do it to convince themselves but that is what they'll have to do because he walked that line and lamar could get away because of his seniority and stature in the party and the fact that he's retiring. those who have something on the line in the tall or the next cycle in '22, they're going to have to walk a very, very tight line in that regard. and i don't think they're going to go too far afield in sort of sending a warning shot to the president of the united states. because i can guarantee you this, mark the date and time i say it, that when this is all
done by thursday, all right, his next presidential rally, or campaign or whatever, is going to be off the hook. >> yes. >> and he is going to throw down and he is going to frame this narrative going forward into this election in a way that is going to be very hard for the cory gardners and others to be outside of that messaging. >> chris, i love this conversation. because part of it also depends on how we begin to tell the story for history. and it is an imperfect analogy but i remember being here the morning after the midterms and democrats were kind of upset. they had lost the beto gillam and abrams race and i said you won the house. you won 41 seats. this is what you've been working for, to take the house back. i use that as an analogy because of this, it begins on how we begin to tell the story. what lamar alexander has given us is there is now a bipartisan finding of guilt of the
president. >> see that is exactly my point. >> and i think we're going to see from other republicans, you'll are five to ten more that either just because they're being honest with themselves or because there is political purpose to it or it is time to push back on the president, you're going to have five or ten republicans say donald trump did abuse his office but like rubio would say but it is not impeachable. but we can't focus on the fact that republicans are going to acquit the president. we have to focus on the fact that a majority of the senate has found donald trump the 45th president abused his office. >> just real quick, the rubios are going to give you the word salad. >> which is why this is on us. >> but how do you get in front of that. >> so i think both of these points are true. and can be true. meaning i do think there is the silver lining of saying, no, you were not acquitted. because there was a -- meaning -- proven not guilty. but i also want to go back to the example of georgia and florida.
because what they represented was elections being stolen from black people. and that is fundamental to our constitution and actually to the andrew johnson impeachment for that matter which is are we actually forming a more perfect union or are we not. and so when you say, yeah, what donald trump did to violate our elections for his own personal gain with a foreign government, that's wrong. but you can't impeach him for it. it is actually very dangerous. and when you add the statement, i agree politically you can use it for cover for an acquittal on obstruction, but when you add lamar alexander's statement that the obstruction of congress claim was frivolous, frivolous when this president literally as we are increasingly seeing probably had had a conspiracy going amongst his senior aides ands has proclaimed them
absolute -- absolute immunity from congressional oversight means you can have an administration that can steal the constitution from the people, have a conspiracy with his top generals to do it and congress doesn't have oversight over it. >> i would say for those fighting for truth and justice the one way to lose is to give up. >> yes. >> and that can't happen. >> and i also imagine a version of had this -- of what applying all of these principles for democratic president might look like which is a thing i've been playing with. stay here, joyce vance, maya wiley, michael steel, coming up i'll talk with michael schmidt, one of the reporters behind the massive john bolton revelations and he joins me next. at fidelity, we'll help you
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 better question would be where do i not listen to it. while i'm eating my breakfast... on the edges of cliffs... on a ski lift... everywhere. for a limited time, go to audible.com to save $50 on your first year of membership. it's either the assucertification process. or it isn't. it's either testing an array of advanced safety systems. or it isn't. it's either the peace of mind of a standard unlimited mileage warranty. or it isn't.
for those who never settle, it's either mercedes-benz certified pre-owned. or it isn't. the mercedes-benz certified pre-owned sales event. now through march 2nd. only at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
so today just an hour before the trump impeachment trial resumed "the new york times" dropped yet another explosive story. trump told bolton to help his ukraine pressure campaign book said. quote, mr. trump gave the instruction, mr. bolton wrote, during an if oval office conversation in early may that included the acting white house jeef of staff, mick mulvaney, and rudy giuliani and the white house council pat cipollone who is now leading the president's impeachment defense. and that is not all that bolton could have potentially testified to. starting back in november, his lawyer announced that he had many relevant meetings on ukraine that had not yet been discussedment this december we learned that bolton was participant of a meeting and intervention of sorts. the secretary of defense mike pompeo and mark esper to get trump to release the aid.
then bolton announced he was willing to testify and then starting last weekend we got a string of stories about all of thein crim th-- the incriminatif in bolton's book but neither bolton nor cipollone will testify in the trial. joining me now washington correspondent for "the new york times," michael schmidt. what could you tell us about the meeting that bolton writes about in his book. >> well, in may of last year around the time that giuliani was beginning to agitate for getting the ukrainians to help with these investigations, the president turned to his national security adviser and he said that he wanted him to make sure that the president of ukraine, zelensky, met with giuliani when giuliani went over there. giuliani was planning his trip to go to begin these investigations, and the president wanted to ensure that that would happen.
so he was basically directing his top national security adviser, his national security adviser john bolton to help in facilitating that meeting. >> and what happens here? i think it is interesting the response because one of the things that i think i've learned from your reporting on the white house and others is that there is a lot of sure, boss, i'll get right to it that happens in that white house and this seems like an example of it. >> yeah. it is not clear about everything that bolton did in the after math but he did not make the call. and this fits a pattern that we've seen in the don mcgahns of the world and other senior white house officials who have confronted the president when he has wanted to do things that these officials thought was wrong. it seems like certainly in the case of mcgahn that he would tell the president, you know, he would say oh, i'll look into it or let me get back to you on
that and they would sort of go off on their merry way and they would not do that. as one person once described it to us, unless the president asks three times for you to do something, you could sort of ignore it in the meantime. and it looks like here bolton played that card with trump. >> so correct me if i'm wrong but as of now in terms of the reporting you've done on this book, there is a meeting in august that is a one-on-one meeting or maybe mulvaney is in the room in which bolton is saying you got to release the aid and the president tells bolton, no, i'm not releasing the aid until they start the investigations and there is a may meeting so months earlier when this plot is being hatched of the president directing bolton to be the person that puts giuliani in touch with the new government, right? >> correct. these are -- it changes the timeline. it opens the app ature of what we know about the president's involvement in this. what was significant to us --
>> exactly. >> -- is that you had the president now in may, so that is before the july call, the president is directing his national security adviser whose chief job is in charge of the national security to play a role in helping this effort to dig up dirt on the bidens and help the president refute the 2016 claims that he hates so much. >> we should also note that there is more than a little bit of tension between rudy giuliani writing a letter in which he announced himself as representing the president in a private capacity and the president getting his national security adviser who is paid by u.s. taxpayers and works in the white house to facilitate said meeting. >> yeah, it certainly is mixing milk and meat and it is what democrats would say illustrates the problem with allowing someone like giuliani to be so close to the president. giuliani has all different clients around the world and at the same time he said he
represents the president. so when giuliani goes to meet with zelensky, is he going as the president's lawyers, is he representing other clients? is he raising the prospect of other business? in that may meeting we reported today, giuliani said that there were no other clients or said something along the lines there weren't clients tied to this. and bolton was dubious of that claim because giuliani was representing a lot of people and he was criss-crossing the world doing these consulting, representation or whatever he was doing. >> still not clear who paid for all of this travel actually. slightly murky question. michael schmidt of the "new york times," thank you very much. i want to talk a bit about john bolton and the role he played in all of this and we'll do that right after this break. memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
the best of pressure cooking and air frying now in one pot, and with tendercrisp technology, you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. the ninja foodi pressure cooker, the pressure cooker that crisps. if that was the last time ti was going to do that thing. coming to cancer treatment centers of america, they treat the whole person. everything is here.
imaging, infusion. i don't have to go anywhere else. they cared about me as a person beyond just being a cancer patient. they're my second family. get care like no other. call us at cancer treatment centers of america. just got a chance to talk to michael sh -- schmidt and john bolton as rell van as he is and shameful as the u.s. senate declined to subpoena him, his behavior here strikes me as shameful and i want to talk to former u.s. attorney joyce vance and former republican national committee chairman michael steel and u.s. attorney for the civil division mie a wylie and former florida republican congressman
david jolly. if you have something to say, then say it. there were numerous officials in the same position, fiona hill for instance, who were invited to testify and came to testify. they did not need a subpoena because they were part of the people who came can currently in the government essentially requested a subpoena and got one and john bolton could have testified before the house and if he had truthful information to share then he should have done it and shouldn't have done this ridiculous enterprise that we have now ended up in this situation. >> right. you're 100% right. >> thank you. i like to hear that. >> this is about living to serve another day if a future republican administration. bolton could have chosen to show up and testify at any poin in time. i thought one of the sad parts of the story is he was telling other people to go talk to the lawyers and praising other people for testifying. but be that as it may, we're reading excerpts from books about what the book might be saying or not be saying all it
does is serve the highlight the trial in the senate is incomplete without his in person testimony. we need to hear there oath out of his mouth. >> that is what is so preposterous on this friday thi night, the end of the public record in the third impeachment trial of the u.s. president in the republic's history, there is a big blockbuster book from simon and shuster out in six weeks which by the way that means he was writing it in the white house. like he took that job and -- >> right. >> to get some good book copy. right. clearly this was always in the front of his mind. >> and he had an agreement with the white house. >> he did. about the book. >> so he was also transparent that he was going to write a book. you can't say he wasn't transparent with the white house. and to underscore i think joyce's really important point, there was nothing that stopped him from coming forward if he did not leak that first story on what his book chapter said about
being in the room when donald trump directed a quid pro quo. nothing stopping him from talking about it publicly now. it is what are his downsides? his downsides is largely whether or not he violates national state secrets. national security. and as everyone has said, there is no greater expert on what is national security than john bolton. because he's a private citizen, he has first amendment rights and while he is been waiting for and as we know from his lawyers trying to get the white house to ex ped -- expedite review of his book said just review the chapter quickly and when he didn't he could have provided them notice and said you have 12 hours, let me know and if i don't hear from you, i'm going to assume that that is fine. >> that is right. and it is interesting too because donald trump and his personal life before becoming a public figure is one of the most notorious lit gant-- litigants
history. >> frivolous litigants. >> and i think they might fight and kill the whole thing and spoiling for revenge against john bolton. >> the white house is also starting to do the rope-a-dope on the book and barr is talking about the national security implications and anyone who knows john bolton who is already written, what, six books and gone through the process of vetting the national security so he knows what not to put in a book that is going to flag a white house. so that is a red herring and he knows that is a bunch of noise. the difference in this narrative is those other individuals didn't have books, okay. so that is number one. so they didn't have this thing to protect and sort of feed out. number two, i think he got caught a little bit to your point, mia, he got caught between the push to publish and the unraveling of the story.
and particularly when it became very apparent he was sitting on something at a particular moment that the public needed to know. because trump was about to get away with something that didn't make sense. and so i think that is when all of a sudden pop number one. >> that is what is so ridiculous. >> i know. i'm with you. it is ridiculous. and here is the potential downside. i'm curious to see what everyone thinks about it. i don't know after all of this how the public didn't receive -- then receives the book. >> i totally agree. >> i've been beating this guy up for two days and so i guess i'll do it one more time. nobody should buy this guy's stupid book. this was a moment -- >> i 100% agree. >> and i don't want to say john bolton is unpatriotic and he served the country and nicolle does know him and he operates with his own sense of right and wrong and you could question his right and wrong and this is a sore spot for you going back to some of his national security decisions but he likes to hold himself out and apparently he
stood up and said no, this is wrong what you're doing in the ukraine. forget the stupid book. good that he got the million dollars advance because when he had -- it is a calling of history and to your point, who answers it was lieutenant colonel vindman and fiona hill. >> and vindman is taking shots that need to stov. >> and marie yovanovitch who announced her retirement today for the foreign service. and i want to talk about democracy being on the ballot this year and what this means for the election. joyce vance, michael steel, david jolly and maya wiley. stick around. we'll be right back. stick around we'll be right back. at fidelity, we can help you build a clear plan for retirement to help cover the essentials, as well as all the things you want to do. because when you have a retirement partner
who gives you clarity at every step, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. who gives you clarity at every step, ♪ ♪ ♪ new fixodent ultra dual power provides you with an unbeatable hold and strong seal against food infiltrations. fixodent. and forget it. so to breathe better i started once-daily anoro. ♪go your own way
copd tries to say go this way i say i'll go my own way with anoro. ♪go your own way once-daily anoro contains two medicines called bronchodilators that work together to significantly improve lung function all day and all night. do not use anoro if you have asthma. anoro won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. tell your doctor if you a heart condition, high blood pressure, glaucoma, prostate, bladder or urinary problems. these may worsen with anoro. call your doctor if you have worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain while taking anoro. the most common side effects are sore throat, diarrhea and pain in the arms and legs. ask your doctor about once-daily anoro to start treating your copd. ♪go your own way save at anoro.com introducing ore-ida potato pay. where ore-ida golden crinkles are your crispy currency to pay for bites of this...
...with this. when kids won't eat dinner, potato pay them to. ore-ida. win at mealtime. potato pay them to. the united i liexplorer card. makes things easy. traveling lighter. taking a shortcut. woooo! taking a breather. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com. 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.
still with me here the panel, and david you said something about the way in which this trial kind of coming to a conclusion in this deeply unsatisfactorying and shameful manner right into the election, monday night is the iowa caucus and the first votes cast in the 2020 presidential election and i struggle to articulate the degree to which i have genuine fears about the institutional foundations of american democracy and about a free and fair election this year. the president clearly thinks that what happened in 2016, which results this his victory were two key things. his opponent being under criminal or fbi investigation, and foreign help from an
adversary. he clearly would like to replay that. >> yeah. >> he's just going to run are the same play. so ukraine was two in one in some way s, investigation with this foreign help. i genuinely worry about saudi and mbs who have every reason in the world to interfere on donald trump's behalf and the turks who knows what relationship he has there and i worry about william parr and the department of justice and the integrity of the building and people that work in it under barr's direction and i'm worried about the conditions in chr the american election will be wages and not overstating to say that some fundamental things about the nature of american democracy are on the ballot front and center, front of mind, for every american citizen and voter in this election. >> so that starts with three words. we the people. because at the end of the day, everything you just said falls
to us. >> that is right. you can't control what you can't control. can't control the saudis. >> can't control what you can't control. but we do know what home plate is, home-field advantage. we do have that, right? because that is the goal here. we should be in the next six, seven, eight months leading up to the fall election focused on the very questions in the points that you raised. what does this mean to us? is this worth fighting for? are we willing and ready to capitulate and dwif it over to one man, to the cult of personality, to the cult of one because that is how our government is now being defined. >> that is 100% how it is defined. >> so absolutely and that is where i am. i'm like turn the anger outward. but i will say that one thing we have to pay much more attention to are -- really two things. one is the way in which interference happened from foreign countries, russia in particular, in 2016 was to play
on the very racial division that donald trump himself has stoked. so part of it is we the people has to be all of the people. and we have to be the force that says we are not going to let anti-semitism play here on our home court and not let islama phobia play on our home court and voter suppression on our home court. but this is where donald trump and the damage to the institutions are a decade in the making. they didn't start with donald trump. they started in 2010 when we started actually -- when people and states started making it very hard for citizens to vote. and so part of it is paying attention to those things but i'll add the other factor which is facebook still running political ads with lies, the way in which technology plays a role here that we've not as a country paid sufficient attention to. so it is almost how do we create more of a we the people of a civil society which we're so
technology dependent and haven't had a government help us pay suv attention to how to protect ourselves from that kind of manipulation. >> when i said the way to surely lose is to give up and this is a president who never had the support of the country. he lost the popular election. he had a resounding defeat in the midterms and i could beat this guy and i'm sorry for being so adversarial in this, we need to beat donald trump and there are 23 republican senators on the ballot as well that should go down. >> let me be the voice of optimism for a change. elections are all local, right. they're administered at the local level and we vote for candidates up and down ballot and that is where americans need to rally support. whether that is in states like alabama with you need a suped up i.d. to vote and when you need transportation, knock them out at the local level. >> thank you all for joining us tonight. that does it for us tonight. i'm chris hayes. msnbc impeachment coverage including a live interview with
good evening, i'm ari melber with live coverage of the trump trial. i'm in for rachel who couldn't be here because she's attending the funeral of a family friend. she does wish she could be here on thoerj -- another historic night. here we're three years since a vote that upended more than politics and thunderstorm and decisions an the climate tick moment is now . yes england exiting the european union and in london thousands of people tonight celebrating all over the place. even as those around other parts of the u.k., those who wanted to remain in the e.u., holding vigils. many featuring the e.u. flag which will no longer fly in britain. there are a lot of different questions for something that