tv Senate Impeachment Trial Reaction CSPAN January 31, 2020 11:27am-1:16pm EST
because of the great unity and strength of our caucus from one end to the other, any acquittal of the president has no value. last question. >> realistically, house managers done or said anything differently, any situation -- >> house managers have done a very good job, thank you, everybody. >> we outmaneuvered by mitch mcconnell? >> let me ask about your motion. [inaudible conversations] >> c-span, your unfiltered view of government created in 1979 and brought to you by your
television provider. >> from the senate press gallery on capitol hill, just over 90 minutes from the start of the afternoon session, 1:00 eastern time, the votes will commence on the issue of witnesses. we are live on capitol hill, taking your phone calls and asking do you think witnesses should be included in the impeachment trial of donald trump? 748-8920. if you say witnesses, 8121. we are taking text messages that 202-748-8903. i want to share this from doug jones, democrat from alabama who is up for reelection, he tweeted the following, i cannot get my arms around the fact that we may not get witnesses because we don't want to spend
the time necessary. we have a duty to impartial justice and in the words of advice stevenson, quote, i'm prepared to stay here until hell freezes over to get those answers was we heard last night from lamarr alexander who said the president did hold off aid for ukraine in exchange for information on the bidens but did not proceed with the issue of impeachment for witnesses, this headline from politico.com, they will shutdown the witness demands. a recording of burgess evers, quote, in a dramatic eleventh hour move lamarr alexander announcing he will vote against the motion to call witnesses in the impeachment trial of donald trump nearly end the stitching any hope is that will consider new evidence moving forward, acquitting trump as early as friday evening, republicans may avoid the uncomfortable scenario of a tie vote on witnesses that could put a spotlight on chief justice john roberts. senator susan collins supports
witnesses, mitt romney still to be determined, lisa murkowski, let's get your phone calls on this. from oregon city, oregon, please go ahead. >> caller: i think it is ludicrous not to have witnesses was every other trial i have ever seen or heard of calls witnesses. there is no excuse for it. republicans should know better. they are perjuring themselves. they said that they would give a good, fair hearing and some of them, especially mcconnell and graham had already made up their mind before they went to trial, yet they took a vow to give a fair hearing. >> host: what witnesses do you
want to hear from? >> caller: all the main ones. >> caller: >> host: congressman lees eldon republican from new york, one of the president's largest defender saying adam schiff and nadler, there is witnesses, false, there were 17 and adam schiff called all of them, not only was potus counsel not allowed to call any witnesses but wasn't even allowed in the room. this impeachment sham must end now with an acquittal. this from one of the capital reporters, schumer says if the witnesses vote goes down trump's senate try will be in his words the greatest cover-up since watergate. trump's acquittal will be meaningless and will have a permanent ascarerisk. from senator lamar alexander, there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven, it does not meet the constitution bar for an impeachable offense.
let's go to lynn in las vegas. >> caller: the whistleblower, this is a -- the bottom of why this started. this will be an ever evolving process between the house, go back and have some whistleblower. and somebody testify, the house will be right back in the senate going through the same thing that will happen today. >> host: we have 180 questions
over two days by senators, all but senator nz who did not ask a question. senator lamar alexander would not vote for witnesses. today when the senate convenes at 1:00 eastern time there will be a vote on witnesses and potentially a vote on acquittal possibly tomorrow. expect to learn more when mitch mcconnell basically outlines the schedule, the chief justice will be back in the chair, the presiding officer of the trial and house republicans on the issue of witnesses, here's what they have been saying. >> the evidence given by witnesses, now you have a report of a witness saying aid was considered on these investigations. >> what you just said is there is a report of an unpublished
transcript. about that unpublished transit the president said it is not true. the attorney general has come out and said it is not true. this is why you do. investigations in the house before dumping this on the doorstep of the united states senate. they didn't do that. the senate can't fix this. this was broken and corrupted all the way along, the president was deprived of due process all the way along, this failed in every respect, no single witness will change that. >> what about the process, are you saying you don't believe john bolton? >> we haven't heard from john bolton. >> here is the thing. facts don't change. at this point, what we have heard is about a manuscript and i can tell you we have seen this before. the whistleblower. all of you remember the whistleblower complaint.
a number of false allegations in the with the lower complained that have been totally rebuked and debunked by real testimony and when we start to hear this, to suggest that anymore witnesses are going to provide clarity, no witnesses can provide any more clarity other than the president of the united states, president zelenskyy, the foreign minister of ukraine, or four of them say there was no pressure, no conditionality, no deliverables so to suggest that anybody else has any facts that will change those underlying facts is not credible. >> your colleagues in the senate say he would be a relevant witness. why not have a process on the house side? >> we went through 18 closed-door depositions with leaks taken out of context, facts that have been debunked
and we have heard depositions that have been released, this is nothing new, the spread of the democrats playbook and adam schiff had an opportunity, he subpoenaed john bolton and went through that subpoena. of this testimony was so important it should have been part of the house process. adam schiff chose not to get the important facts and the most important facts remain the same and that ukraine received the aid and there was no conditionality, no investigation into biden. regardless of any news stories is that remain the same. >> are you okay with that as presented in the report? the allegations that were laid out? >> the question before the senators today, the case the democrats bring forward, any of the evidence rising to impeachment offenses and the answer is no, not a single witness who testified has said there is any direct evidence of high crimes, misdemeanors, per treason or bribery. >> your republican colleague think this is changing the republican caucus, that there's increasing pressure. he resigned there may be witnesses? >> someone, john bolton's draft
manuscript supposedly says doesn't change the underlying facts, doesn't change the key facts we were talking about all along and just because they bring it up at the last minute, they tried the same thing in the house, remember? ambassador taylor talked about a conversation between mister sondland and the president of the united states, he never got enough but suddenly in the last week, i overheard this conversation and suddenly that achieves the underlying facts just like someone telling the new york times they think the draft manuscript, that doesn't change anything. the american people want us to get it over with so we can get back to work. >> does this extend the timeline? >> bolton is saying they were waived. why wouldn't you want to go
there? >> don't you want to hear what he has to say? >> adam schiff should have done that on the house side. >> which brings up an important point. everyone needs to remember one thing. in our constitutional system the senate has one important job first, what the defense team is going to present and explain very clearly. they have to answer a threshold question. the senate, the articles that were senate by the house are legitimate on the face. are these valid articles of impeachment? abuse of power and instruction of congress do not meet the constitutional threshold and the senate has to answer the question objectively the right way. when they do, if and when they do the rest is a moot point. the house did not do its job, adam shifted not call the witnesses he thinks he now needed and it is too like, they sent in valid articles and it will dispense with a lot of these superfluous questions.
>> security assistance to pressure ukraine to investigate, that is okay? >> the aid was released to ukraine and there was no investigation. the president has said he did not -- there was no conditionality. gordon somnolent testified as the president's defense team made the case that was presumption and guesswork, the facts remain the same, we have more security more than the obama administration and there was no investigation into the bidens. this is that a shift's choice. adam shifts is scared that his case is so weak. he made the decision to withdraw the subpoena. this is an unfair, unconstitutional and half-baked set of impeachment articles sent to the senate. >> let's go to something here. if john bolton said it must be true. even the president said it
didn't happen, these were all known that he had his witnesses. talk about relevance. why was adam schiff relevant as a witness when him and his staff met with the whistleblower before it became public. they want to the whistleblower out there but when it became public that he no longer had contact there's a relevancy issue but they didn't do it. what they want to do was a talking calendar in the house. you can make arguments they should be done in the senate right now but go back to clinton and nixon. and clinton there was almost three years of a starr report in which everything was aired in grand jury at the white house was involved in, there was nothing there. when the starr report was issued to the house they had their hearings and went forward from there. 70 one of which were never involved with the president but these are relevant witnesses, where was the cover relevant witnesses when adam schiff was holding hearings and not going forward so the premise of your question is old and must be
right. we proved that wrong over and over again. >> host: congressman collins joined by members of the house republican team that is supporting the president, many have been inside the trial in the senate, they speak to reporters, back to your phone calls and the question we are asking is whether you think there should be witnesses. if you say yes 202-748-8920 and if you say no, 22-748-8921. the national journal, in case you missed it, mike nz of wyoming, the only senator not to submit a question during the impeachment trial is on the issue of on the road with john roberts of it is a 50/50 time in terms of witnesses, republicans say john roberts unlikely to break the tie in the senate. referring to roberts who
presided over the impeachment trial, mike braun telling reporters in the capital if we end up in a tie vote that could be overruled by the chair but most republicans do not believe john roberts -- it is unlikely that would happen. get to your phone calls on the issue of witnesses which will be front and center when the senate gavels in. caroline wurster, massachusetts, good morning. >> caller: thank you for taking my call for two quick statements. democrats at every opportunity during the hearings to call their witnesses but there document, they add a remedy for everything that wasn't going their way, they had to chose not to do that. my question is who in god's name has ever heard of prosecutors being demanded to bring in further witnesses to bolster the case of the defendant? >> host: thank you. on to larry in knoxville, tennessee.
good morning. should there be witnesses? >> caller: the only people that would oppose witnesses to a crime would be the criminal and his supporters so definitely there should be witnesses. the point that is being skipped over through all of this, the republican party has become a bunch of thugs but there is a reason for it. back when newt gingrich put out his contract on america that was the start of it and then the tea party had the tea baggers have completely taken over the republican party. until we get back to americans running our government we will continue to have these up senate he is. >> host: thank you. this is what we are seeing
right now from the senate. the cameras in the senate are controlled by the u.s. senate. the house likewise controlled by the house, the senate stands adjourned until 1:00 pm eastern time for the trial of donald trump provided by chief justice john roberts. when the senate comes back at 1:00 eastern time we will take you there live. jerry in sarasota, florida, good afternoon. >> reporter: thank you for taking my call and i have been watching the hearings from day one and i'm watching it now. adam schiff and the democrats have all the opportunity to bring in a witness, they had bolton on subpoena to come in, dropped out for whatever reason i don't know. the whistleblower is the main person in this whole impeachment, nobody wants to have a closed-door hearing with
whoever the person is. the republicans brought in witnesses, adam schiff did not want to hear. they only want to hear one side of it. they want more witnesses but conditioning -- that is unconstitutional, you can't have a hearing without lawyers. you can't have witnesses without rebuttal, they don't want to hear it. the point is i listen to people on the call and they call one party this at this party this, that is not america. >> host: alayna from ask euros,.com. the big question is no longer whether the senate will sink this afternoon's witness vote but how long it will take to deliver a final verdict on the president after the vote fails. the great question we all have here, whether they will stay into the evening, into the
early morning hours are come back for a saturday session. bruce is next from massachusetts. on the issue of witnesses what do you say? >> is a staunch democrat i say no. i think people look at this totally differently than i do because the fact is this is not a trial. this is closing arguments from a trial that was held in congress already. the congress had all the time in the world especially my democratic friends to present all the arguments, the witnesses they needed. they could have been more patient and a complete and thorough job which i think they failed to do. at this point on the evidence before you is what is to be judged upon and right now even as a democrat i am saying the evidence is not there, doesn't meet the threshold of removing the president from office.
>> host: you would agree with the statement lamar alexander put out saying the president did it but it doesn't rise to high crimes and misdemeanors and we need to end it. >> absolutely. >> host: thank you for the call. this is the scene outside the senate. a handful of protesters, demonstrations, occurring. senators begin to arrive, the session will get underway in an hour and 15 minutes. joe from sterling heights, michigan. you are next. >> the way i see it the democrats, the house were supposed to get this all done. they were supposed to bring solid proof. they didn't do it. now they are blaming republicans, republicans are just there listening to everybody.
it is the president's lawyers who better get that. they are putting their fight, the president's lawyers. the way has been laid out, i don't believe there should be witnesses. if i had to go to court and say i did something wrong no matter what it does, it would never even make it to court without the prosecutors having proof. >> host: this headline from thehill.com. some reports including the daily mail that alan dershowitz has left the defense team for donald from. the headline from thehill.com is the trump try was my worst controversy. he is back in miami, at least he was last night, saying he had family obligations. unclear in terms of whether he will be there today. he was part of a round of questioning, two days in eight hours each side wrapped up from
the daily mail, alan dershowitz quit's impeachment trial after saying the president cannot be removed for a quid pro quo to aid his reelection and claims the defense begged him to stay. craig kaplan on capitol hill covers congress for c-span with susan collins confirming earlier today i will vote to support the motion to allow witnesses and documents to be subpoenaed so there are two votes, senator collins and mitt romney of utah. unclear where lisa murkowski is, we need hear from cory gardner, republican of colorado saying he would not go along with witnesses. all of this unfold in an hour on the senate floor. next is chris from chicago. good morning to you. >> good morning, steve. i just want to call to express my opinion that i believe this is a travesty of justice occurring. there is a cover-up of monumental proportions, this president is a national security threat.
i keep hearing from people that the house could have brought these other witnesses like bolton, mick mulvaney, but what they are not understanding is the president blocked them from testifying. they would have had to go to court to see what the courts would have to say about them testifying. this is a president who purchased -- pressured in an in the republican primary for the presidential cycle. what is occurring is a monumental threat to our democracy and i think it is a travesty of justice that witnesses and documents are not allowed. >> host: thank you for joining the conversation. mitch mcconnell on his way into the building, quote, i think we can all agree this is a big day.
this -- business insider with this headline, all eyes on lisa murkowski, susan collins and lisa murkowski get the cover they need to vote for witnesses in the impeachment trial. of all three vote for witnesses that would be a 50/50 thai. on his next in baltimore. >> caller: the way i see it is the house presented at trial, it was a kangaroo court, they didn't allow donald trump's team in there and they should have organized all that, they didn't, they dropped the ball into goes to the senate for them to decide and now they want to throw more red herrings in to keep it going. this is over. this is over. the democrats failed. i have been a democrat all my life but not no more. >> host: ray in miami, what is your view? should they be included in this trial? >> caller: know they should not. >> host: why? >> caller: why?
right now what i would like to say is i would have liked to ask a question of adam schiff that if trump was proven not guilty, if he is going to continue to look for impeachment. the other thing is if trump is not convicted, is adam schiff going to walk across the aisle and shake hands with the defense team like sports people? it was a good job, you guys won, thank you, or is adam schiff going to start all over again. as far as witnesses they haven't proved their case and
no more witnesses. >> host: the washington times with an eye on the other end of pennsylvania avenue at the white house with the president saying his acquittal will likely include some democrats. all eyes on a couple democrats including senator joe manchin, doug jones of alabama who is up for reelection and how they vote on one or two articles of impeachment. it could come up later tonight, depending on the schedule or potentially tomorrow. shelley in houston, texas, go ahead. >> caller: i think it is over and done with. they had 18 people to call but only 17 transcript came up. i want to know i think they ought to -- it is totally in favor of donald trump. >> host: thank you for the call, mary joining us from louisiana. go ahead.
>> caller: the dems should have had their work when they had the chance. they could have called their witnesses and he didn't. now they want the senate to do it because they know everything they are saying is not true. >> host: senator tammy duckworth from illinois arrives at the u.s. senate. in iraq into the us capital. let's go to tammy in deer park, new york. >> caller: i am afraid people are not understanding the democrats did call witnesses and they were blocked by the president, firsthand witnesses. that is pretty critical. also, clinton testified on tape. we have not seen the president under oath give a statement. i think it is going to upend the whole judicial system when we can have a trial and not present witnesses.
they had 17 witness, let's have the ones the executive branch withheld from congress because that is obstruction. >> host: if there are witnesses and the republicans demand hunter biden or joe biden what is your reaction to that? >> they are not relevant witnesses. they were not eyewitnesses to the scheme. the whistleblower is not an eyewitness either. he never said that he was. it is like a fire and someone called the fire department and they put out the fire, do they need to know who called about the fire? know. there was a fire and it was put out. >> host: the senate chamber where senators are arriving for the session scheduled to get underway in one hour. our cameras are positioned in a couple different locations outside the senate chamber.
edward is joining us from virginia beach, virginia. what do you say, witnesses? >> caller: i say no witnesses. we 9 why? >> caller: i think c-span for your coverage. it has been great. i have 100 hours invested in this impeachment and the conclusion was a foregone conclusion because the senate would never vote two thirds to impeach and the house proceedings were just absolutely one party and they even said in the beginning it couldn't be bipartisan it was invalid. i am with donald trump all the
way because when he is acquitted he is acquitted forever. >> host: thanks for the call and thanks for watching c-span networks. this trial which is of course on the web and the free c-span radio apps. we will hear from adam schiff, what he said yesterday on the senate floor. i want to share some reporting from the washington post. a lot of speculation in terms of the schedule with four hours of debate on the issue of witnesses and then what happens according to john wagner of the washington post, headline from washingtonpost.com the senate is poised to hear debate over calling witnesses, the final verdict, donald trump's historic senate impeachment trial could be delayed to as late as wednesday after the iowa caucuses in the state of the union according to officials, senators are preparing to hear four hours of debate on whether the trial should include witnesses. democrats according to the washington post are pushing to call john bolton to offer officials who declined to
participate in house proceedings that led to the president's impeachment, so far two senators, romney of utah and collins of maine support the idea of witnesses and from the washington post administrative officials and congressional leaders raising the possibility the senate could take new procedural resolution laying out rules for the trial's end game which could include time for closing arguments, private deliberations and public speeches by the senators. that question is looming in terms of what the day is going to look like and what we can expect in the days ahead. arlene in pennsylvania on the issue of witnesses. what you say? >> caller: in my younger days, i did nonpartisan voter education in philadelphia and throughout pennsylvania. >> host: let me stop you. lamar alexander, let's listen.
lamar alexander might say a word or two to reporters, getting a lot of attention as he says he would not support the idea of additional witnesses, ending the trial in the coming hours or days. waiting, go ahead. >> caller: number 2, raising witnesses, and mick mulvaney and john bolton would be hearsay witnesses anyway. they cannot tell you what was in donald trump's mind. my third point is the entire thing, i was a registered democrat for 50 years. the entire thing has been a sham because there needed to be a vote of the entire congress to begin these impeachment hearings, the speaker of the house did not have that
>> if we were able to bring witnesses and documents in the trial it would take too long. mr. schiff's mentioned we could do depositions in one week. please elaborate. >> what can you say that will reassure us that having witnesses and documents can be done in a short time minimally impeding the business of the senate? >> i thank the sender for the question. first of all with respect to the documents that we subpoenaed and sought to get in the house, those documents have been collected. that work has been done. we've been informed for example, the state department documents have been collected. those could readily be provided to the senate for its consideration. with respect to witnesses, if we agree to a one-week period to do depositions what you continue to conduct the business of the senate, it doesn't mean we would have unlimited witnesses during
that week. we would have to decide on witnesses who are relevant and probative of the issues. neither side would have an unlimited capacity to call endless witnesses. we would have a limited time just as we had a limited time for opening presentations and for this question and answer period. if there was any dispute over whether a witness is truly material and probative, , that decision could be made by the chief justice in very short order. if there was a dispute as to whether a passage in a document discovered by applicable privilege and if for the first on the white house would actually invoke a privilege, the chief justice could decide is that properly weighed or is that merely an attempt to conceal crime or fraud? so this can be done very quickly. this could be done i think effectively. we have never sought to depose every witness under the face of the sun. we have specified four in particular we take our particularly appropriate and
relevant, but we should be able to reach an agreement on concluding that process within a week. that's how we would contemplate it being done. we make the proposal to our opposing counsel. he would be respectful of your time. it would i think be a reasonable accommodation. counsel says that the constitution mandates a a reasonable accommodation. let's had a reasonable combination ear and a reasonable accommodation would be take one week, continue with the business of the senate and do the depositions and then we'll come back and will present to you what the witnesses have to say in those depositions. that's how we contemplate the process would work. >> host: that from when the lead house impeachment managers, adam schiff. there's senator rand paul. his question was not read yesterday by the chief justice because he mention the name of the whistleblower. reporters trying to get
information as he arrives for the house republican, senate republican caucus meeting. again that from the senate subway basement of the u.s. capitol heading at the escalator. teresa, , we have you on the phe in kentucky. i asked earlier your impression of your senator, republican leader mitch mcconnell comic i think he's going to great job and i just want to say it's not the job of the senate that proves the case of the congress. they should've had that altogether before they brought the case. the one thing that i can approve with my democratic friends on is there's a major cover-up, that the cover-up has been with the bidens, not with president trump. >> host: on the issue of witnesses my assumption is you say no? >> caller: no. >> host: thanks for the call. built from florida. go ahead please. >> caller: i have to tell you i do think there should be witnesses. however, i also think they already had their witnesses.
when i say that i also think that if they're going to do for the witnesses i think adam schiff should be called and held in contempt because he had spoken to the whistleblower and he stood on the senate floor and he specifically said i have not had any contact with the whistleblower nor has my staff. that's part two. to be honest, number three, i have to make this point very clear because i've watched since day one. when trump was telling the ukrainian president, wasn't, hey, do me a favor. he said do us a a favor. because he wanted him to look into the corruption of an american citizen, and the ukrainian most corrupt oil industry in world history. >> host: thank you.
maggie have been of the "new york times" breaking this story from john bolton's book which was front page of the new times monday. it was leaked on send it on a website and now in the book john bolton claims that trump told in front of the white house aides back in may the to call with president zelensky and make sure he met with rudy. michael is joining us from florida. go ahead please. >> caller: yes. i believe it's a matter of constitutional rights, you know, that we have the right to have sufficient charges brought against us but also we have the rights to due process. i believe in this case, it's like a grand jury or prosecution. you need to bring charges. if the charges are not sufficient and it should be dismissed. also along, for example, that's why miranda rights are read.
if our rights are violated the case is dismissed. >> host: i want to share with you some of the headlines again a lot of attention lisa murkowski. democrats need a a total of for votes to call witnesses. murkowski and other moderates team up at the trump impeachment trial. also from the arizona media, kyrsten sinema posing the first bipartisan question in the trial. the question was as follows, that she asked will president trump assure the american people that private citizens will not conduct foreign policy unless the state department is requesting it? that taking aim at the president's private lawyer rudy giuliani. and then this will, will democratic senator kyrsten sinema really vote to acquit trump? there will be some democrats to go with republicans to acquit the president. also attention senators like doug jones of alabama up for
reelection. let's go to pennsylvania. good afternoon. should there be witnesses? >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i think that there should be witnesses and i'm republican. i think that mr. schiff has been truthful with all along. i think that if they want john bolton to be called i think we should be able to call joe biden, hunter biden. we should be able to call adam schiff and we should be able to call -- i think if you're going to involve witnesses, whether they are first and second hand or whatever hand they are, you have to involve all of them. you can't just say well, we want these because they're convenient or we don't want those because they're not convenient. you should open up the gamut to everybody.
in all honesty i think the democrats saying they want witnesses is more of a delay. they are trying to hold this trial over intel election day. >> host: thanks for the call. you're looking at connecticut senator chris murphy who is taking questions from reporters. we are just outside the senate chamber about 50 minutes before the start of this afternoons session. wanted to follow up on what maggie have meant is reporting. the headline trump told bolton up as ukraine pressure campaign according to the book and here are some of the details. within two months before he has ukraine's president investigate his political opponents president trump directing john bolton dentist as a student advisor to help with his pressure campaign to extract damage information on democrats from ukrainian officials. the president gave the instruction. mr. bolton wrote during an oval office conversation back in early may. the previously undisclosed directed mr. bolton described would be the earliest known
instant of the president seeking to harness the power of the united states government to advance his pressure campaign against ukraine as alluded in that july 4, with presents linsky which triggered the whistleblower complaint and impeachment proceedings. this new development that is coming unclear whether would have any further impact on the issue of witnesses, democrats asking john bolton be among those who testify but they need 51 votes. so far the democrats do not have. north carolina, thank you for waiting and review under witnesses is what? >> caller: no. because it is -- he's not guilty and they should never witnesses. the democrats is overstepped the bounds and these socialists and these liberals, they step back and been down underneath and have a higher god because god bless our country. thanks. >> host: thank you for the call. david is joining us from pennsylvania. go ahead, david. >> caller: i have a few points
to make. first of all, with the nixon trial they had witnesses and documents and it was so overwhelming that he had to leave office. in the clinton trial he admitted to the american people he was wrong and asked for forgiveness and we went on to an election where he was reelected. >> host: ron wyden talking to reporters. that is the area, the subway takes the senators from u.s. capitol to the three senate office buildings. reporter turned get more information as senator wyden will be joining his democratic colleagues for a brief meeting that will take place before the start of the session at 1:00 eastern time. jeff is next joining us from brandywine maryland. what do you say about witnesses? >> caller: yes. yes, in my opinion there should be witnesses. and i just want to say something to my c-span family across the country. that regardless of party
affiliation, your party affiliation is secondary to the truth. we cannot be blindsided by tricks and gas lighting where our individual prejudices and racist attitudes and hidden agendas become paramount over the truth. we cannot let people just deceive us as a country. >> host: thanks for the call. patrick leahy is the longest-serving democrat in the u.s. senate, first elected back in the mid-1970s and was here in the aftermath of watergate, during the impeachment of president bill clinton and now the impeachment of president trump. zach is joining us, louisiana, good afternoon, hey, how we doing today? all right. i say no witnesses. and to the last caller, yeah, the ones that are deceiving is
the shift show and the democrats have been cheating a lot of people for the last 40 years of their governments with this mentality instead of independents. that's what i say with that. the truth of the matter is they want to cloud this up because trump's successes and the into that because he's driving the country forward. let me ask you this, too. if bolton was so concerned that he was asked to do that, why did he come out for and become the whistleblower when he had the conversation with president trump? >> host: senator braun of indiana who has been taking a lead in terms of speaking to reporters during the breaks and forth after the sessions. we'll go to lake charles, louisiana. go ahead please. >> caller: i think the witnesses. they had the chance to prove the case and they haven't. they have been after trump since, before he was elected. they are grasping at straws.
>> host: we have been talking about the two articles of impeachment and when that book does come whether to convict or acquit the president. "new york times" indicating the white house is eyeing a couple of democrats to vote to acquit the president. peter baker saint republicans appear likely to hold their own enough to block witnesses. the white house is focusing on senators mansion, cinema, jones and peters. there's lisa murkowski. she heads into the senate and there's senator capito as well. we'll go to out and out in whir junction vermont. go ahead. >> caller: good afternoon. thanks for my call. make a quick comment. one thing that i've take away from all the shenanigans on tv is what the quality that politicians in this country really are. they are all only interested in
focusing on the crew. the second thing, everybody is ranting and raving about -- i know for fact our buddy from vermont ernie's hand when he first got to the mayor of burlington, and you can check on this, first thing he did was create a position for his wife which has now grown to include the life of this son. it's a neat year, yet, kind of forecasting and predicting what the media is going to do and say about the politicians. and that business is now headquartered in new jersey. so much for saunders in for mott, and that's all you want to say. thank you for taking my call. one more comment. i never forgot will rogers comment about politicians. they are the best money can buy, and that's truer today than ever was thank you very much. >> host: let's go to teresa in ohio. go ahead.
>> caller: to me this is nothing but a political propaganda of the democratic part. they come into court with assumptions and telling american people what the the president . this is what it really meant instead of listening to the people themselves who said no, it wasn't. the case has been presented that he tried to get ukraine to, political push his agenda when it's been clearly stated and presented that he did not. it was all about the bidens, and so they have proved their case. they don't even follow their own rules yet they what everybody else to follow their rules. they come into court. not prepared but the what the senate to be -- it's like going to court and asking the judge, i didn't come are prepared for my client that if you go and do this stuff for me, then that
will be. if not, it's going to be your fault that my client loses it but the fact is they already showed everything they need to show. there is no case so there is no need for any further time and money wasted on taxpayers to pay this democratic show of election that they are the ones who should be on court. >> host: thanks for the call. if you're just tuning in on listening on c-span radio we are about 45 minutes away for the start of the session. we will have that live for you on c-span2. a couple stories including just how long that they are the next couple of days potentially could be because going back to reporting of john wagner of the "washington post" that the final verdict on the impeachment trial could potentially be delayed until late as wednesday after the iowa caucuses and the state of union address. there's senator lindsey graham from south carolina has been one of the league defenders of the president. swarmed by reporters. as he heads to the senate republican caucus meeting going
on surely before the start of session democrats also meeting in a separate room to map out the strategy. we'll go to lloyd in wisconsin. go ahead, lloyd. >> caller: i i just want to say that i think they should allow witnesses. if you look at what some comments have been about the congress not allowing witnesses during the skip earrings which were all based on capital. that's like a grand jury. that is sealed and that's why none of the electronic devices were allowed in because it's like a grand jury proceeding. soviet somebody say i wasn't allowed to come and testify, that's because they didn't call them. they gathered that stuff and now i think they should have witnesses at the trial, for the impeachment trial here if you want to be, some people commented they wouldn't call
witnesses if they were charged. you are your own witness at that time when you are standing there stating something, you're a witness to yourself. that's all i have to say. i just think they should have the witnesses and let it go forward on there. if donald trump wants to come and be a witness, like clinton was, he can come and testify under oath. >> host: thanks for the call. it looks like it's chris van hollen of maryland. a lot of senators arriving and many being buttonholed by reporters. congressional reporter with more on john bolton spoke saying rudy giuliani denies he was ever any meeting where ukraine was discussed with pat cipollone, mick mulvaney and john bolton. that would be a breach of attorney-client privilege he said. disputing the count of the meeting which comes from a bastion of bones book which is
scheduled to be released by simon & schuster march 17. it is 588 pages. senator joe manchin of west virginia could he possibly be one of the democrats vote to acquit the president? the white house says they are i can. john for mississippi, good afternoon. >> caller: yes, thank you. i've been a lifelong democrat i guess but i would say no, and i would say this. this attack mode that the democrats have had since president trump was elected, including against president trump, against his judicial nominees, and all of those have done nothing except just too great an attitude of bitterness because they can't argue with trump's policies. you know, his trade, his economic growth, his justice reforms, he's helping inner
cities. if we are in the mode with the democrats can only up for attack, i think our country is in bad shape. thank you very much. >> host: senator hirono, democrat of hawaii has been very vocal and visible speak up at senate democrats calling for witnesses and calling for the conviction of president trump. grace in quincy, massachusetts, go ahead, , i agree they should call witnesses. number two, when you speak about vice president biden when he was in ukraine, he was there and he did get rid of the prosecutor however, that was also recognized by our allies as doing the right thing. now you have allegations against the president of the united states and the district of southern new york, and he will never have to face that because if he is reelected, statute of limitation expires. there are no charges against
vice president joe biden. >> host: one of the deputy press secretary heading into the senate caucus to meet with republicans i get as a proper strategy and figure out the end game and all of this. the widest working as learned from senate republican leader mitch mcconnell on the fox news interview more than a month ago in terms of course nation of the senate trial and white house strategy. joe from troy north carolina go ahead, please. >> caller: i tell you, this thing is dragging on now about four years now. these people can't get over losing and democrat -- the democrat party we had today is a socialist party so i say no, no, no. >> host: the present defense lawyers and manager schiff yesterday on the show witnesses. >> assuming for argument's sake that boulder were to testify in
the light most payable to the allegations contained in the articles of impeachment, isn't it true that the allegations still would not rise to the level of an impeachable offense? and that, , therefore, for this and other recent his testimony would add nothing to this case? >> mr. chief justice, senators, thank you for the question. let me start by just making very clear that there was no quid pro quo. there was no and it is a evidence to show that. there was not that sort of linkage that the house managers have suggested. but money into the question directly, which i understand to be assuming for the sake of argument that ambassador bolton would come and testify the way the "new york times" article alleges, the way his book describes the conversation, then it is correct that even if that
happens, even if he gave that testimony, the articles of impeachment still would not rise to an impeachable offense here that's for at least two reasons and let me explain. the first is on the face the articles of impeachment as a been laid out by the house managers, even if you take everything that is alleged in them, they don't as a matter of law rise to the level of an impeachable offense. because even house managers have that characterize them as involving a cry. so that's one level of the answer, , that an impeachable offense would require a crime. even going beyond that to a second level. the theory of abuse of power that is a ledge, put aside whether or not it is a crime, the theory of abuse of power that they have asserted is not something that conforms with the constitutional standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. it depends entirely on subject
of intent and it is subject of intent alone. as professor dershowitz explained and as i've explained, and i don't mean in the more radical portion of his explanation three, i mean just in terms of what is high crimes and misdemeanors. he explained that something that is based entirely on subjective intent is equivalent to maladministration is equivalent to exactly the standard that the framers rejected because it is completely malleable. it doesn't define any real standard for an offense. it allows you to take any conduct that on its face is perfectly permissible and on the basis of your projection of a disagreement with that conduct, a disagreement with the reasons for it to attribute a bad motive to try to say there's a bad subject of motive for doing that and he will make it impeachable,
that doesn't conform to the constitutional standard. so at the common law they would call the reaction to charge like this a demurrer. you simply say even if everything you say is true, that's not an impeachable offense under the law and that is an appropriate response here even if everything alike is true, even if john bolton would say it's true, that is not an impeachable offense under the constitutional standard because the way you have tried to define the constitutional standard, the theory of abuse of power is far too malleable. it goes. the subject of intent and it can't be relied upon. then their level of my answer is this. -- third level. we have demonstrated that there is a legitimate public policy interests in both of the matters that were raised on that telephone call. the 2016 election efforts and
the biden burisma there. because there's interest in both of those issues, even if that were true that there was some connection, even if true the president had suggested or thought that maybe i should pull out the data don't do something, that's permissible where that is that legitimate public policy interest. it's just the same as if there is an investigation going on, the president once a foreign country to provide some assistance, it's a legitimate foreign policy interest to get that assistance. it's legitimate to use the levers of foreign policy to secure that assistance so because there is a legitimate public policy interest in both of those issues and i think we've demonstrated that clearly it would be permissible for there to be that linkage. but again i'll close where i began which is there was no such linkage here. i just want to make that clear. but taking for the sake of argument the question as phrase, even if ambassador bolton would testify to that, even if you assume it was true there is no
impeachable offense stated in the articles of impeachment. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. the senator from illinois. >> thank you. >> question from senator durbin for house managers. would you please respond to the answer that was just given by the president's counsel? >> senators, it's been a long couple of days so let me be blunt about what i think we are. i think we all know what happened here. i think we all understand what the president did here. i don't think there's really much question at this point
about why the military aid was withheld or why president zelensky couldn't get in the door of the oval office. i i don't think there's any confusion about why he wanted joe biden investigated, why he was pushing the crowdstrike conspiracy theory. i don't think there's really much question about that. i don't think there's much question about what we could expect if and when john bolton testifies, although the details of which we certainly don't know. i don't think there's really much question about that. but what's extraordinary is although they can claim that this was a radical mistake or notion of professor dershowitz that they seem to be distancing themselves from right now, they're accusing dershowitz not some maladministration in his argument of the defense. they are still embracing that idea. because what they just told you
admittedly an outline of a dnc, what they just told you is except everything the house said, except the president without the military aid to course ukraine into helping achieved in the election. except they these investigations are a sham. except that he obstructed all subpoenas and witnesses, accept all of that, too bad, there's nothing you can do. that's not impeachable. a president of the united states, this is now where we've come to in this moment of our history. the president of the united states can withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in aid that we appropriated, can do so in violation of the law, can do so in order to help him cheat in an election and you can't do
anything about it except hold up a nomination. that's not impeachable. they can abuse their power all they want, the president from this president come next president can abuse the power all they want in the furtherance of the reelection as long, here's a a limiting principle,s long as they think their reelection is in the national interest. well, that's quite a constraint. that's what we have come now after two have centuries of our history. i think our founders would be aghast that anyone would make that argument on the floor of the senate. i think it would be aghast. having come out of a monarchy, having literally risked their lives, having taken this great
gamble that people could be entrusted to run their own government and choose their own leaders, recognizing that we are not angels setting up a system that would have ambition, counter ambition, that we would so willingly abdicate that responsibility and say that a chief executive now has the full power to coerce our ally, a foreign power to intervene in our election because they think it's a national interest that they get reelected. is that really what we think the founders would have condoned? are to rethink this is precisely the kind of character and conduct that they provided a remedy for? i think we know the answer to that. they wrote a beautiful constitution. they understood a lot about
human nature. they understood as we do that absolute power corrupts absolutely. and they provided a constraint, but it will only be as good and as strong as the men and women of this institutions willingness to uphold it, cannot look away from the truth. the truth is staring us in the eyes. we know why they don't want john bolton to testify. that because we don't really know what happened. they just don't want the american people to hear it and all of its ugly graphic detail. they let the president's national security adviser on live tv or even in live deposition to say i talked with the president and he told me in no uncertain terms, john, thank you, mr. manager. >> to be continued. >> each side with fibers and the chief justice provided by the book put in place by william
rehnquist, five minutes to answer the question. they are cut off at that moment. reference to john bolton again, this developing story, new from the john bolton book the room what happened being published in mid-march with the headline. maggie haberman reporting coat the principal disclose directive that mr. bolton describes would be the earliest known instance of the president sticking to harness the power of the u.s. government to advance his pressure campaign against ukraine as he later did in the july 25 call with president zelensky that triggered the whistleblower complaint and impeachment proceedings. senators that and the respective caucus for the start of the session at 1:00 eastern time meeting with leaders chuck schumer on the democratic side and mitch mcconnell on the republican side. the question-and-answer phase is over. what will happen next is a debate on witnesses.
he has not made a a decision whether to convict president trump quote it's a very hard decision, the most serious decision that any senator will make in their career. this from seek no asked whether the president deserves reelection in the wake of such wrongdoing, lamar alexander who issued a statement late last night saying everyone left to make the decision for themselves. let's go to alan and asheville, north carolina. what ask you whether or not you think there should be witnesses and provided our fault lines -- the fighting our phone lines between yes and no. what you say? >> caller: i say no witnesses. >> host: because? >> caller: i mean, if you go back all the way back to obama planting the thick dossier, that was interference in the election for trump. adam schiff has done nothing but lies from day one. none of this has been honest. the president has not has his attorneys and everything in his power. they denied witnesses for the
republicans trundle let me stop you there. mark meadows republican from north carolina is stepping down at the end of this year. he'll speculate he might be the next white house chief of staff. please continue. >> caller: it's just to start out on us, it would've been made a good thing but the president has rights, too. he was that allowed his rights. this has just been a witch hunt from day one. i guess it if you want to get somebody, you should get hillary clinton, democrats have paid for the dossier and start from there. that was interference with the election in 2016, and you know, to be fair, if you're going to do things honest and right in the middle of the road. >> host: thank you for the call. this is the airy with the senators and chief justice would arrive in the courtyard and there's the chief justice john roberts for writing. we watch that for just a moment
as he steps inside of the u.s. capitol. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the chief justice of the united states john roberts appointed by president george george w. buss 65 years old on monday and is the presiding judge for the u.s. constitution during the impeachment trial of president donald j. trump. there was a moment yesterday a
question by sandra elizabeth warren that took direct aim at the chief justice. here's that moment. >> question from senator warren is for the house managers. at a time when large majorities of americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of the legitimacy of the chief justice, the supreme court and the constitution? >> center, i would not say it contributes to a loss of confidence in the chief justice. i think the chief justice has resided admirably. but i will say this. i was having conversation the other day on the house floor with one of my colleagues, tom
malinowski from new jersey, a brilliant college. and i was harkening back to what i i thought was a key exchange during the course of this saga. this is when ambassador volker in september is talking with andriy yermak, and volker is making the case that the new president of ukraine should not do a political investigation and prosecution of the former president of ukraine poroshenko. he's making the case that we often make when we travel around the country when we've done parliamentarians about not engaging in political investigations. when he makes that remark, yermak throws those right backe states and says, you mean like investigation you want us to do of the clintons and the bidens? and and i was limiting this to y colleague, what is her answer to that? what is the answer to that from a country that prides itself on
adherence to the rule of law clerks how do we answer that? and his response i thought was her interesting picky said this proceeding is our answer. this proceeding is our answer. yes, we are a more than fallible democracy and we don't always live up to our ideals. but when we have a president who demonstrates corruption of his office, who sacrifice the national interest for personal interest, unlike other countries there's a remedy. and so yes, we don't always live up to our ideals but this trial is part of our constitutional heritage that we've given the power to impeach the president. i don't think i trial without witnesses reflects adversely on the chief justice. i do think it reflects adversely on us. i think it diminishes the power of this example, to the rest of the world. if we cannot have a fair trial
in the face of this kind of presidential misconduct. this is the remedy. this is the remedy for presidential abuse, but it does not reflect on any of us if we are afraid of what the evidence holds. this will be the first trial in america where the defendant says, the beginning of the troll, if the prosecution case is so good, why don't they prove it without any witnesses? that's not a model we can hold up for the rest of the will. i think it will feed cynicism about this institution, that we may disagree on the president's conduct or not, we can't even get a fair trial. ted even get a fair shake of the american people. we can't, my god, we can do what john bolton has to say. god for bid we should hear what a relevant witness has to say. hear no evil. that cannot reflect well on any
of us. it is certainly no cause for celebration for vindication anything like that. my colleague says i'm a parent who speaks in -- i think that's the nicest thing he's are said to me. i wouldn't describe myself as a puritan but i do believe in right and wrong. and i think right matters. i think a fair trial matters. and and i think that for the coy deserves a fair trial. and yes, senator, if they don't get that fair trial it will just further the cynicism that is corrosive to this institution and to our democracy. >> host: that from the senate trial yesterday and adam schiff. the headline from the question read by the chief justice as it was written by senator elizabeth warren. she puts justice roberts in an awkward spot. the hill writing senator warren introducing a similar awkward
dynamic and impeachment proceedings when she asked if the republicans like refused to allow the witnesses in the trial would diminish trust in the chief justice of the united states. the question appeared great discomfort for justice roberts whose role is that trial present officer requires him to read senator worries about even those raising questions about potential damage to his own legitimacy. the other story keeping an eye on is the link of the proceedings today and whether they will spill into next week. keep in mind monday is the start of the primaries and caucuses of the iowa caucuses on monday and the state of being on tuesday with jim acosta thing white house officials tell cnn it is possible the senate impeachment trial was dragged into next week and aids are preparing for that potential. back to your phone calls and a look from the senate sub area,, the basement of u.s. capitol. house managers make the way over and senators are not meeting with the respective leaders inside the senate. i can come in at o'clock eastern time.
scott lake charles, louisiana, go ahead. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. i think witnesses should be allowed to be allowed to enter their testimony into the proceedings. there have been 16 impeachment trials in the senate in our american history. >> host: amy klobuchar, let's listen. >> -- this could go into money. i just want to make very clear that i'm going to do my job and i have hope that these people of iowa and beyond are going to understand that it's good, it's a positive it's a plus to have a candidate that in the arena that is focus on getting to the truth, that the leader when it comes to issues like this president putting his own private interest in front of the
interest of the country. i don't have to the luxury of switching the channel and watch cartoons as one of my opponents have suggested. i hear and i'm going to do my job. >> the utility of pushing it into monday will it inevitably likely go down? >> we don't know that yet. we haven't yet had the vote on witnesses. you never know what happens. as i keep telling my republican colleagues, this isn't one of those instances where the truth comes out five years from now. that truth may come out five weeks from now. it may even come out five days from now. john bolton could go on any of your tvs and make an interview and do an interview with great detail but yet there denying him from coming forward to being part of this hearing. that makes no sense. that will be left on the shoulder so i'm hoping a number of them come around and we will have witnesses. thanks.
>> host: scented amy klobuchar is one of four democrats running for the democratic presidential nomination and she would probably much rather be in iowa campaigning as the polls tighten in that race. we are covering the campaign as well in i would further weaken and on monday we will take you live to two caucuses went in the morning and one in a more rural part of the state and our coverage of money gets underway at 7:30 p.m. eastern and tuesday is the state of the union address that is scheduled for 9:00 eastern. c-span coverage getting underway at eight. also carried live on c-span reader. linda in georgia. should be witnesses, yes or no? >> caller: know, there are no witnesses needed. this is where the house went wrong. they did not get a judge to sign off on their subpoenas and now they are without any evidence that would hold up because there isn't any evidence. the house that they completed
the impeachment and sent it to the senate. they were not allowed trump council to call witnesses in the house at all and when asked questions adam schiff told people know to answer. how many question asked in the last few days? hundreds. bolton does not have witness to what is even claiming. so what could one man, bolton, have to say to change the factor of this impeachment? it does not hold a candle to the lack of evidence. we need to get back to the business of the people and get this behind us. if there was evidence that was impeachable and what bolton indicates, then it could be considered to validate it but there's no evidence and this is a waste of taxpayers money to continue. >> host: thanks for the call. if you watch the proceedings over the last few days, senator scott republican south carolina,
the senators hosing 180 questions over two days at a total of 60 hours. the only send it or not to ask a question, mike enzi who is stepping down, republican from wyoming. we are getting more details on this john bolton vote and maggie haberman is tweeted information available online. she tweeted bolton also talks about to white house aides been dispatched a trade meeting to come talk about george kent and he affirms fiona hill is testimony about what he said referring to all this in ukraine is quote a drug deal. back to your phone calls. louisiana. go ahead, billy. >> caller: yes. everybody's all griping about this and that the other and everything else. it's all strange because in a crowd if one of these people, i don't care if it's republican,
democrat or whatever, i'm not one of them. if one of these people had a kid who got killed by somebody and the prosecution for them said they had a witness that saying that men kill them, why would -- what would they do in that case? who would they want that witness to come in or not? and then another thing. i think i got tired of all this crap and there's three r's, republican, republic, and russia. i thank you, sir and you all have a nice evening. >> host: thank you. again senator rick scott as he left the senate republican caucus and senate gaveling in at about 11 minutes. joe in missouri. the issue of witnesses, what do you say, joe? >> caller: yes, i think that this is contemporaneous
information available that involves the american citizens during the fact that, we forget the fact that donald trump is an impeached president. he was impeached by the people's representatives in the house of representatives united states, the same way that richard nixon was impeached and the same way that bill clinton was impeached. this process is a process of finding whether or not he should be removed from office, whether he should be acquitted of the charges of impeachment. but he too will go down beginning tonight when they start writing it. >> host: thank you to the house managers are arriving in the u.s. senate. there is the one manager taking the lead in all this adam schiff joined by jerry nadler and zoe
lofgren, val demings and others were entering the u.s. senate. esther in new york. go ahead please. >> caller: hi, hello. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: i just come i don't know, i have no words because i feel that we are now witnessing the death of the american idea. i came here as a child from the former soviet union, and i just am in shock to see that we are now evolving into -- [inaudible] it seems that we are witnessing, it's evident from the especially many of the callers that either against witnesses or pro-trump or whatever, that basically half
the country has become a brainwashed cult. i think this goes back, you know, along decades, this goes back probably to when nixon was impeached and roger ailes started fox news or murdoch started fox news but roger ailes basically make sure that never again would another republican president ever be removed from office. >> host: there's senator bernie sanders, also one of those democratic presidential candidates who is leading in some of the polls in iowa, in new hampshire, the voting is next monday in iowa and the following tuesday february 11 is the new hampshire primary. the the president this one withs tweet. jerry nadler ripped the final argument away from adam schiff saying shifty did a terrible job. they are fighting big time. that from the president at 9:25 a.m.
bill in iowa, go ahead, please. should they be witnesses? >> caller: well, i originally said no, but i'm contemplating changing my mind. >> host: why? >> caller: i'm not sure -- i'm not sure that this will ever be dropped. >> host: let's go to rené joining us from oregon. go ahead. >> caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i would say definitely no witnesses. it doesn't matter how many times something is said. it doesn't make it true. it has been proven that there was no quid pro quo, jet it's been repeated hundreds if not thousands of times. there is no abuse of power. the same thing. it is been repeated so many
times that it is we are the ones who are bring brainwashed an immediate keeps repeating exactly what the democrats want them to say. >> host: that was ed markey, senator from massachusetts. the bronx, new york, go ahead. >> caller: i'm enjoying the show. the thing is that i think people forget that hearing on this and your democrats as well as republicans question witnesses that came forward who went ahead and come when the recipient they came forward. they said what actually happened and it wasn't with the democrats were the only ones questioning them. it was the republicans sitting there questioning the witnesses. so we got that out of the first time but i'm voting, i
definitely feel they should have witnesses. if i would subpoena to all of them. went answer those subpoenas. if we can't we don't have a president to come forward to say we can't, or we will not be able to come in and to those subpoenas. you have to answer them. it shouldn't be one court where the manager and another corner lighting. they should've been able to be in the court down the block with a judge said the tea party is fighting against it subpoenas, they should not have to be fighting on the senate floor. >> host: thank you for the call. jeremy retreating a tweet from jerry nadler, one of the house impeachment managers. as you probably know his wife has been battling and credit cancer and it's safe to say jerry nadler will not be in the u.s. senate. he will be in the final day of the argument and debate over witnesses. so he can be with his wife as
they determine they care and treatment she would get as she battles and credit cancer. jerry nadler puzo chair of the house judiciary committee will not be intended state because he is in new york with his antiwhite. let's go to mike next in maryland. >> caller: thoughts and prayers go out to jerry nadler and his wife. i do believe that they should have witnesses, like the caller stated a few calls back, that there is no evidence, that right there is a testament that a president did obstruct justice. when we look at the witnesses that they already had, a majority of these witnesses are trump appointees. sondland's is a donor to trump campaign. so if we have the opportunity to get to the truth, our senators do not work for their party. they work for the constitution. they swore an oath to uphold the constitution, , not their own
party interest. they are treasonous within their own selves putting themselves before country. >> host: thank you for the call. again we expect about four hours of debate on the issue of witnesses but that could extend if there are procedural votes and other motions put forth by democrats and want to go back to 40 of john wagner who's indicating the final verdict on the president's historic impeachment trial could potentially be delayed as late as next wednesday after the state of of the union and aftee iowa caucuses. we expect to learn more potential in the next couple of minutes when we hear from the senate republican leader mitch mcconnell. houston, texas, go ahead, please. >> caller: yes. i think they should not have any more witnesses. we had enough. we get nothing from that. i think nancy had it in her hand for one month. why didn't they call witness? they just keep it so long so state of the union will be canceled and that's what they
did to make trump look bad. but president trump, i believe that they should not have no witnesses. and i believe that every evil against him -- prosper. >> host: center sinema from arizona, freshman democratic senator picked pickup for the democrats in the race. the whitest indicating she might be one of the democrats that would vote to acquit the president took also keeping an eye on senator doug jones was in a tough reelection battle from alabama and send it to joe manchin who told us at least as about a half-hour ago had not yet made up his mind in terms of how he is going to vote. you are looking at the basement of use capital, the subways in the background as syndicates come back and forth to the u.s. capitol. jackson wisconsin and and i shd point isis is in the gallows in will go there live. go ahead. >> caller: we do not need any more witnesses. the house brought the case up to
the house and they decided to impeach him based on what they had. they sent it over to the senate. they voted to impeach him based on the material that they had and the damage is already done. for them to call more witnesses in the senate would only dilute this process even further. as far as a as a woman that wae the real for callers behind, we are not a brainwashed cult. we are americans and we believe in supporting our president against these kind of frivolous accusations. he's just trying to do his job for us and they should leave him alone. >> host: thank for the call. we want to some senators head into the senate chamber. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
>> what's the value of that? >> host: again the democratic caucus has wrapped up. senators making them inside the senate chamber. you can see the cameras are not on inside the senate. let's listen what's happening. .. with mister bolden and the president . we briefed mister bolton to be part of this particular
meeting . despite what goes on here and whether they've made up their mind or not we're going to find out what happens here and i think that's the issue that i think has to be [inaudible] >> that from senatorheinrich from new mexico and we're monitoring this area just outside the senate chamber as senators make their way in. there's senator bennett one of the four democrats running for president . the chamber is supposed to start at 1:00 eastern time, we're waiting for reverend black and the chief justice john roberts who arrived within the last half hour. continuing to monitor the democratic senators leaving the caucus and going across the hall to the floor of the u.s. senate .
[inaudible conversations] we will use this opportunity to get a call or two but there's senator warren. kim from toledo, quick comment before yes, i just wanted to say i do not think that they need to have any more witnesses. especially a witness who is furthering his book sales by bringing this out at such a convenientmoment . there's been so many coincidences in this case, but yet one i actually see,
456, the american people see what's going on. we don't need to hear any more witnesses. it should just be finished and let's let this president get back to what he needs to do. let the senate get back to what they need to do and let the house get back to whatever they're doing. my last statement would be 75 percent they keep bringingup american people that want to see this is , myself, i've never been pulled. i don't know anybody else who's been pulled so i don't know where they're getting this 75 percent from somebody else knows where they're getting this from i like to know. >> host: tom in glendale arizona, we've not seen mister mcconnell enter the chamber and once that happens we presume the senate will gamble in and theopening prayer and the chief justice and the scene that could last several hours. quick comment on the issue of witnesses, what do you say ?
>> caller: on c-span we learned president trump found out about the fired prosecutorthree days before the call to ukraine and he had every obligation as the chief law enforcement officer to pose that question so the witnesses i'd like to see are the bidens . i'd like to find out about joe biden's impact on ukrainian politics while his son was sitting on the board of burisma so those are actually the witnesses i'd like to see and again thanks to c-span for bringing that point up. i've watched almost gavel to gavel trying to collect all this information and figure out what my stance would be so absolutely i think the bidens should be witnesses. >> host: hears other senators making their way into the chamber, cory gardner there along with some of his colleagues. going to watch this asthey
controlled by the sergeant of arms and the recording studio. very black on the right-hand side and we expect john roberts will enter on the left side. john kennedy, republican of louisiana making his way into the floor of the us tenant. today is the question of the vote on witnesses. there are two republicans who support the idea of witnesses, senator collins of maine and romney of utah. no word on senator murkowski and whether there would be a fourth senator who supports that. the senate managers entering the chamberincluding chuck schumer, we're waiting for the republican leader mister mcconnell . [inaudible conversations]
>> how long do you think it willrun today ? [inaudible] >> this is moving so fast, i don't think anyone knows. the way things are goingnow . >> that was senator carper you saw just a moment ago, senator blunt of missouri, one of the issues you will hear is this new development from the new york times, 90 berman, the president telling bolton to help his ukraine pressure campaign. we know there will be a vote and a debate on witnesses a new evidence.
what we don't know is how long the session will last today and whether they will today, this weekend or perhaps next week on those two articles of impeachment and whether there will be a vote to convict or acquit the president . you're hearing about the question, a lot of uncertainty in terms of that part of the schedule. live coverage on capitol hill.
>> live outside the senate chamber we're waiting for the chief justice john roberts. proceedings will begin with reverend very black and the afternoon prayer, to start the session. i'm going to read what the new york times is reporting because it will be coming up during the course of the debate, 90 berman based on new revelations from john bolton's book two months before he asked ukraine's president to investigate his opponents, president trump directing john bolton, then his national security advisor to help with the pressure campaign to extract information on democrats from ukrainian officials . mister trump giving that instruction according to the new york times during an oval office conversation in early may that included acting white house chief of staff nick mulvaney, the president's personal lawyer
rudy giuliani and white house counsel taking the lead in this trial for the president . pat cipollone. >> we take you down to the floor of the u.s. senate for this afternoon's proceedings, more details at nytimes.com. >> the senate will convene as a court of impeachment. the chaplain will lead us in prayer .