joni ernst from iowa and pete buttigieg and might be other democratic presidencal candidates as well. erin burnett is coming up at the top of the hour. thanks for joining us. we'll see you next time. good evening. i'm erin burnett and the breaking news, history is unfolding as we speak. the impeachment trial is about to resume any second. they've been in recess for nearly 80 minutes trying to do a backroom deal to figure out how to move forward. a motion to allow witnesses was defeated, and now the senators will be taking on amendments. they have been debating what comes next. the final vote comes wednesday. i want to go to chris koonz who is about to head back into that room. what can you tell us. what happens the rest of tonight? >> erin, that's in the hands of the republican majority right now. i'm expecting we'll be called back in for a vote any moment.

the majority leader will lay out whatever he's been able to lay out with his caucus, which is the majority of the senate. and then i expect a series of amendment votes to be offered by the democrats, frankly trying through a number of votes to force reconsideration of this central vital question, will there be any witnesses, documents? this will be the first impeachment trial in the senate to have no witnesses. the last one that happened right as i got here ten years ago of a judge from louisiana had 26 witnesses, 17 of whom had not appeared before their appearance before the senate trial committee. i think the house managers made an excellent case today about why we should be hearing from john bolton and other witnesses. >> but that all got voted down. it seems at this point, of course, look, i understand you kbot to make your point on these amendments but you're talking

about taking a last stand. the next step is closing arguments on monday and a vote on wednesday. is there anything else you can tell us about it? the vote comes after the state of the union and after the iowa caucuses? >> that's what i have heard through press reports is what the majority leader is trying to persuade his caucus to support. i don't think that will get much support in our caucus. there's a lot of folks who would like to see us keep fighting and pushing for more votes tonight and tomorrow and to be here for our arguments on the floor. but given that he was able to secure 51 votes against any more witnesses or documents, it seems likely that the majority leader has the votes to drive through the process that he's fighting for. >> so, you know, there are some republicans who wanted an acquittal tonight, wanted it quickly. >> yep. >> there were some who wanted a chance to talk, to stand up and say something. that's in part why the majority

leader is going to allow closing statements and senators to speak. monday, tuesday and then that vote on wednesday. have you talked to any of those republicans who wanted a chance to stand up and speak? and if so, why? what did they want to say? why is this important to them? >> i've talked to a couple of my colleagues. it's hard. i'm normally someone who works across the aisle very well, but this has been a hard two weeks. i'm disappointed in some of my colleagues and frustrated. as we saw just today, "the new york times" reported more breaking news from the upcoming back by the former national security adviser, john bolton, suggesting that president trump was in the room with john bolton, with rudy giuliani, with the white house counsel months -- weeks earlier, excuse me, than we previously knew. a number of them are making the

argument this is not an impeachable offense. i think the consequences of their deciding that will be long lasting and grave for our country. >> i appreciate your time. he's referring to lamar laektder, marco rubio, others. i want to go straight to phil mattingly. what are you learning about this schedule which senator koonz seemed to confirm? >> let me lay out what's going to happen the rest of the way, something we didn't have an answer to until just a couple of minutes ago. i just got my hands on the final resolution that majority leader mcconnell will introduce. tonight there will be votes on three different -- sorry, four democratic amendments. we haven't seen the text but they're expected to fail with republicans holding the majority. keep an eye. after those are done, the chamber will vote on the resolution to dictate the next

five days. after, they will go into recess, adjourn for the weekend, return on monday at 11:00 a.m. they will then hold closing arguments. each side will have two hours to peace to make closing arguments. they will have the final vote to ayetu quit or remove the president from office. between monday and wednesday senators will have the opportunity to go to the floor and speak about their views related to the trial and their decisions they're going to make related to that vote. but that time will be out of the trial. essentially as we've seen, senators cannot speak while it's in session, can't move, so the only time the senate will be in the impeachment trial next week will be monday during the closing arguments and when they come back in at 4:00 p.m. to vote. in between they can come to the floor, make public statements about their views.

two things, the behind-the-scenes that was going on where republicans basically trying to split inside the republican conference, as to whether to push through this tonight or give senators time to make statements publicly. because of that mcconnell did not have the votes to move this forward tonight as he initially planned to do, because of that as well, democrats had a bit of leverage here. and what they wanted was to be sure the president was not acquitted before tuesday night's state of the union address. you've got 4 people would probably like to be in iowa on monday. democrats didn't budge. the chamber is only in session from 11:00 to 3:00 p.m. so senates could get out and go back to iowa. the caucuses, where they could speak and try and help bring people to their side. that's the whole schedule. it's been a little confusing, fluid. >> can i ask you one question. the resolution, the one that you

obtained, at the conclusion of the final arguments by the house and president, which is about 3:00 p.m. on monday, give our take, the court of impeachment shall stand adjourned until 4:00 p.m. on wednesday at which time they will vote. explain between those two times, are they just going to be able to get up and give speeches about how they feel? how does that work? >> the way it's opinibeen expla they can be in session and be in business. that means senators can come to the floor and speak. the he can pecks tax is each will be provided 15 minutes. that's not in the resolution but that's what i've been told. the reason they have to adjourn between the end of the closing arguments on monday and the final vote at 4:00 p.m. on wednesday is so senators can actually speak on the floor. the only time we've heard from senators through this is them announcing they're submitting a

question to the desk. they are not allowed to speak at any time. this will allow them to. in 1999 senators did have deliberations with statements but behind closed doors. that was the only way they should be allowed to talk inside an impeachment trial. that's why they're adjourning to give space, be able to speak publicly. >> those are going to be the fascinating of it. we want to hear it. you get a statement from alexander or marco rubio but we want to hear them. phil, stay with us. we're anticipating this move to vote on this res loougs that phil just laid out any moment. i want to go to our panel, david axelrod, what do you make about the battle that went on here to get to this agreement? senator schumer didn't want the president acquitted before the state of the union and the republicans were saying, your senators may not be able to be in iowa on the caucuses.

this was an all-out brawl. >> yeah, it was. and obviously made possible, as phil said, by divisions within the republican caucus from some members who wanted to be heard on this. once that happened it opened up this opportunity. but to me, this is just a footnote in the larger drama here. and, you know, what was interesting to me today was just how compelling the arguments were from the managers, the house managers, for the need for witnesses, and, you know, i think the reason that lamar alexander and murkowski wanted their statements out before was because they anticipated that. the case for witnesses is obvious and the case against it is also obvious. they don't want to hear it. they know what happened. they say it was either justified or wrong but not impeachable. but they don't want any more information because it's only

going to make things worse for the president. and they want to end this. mcconnell wanted to do it tonight. schumer has pro lomgd it beyond the state of the union. the outcome was preordained. >> prolonged in part because there are republicans who want to have a chance to detail their feelings. >> you had alexander, rubio, toomey, come out and say atomb everything is true, they made the case. he did it. but it's not impeachable. >> the idea is not whether he did it but what we're going to do. >> i call this the dershowitz. when he made the statement about expanding executive authored, people's heads rolled back, he's saying that congress doesn't have the power, he can do whatever he wants. that was the moment they said i can't just say yay or nay. i'm going to have to explain to

my constituents that i'm not maybe basing my decision off of that. which is why i think lamar alexander took issues. the arguments that are so outlandish and irresponsible it cause the the domino effect for others to explain why they're not being equally irresponsible. >> you can't sell someone something they don't want to buy. they were looking for something they wanted to buy. >> they were looking for something to buy, but they have opened a tremendous can of worms, because in the 1970s, republicans and democrats alike realized that the presidency had become so complex that there were ways for the president to do harm to the constitutional system without violating the law. that's why in the '70s they came to understand the really the concept of abuse of part. it was bipartisan and in the house and it would have been in

the senate. that understanding of the power of abuse of power and the importance of making that also a threshold for impeachment has been thrown away. >> right. >> and which means that if they don't -- you know, it's the journey to acquittal that matters. how with are they going to explain the difference between an impeachable abuse of power and something that was a bad choice. >> or as marco rubio said, abuse of power, but he thinks the voters should decide. we're going to come back in just a moment as we are waiting for them to come in on this crucial vote on the resolution. we'll be right back. ♪ ♪ this simple banana peel represents a bold idea: a way to create energy from household trash.

it not only saves about 80% in carbon emissions... it helps reduce landfill waste. that's why bp is partnering with a california company: fulcrum bioenergy. to turn garbage into jet fuel. because we can't let any good ideas go to waste. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere. to help the world keep advancing. you ever wish you weren't a motaur? sure. sometimes i wish i had legs like you. yeah, like a regular person. no. still half bike/half man, just the opposite. oh, so the legs on the bottom and motorcycle on the top? yeah. yeah, i could see that. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. the senators are back.

mitch mcconnell gaveling in. >> 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 an the president to be used as under the rule 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 con soent that the democratic leader or his designee be allowed to offer up to four minutes of the resolution. further, that i be recognized to make a motion to table the amendment after it's 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 state the inquiry? >> is the chief justice aware that in the impeachment trial of

president johnson chief justice chase cast tie breaking votes on both march 31st and twril 22nd, 1868. >> i am. the one concern a motion to concern, the other 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 guide equally on a motion, the normal rule is that the motion fails. i think it would be inappropriate for me an unelected 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, duffy, blair, and the white house omd, d.o.d. and state department documents, and i ask

that it be read. >> the clerk will report. >> senator in new york, mr. schumer proposes an amendment number 1295. at the appropriate place in the matter following the resolving clause insert the following. section notwithstanding any other provision of this -- >> the amendment be considered as read. >> objection? so ordered. the majority leader is recognized. >> i move to table the amendment and ask the yaz and nays. >> is there a sufficient second. >> the clerk. >> mr. alexander, aye.

miss bald whwin, no. mr. barrasso -- >> mrs. blackburn, aye. mr. blumenthal, no. >> and this is the vote on the first amendment. we antsdspate there will be four. this is the first put forward and this is putting all of his witnesses and documents in one amendment. mulvaney, bolton, head of the omb, all of the documents. that's what they're voting on. we anticipate this will be turned down by 51 votes as they are doing a roll call vote. you heard the chief justice and supreme court at the very beginning was forced by the moo i nort leader to make a stand if it were a tie vote to say it's inappropriate, he would not break that tie. >> it was very clear that senator schumer raise that issue because the chief justice was reading his answer.

it was negotiated i'm sure with the majority leader. >> he clearly had it prepared. >> he had prepared for it. this is -- they're going through some procedural motions now to implement the deal they've made. and the deal they've made, senator schumer had leverage because there was division within the republican caucus to extend this thing out through the weekend, allow people to make public statements on monday, take a vote on wednesday. you know, the president doesn't get what he wants, that, you know, standing up for the state of the union saying, i've been acquitted. and that's because i honestly think that the reluctance among the republicans in the caucus to have this go quickly is they've got a much more difficult explanation to make than say the democrats in 1999 did. in 1999, democrats got up and in the vote said, you know, the pred's acknowledged what he's done. he's apologized and this doesn't

rise to the level of impeachment. in 2020, the president not only hasn't apologized. he told george stephanopoulos he'd do it again. that's a tough thing. that's why they all want 15 minutes to explain, here's what my position is. i'm sure republicans will scream and yell about it. this was because republicans were going, they needed time to explain. >> and scott jennings is with us. you know mitch mcconnell better than anyone. this was a tough deal. he wanted this vote to happen tonight that would have put the president, and he didn't have the full leverage to do so because of division in his own caucus, of clearly enough senators, republican senators, wanted to be able to explain their vote. and that's why this is going to go well into next week. >> i'm not surprised. i've been predicting for a long time that several senators are going to find a problem with what the president did.

minor, major, we've seen statements expressing pretty real concerns. they've all fallen short of the idea that the president should be thousand out of office. it's the democrats who showed this choice, acquit or throw him out. i thought it was a bridge too f far. i think the folks that want to be heard out to be heart. i don't have a big problem with this. if you want to make a speech and talk to the american people about your vote, that's fine. it's the democrats here that failed to convince either republicans in the house or ultimately republicans in the senate, that their case rose to the level of needing to throw the president out. the political specter faced by the threademocrats is there are considering acquitting this president. meaning he would have had bipartisan opposition to the articles in the house and possibly in the senate.

that would be huge icing if it turns out that way, for the president. >> i've had an issue calling it bipartisan when it's one on the other side. it's not like there's a mass. it would be significant, and you did have two republicans vote with the democrats which is why they're in this position tonight. david axelrod, what do you make of that? you have mitt romney, susan collins. >> yeah, and that was predicted for some time. i'll get to that in a second there. but let me respond to what scott said. the fact is that there's been a lot of movement in the republican position. it's always been the case that they weren't going to accept impeachment and certainly removal from office. but the fact of the amattmatter facts have continued to evolve here and become known during this process.

now rather than saying, no one has ever proven, no one has ever linked the aid to ukraine to the action that the president took relative to the bidens and, you know, the kinds of arguments that we heard during the impeachment hearing, the arguments you're hearing from the senators are mostly either, as i said earlier, either he did it and it's fine because corruption is corruption and just because it was the bidens doesn't mean it wasn't okay for him to do it. but you're hearing a number of senators, because i think they know that's an untenable argument saying, no, he did something wrong, but we feel we should not throw the president of the united states out of office and off the ballot. the american people should make that decision. the president doesn't want to hear that. he can claim it was a bipartisan vote but he can't claim it was a vindication of his position. he can't claim he did nothing wrong. he will. but there will be republican

voices that say he did not. i think that's problemcal for him. >> and this is a rare moment when we're seeing the full senate. i want to ask you a question. i may have to interrupt you as this vote finishes. this is a special moment seeing them here together, doing this voting with going through this history-making moment. >> yes. an impeachment trial is a history-making moment. you have one branch of the government making charges against a head of the executive branch and a trial presided over by the head of the judiciary. it is a stunningly significant event on the floor of the senate. it's the third time it's happened in our history. i commend chief justice roberts for clarifying that point of confusion. >> he would not break a tie as an unelected official? >> yes. there's been much speculation that he would o vote. the weight has been that chief justice chase colored outside the lines. >> i'm going to interrupt.

they've finished the roll call. let's get ready. we believe there will now be the introduction of the second of four anticipated amendments. this of course just to make sure, these are the amendments being proposed to the majority leader mitch mcconnell's resolution which sets the stage for the trial now. there was a 51-49 vote to not have witnesses today. mitch mcconnell wanted to move to today an acquittal. he's put forth a resolution which would put this into next week. let's listen to the votes. >> his or her vote? if not, the yays are 53, the nays are 47. the motion is agreed to. the democratic leader is recognized. >> mr. chief justice, i send an amendment to the desk to

subpoena john r. bolton and i ask that it be read. >> the clerk will report. >> the senator from new york, mr. schumer, proposes an amendment number 1296, at the appropria appropriate place in the clause, section, notwithstanding any other provision of this, pursuant to rules 5 and 6, in the senate when sitting on impeachment trials, the chief justice of the united states of the secretary of senate shall issue a subpoena for the taking of testimony of john robert bolton in the sergeant at arms is authorized to utilize the deputy arms or any other employee. >> leader is recognized. >> other i move to table the amendment. ask for yays and naes. >> is there a sufficient second?

there is. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. alexander, aye. miss baldwin, no. >> and they are now taking the roll call vote for the second of four anticipated amendments, this one about john bolton's testimony. i want to talk about john bolton. laura, "the new york times" today new reporting, john bolton's manuscript, this is about a meeting in may, may comes before june and june was when the call happened. trump has a meeting, at that is mick mulvaney, pat cipollone, the president tells bolton to pressure ukraine to get information on rivals including joe biden. >> i think you just defined hypocrisy and a reason to accelerate the trial to avoid having fact-based witnesses saying, remember that time people like adam schiff were too

interested? cipollone as white house counsel, you too had some involvement. by the way, the call was in july, two months to plan this entire thing. one thing, i find it strange that the senate could not wait seven days to allow for witnesses like a bolton perhaps, maybe like other people in the room. they're willing to wait six days to make speeches about why they will acquit. by the alclation, you can have this done by next week. it's about the idea of the nonsense involved here. pat cipollone is the white house counsel. his job is to protect the longevity in the office, not the office holder. you see he's intimately involved and a fact witness about the fact of the case. we shouldn't keep hearing about this sort of thing through the bilines of a newspaper. >> ryan goodman is with us. what does that mean, if john bolton says this, you have in

the room the president of the united states directing john bolton to do what we know he did and you think is impeachable or not, and he says also there was rudy giuliani, mick mulvaney, and pat cipollone. and pat cipollone has been on the senate floor 2ke6didefendin president for days. what is the significance of that? knowing what he's doing is not true? >> it's quite incredible. there's a very specific ethical rule for all lawyers, the advocate witness rule. you can't be both an advocate representing the client and a direct witness to the allegations. and he's violated his ethical code, it's a clear breach of it. it didn't get much attention, but the house managers earlier this month did send him a letter saying we have some information that you were witness to a lot of these events and you're violating the rule. stephen gill mert who's one of

the exferts in the country has written about this, it seems as though cipollone ran roughshod right over that rule. one of the implications is to say to cipollone, tell us what facts you know about this. even that's kind of retrospektive in a certain sense but it's clearly a breach. and he has to speak up to this at some point even after the impeachment trial is over. >> it's a stunning report, if this is what the manuscript says, to think that we may never know what happened. david axelrod, will we never know? john bolton is not going to appear here as a witness. the book is going to come out. we are going to hear the full side of the story. there are obviously people that have been in that senate room who are going to be implicated by john bolton. >> yeah. well, you answered your own question, erin.

yes, we're going to know, because he's going to publish this book, which by the way thanks to the machinations in the senate will probably be the number one best seller the day it appears, already may be in advance. but, you know, in a sense, everybody knows in that room, i believe everybody in that -- knows in that room what happened. i don't think what bolton is saying comes as a shock to people. it's more embroidery on the story. it fills in some of the pieces. but it confirms what the house case has already made abundantly clear, which is what lamar alexander said. and knowing if you reverse engineer and say, i cannot vote to remove the president, which is the decision republicans have made, why would you want john bolton sitting there and telling this story in the way that apparently he would, and making your final vote more

uncomfortable than it was? i think they'd rather be retroactively retroactively uncomfortable than sit there in a trial and hear him testify before a national audience on this. so, you know, i think they made a political judgment to cut this off now before it gets worse. >> joe, they're almost done voting, but i do want to point out the first documents and mulvaney was completely party-line. this one was not. mitt romney and susan collins voted with the democrats. making the point, it was about john bolton, not anybody else. >> and it's a little bit surprising that on these sorts of procedural amendments you'd break with your party. that's significant. and it, you know, is about john bolton in particular. that's who they want to hear from. i agree with what david was saying. this is over as far as the result. but what really is going to

happen now is the exoneration issue. the president -- >> sorry, they're tallying the vote. >> the yeas are 51, the nays are 49. the motion is agreed to. >> the democratic leader is recognized. >> mr. chief justice, i send an amendment to the desk 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 fine days of the adoption of the underlying resolution, and i ask that it be read. >> the clerk will report. >> senator from new york, mr. schumer, proposes an amendment, number 1297. at the appropriate place of the

matter following the resolving clause -- >> be considered as read. >> so ordered. >> the majority leader is recognized. >> move to table the amend. and ask for the yeas and nays. >> is there a sufficient second? the clerk will call the role. >> mr. alexander, aye. miss baldwin, no. >> that is the third amendment. again we anticipate there's four. we shall see. that's what we anticipate. look, this is about john bolton and the minority leader is asking for john bolton to be deposed in the next five days. with one day of a deposition and have it all done in five days. you would anticipate their vote given the prior vote, generally mitt romney and sundasan collin would vote. say again, what would be the strategy for that? >> it's just a variation on the

same thing which is a variation on the first, make the republicans vote over and over and over again. >> put it on the record. >> the negotiation i think between mcconnell and schumer was over how many times they'd make them do this. it's underlyinining the point an and again, the republicans are against having witnesses, to highlight and make sure there's maximum exposure to the fact that 51 republicans are saying no witnesses. >> scott jennings, there is on this one, it's easier to make the argument, you're actually putting the exact same time frame of the entire trial. they're going to vote for this to end on wednesday, but vote against a resolution that would allow john bolton to be part of the testimony that would end within the same timeframe. isn't that harder to do? >> i think the republicans are casting their votes in some regard against the process. look, the world is not coming to an end tonight or tomorrow or wednesday. as far as i know, the united states house of representatives

could have already subpoenaed john bolton if it felt like it and could still do it in the future. i think one of the signals the republicans are sending, is handle this through your own process, normal oversight. if the house and adam schiff -- >> i have to make the point here. just because someone else does something wrong doesn't mean it's okay for to you do it wrong too. we all have kids. >> it's not -- why is it wrong for the united states senate to say to the house, do your homework then talk to us? they are protecting senate press debs. they don't want rushed impeachments. again, if the house wants to convene next week in bring in bolton and work that process through the normal channels, they're more than able to do it. if bolton is serious and wants to testify, there should be 2 0 problem. >> let me ask you that, because i think that's important.

john bolton could have spoken before. just because he didn't in my view does not make it okay for someone not to want to hear him. but he didn't. he could have done an interview. he didn't work for the president. he could have done a press statement, put out an op-ed, testify to the house. now he's doing it this way. little pieces of the man ooup script. what was the game? >> well, i think what i'm tired of is the game that it seems he's trying to play, as if he's doing this great magnanimous gesture, i'm willing, you will you have to do is signal to me. you'd have to have amnesia. it's not as if adam schiff said is there a man named john bolton who wanted to talk? he said he wasn't going to come voluntarily. he said he'd sue. he had another client who also was going through litigation. the idea of having them say ignore the fact bolton was making you go through a pro takt

the exer soois of futility, and now it's a republican-led senate, now his rubbing elbow opportunities in the future in the conservative world, he's saying all you ever had to do was ask me, it's so disingenuous of him. i also don't buy the john kelly, there's so much more to tell you. well, where have you been? where have you been when they said we want to hear from bolton? why at the 11th hour just before the book goes to print? please don't pretend like you had patriotism as your number one priority and the house was the one who had a self-interested motive. >> and david, she's referring to john kelly saying with no witnesses, the impeachment trial is a job only half done. >> yes. of course, he wasn't around for this story. and, you know, the thing with

donald trump is so many people leave on bad terms, and then be speaking their mind after the fact, and basically kelly was signaling, i trust bolton more than i trust trump. and he wanted that message out there. but as to bolton, he is one of the craftiest veterans of the washington scene there is. >> i like that word, crafty. >> and my sense of him on this was, he knew he was going to tell this story in this book. and he couldn't tell it without at least having been caught trying to testify. and i think he made a bet that he wasn't going to be called to testify in the senate, that they would never let him testify in the senate. but now he can claim that he tried. and so when the book comes out, no one can say, you should have told that story to the congress. he'll say, i tried to tell the story to the congress. you know, some people will say why didn't you tell it to the

house? they asked him to. >> he still may get that chance. but i think he's played this thing like a strat vairious honestly and is going to cash the checks to prove this. >> in terms of the resolution itself, we know senator mcconnell did call president trump about this resolution before he put it forth. again for those just joining this sets the process from here. there will be no wittose ins. we have that vote. this is we're going to adjourn until monday, you get closing arguments, and then it will wrap up after the state of the union. but the president is onboard. >> we are as much of a democracy today as yesterday because all the players were elected. one of the questions we're going to ask ourselves, to what extent are we a constitutional republic? because the senate has an institutional responsibility to be a coequal branch. and senator mcconnell has

decided to assist the president in his own defense. the first time in our history that the president's party has controlled it in a trial. it changed the threshold for impeachment. >> they're going to announce the tally here. but we should point out, yeah, mcconnell said he was coordinating with the president, the white house, was going to make, you know, no bones about where he stood in terms of being a juror. this vote as we do the final tally, because it was a more detailed and specific definition around john bolton being a witness, again mitt romney and susan collins did vote with the democrats. so this will be a 51-49. >> anyone to change his or her vote? if no, the yeas are 51, the nays is 49. >> 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. senator from maryland, mr. van holland, proposes an amendment number 1298. at the appropriate place in the matter insert the following, notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the presiding officer shall issue a subpoena for any witness or documents that a party moved to subpoena, if the presiding officer determines that it's likely to have probative evidence relative to art cals before impeachment 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 aask for the yeas and nays. >> is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the role. >> mr. alexander, aye. >> this is the fourth amendment of the four. they negotiated in advance because mitch mcconnell was going to have to have a lot of republicans whose seats are in jeopardy this fall. this was to require the chief justice roberts to rule. so he would be the one passing the rule of whether there would be any witnesses or documents and rule on white house privilege. laura, we know he made it clear he wasn't going to break a tie. now they're going to vote on if. but they're making the point. >> to underscore in case people didn't quite get justice roberts saying this should be belonged

to those elected representatives, not to myself. it won't be appropriate. which is what people expected him to do. there had been precedent in the kblonson impeachment trial of so many, many years ago. but he did not find that per sw swaysive to gade his hand now. this is where the supreme court or any court does not want to get into things that are already foregone conclusions. he made this announcement not the beginning of the impeachment trial where people were still wondering about whether he would weigh in. he makes it at the end. then he says this issue is -- i'm not going to put my thumb on the scale, i'm not elected. this is basically moot because you have deemed it so. in many ways he has set himself up to be the most prudent of the people in the room about this issue. but it doesn't resolve the question ultimately of just how much this point they're doing right now will affect the elections going forward, the future of the senate, and the house representatives, and what

impact on the american people's faith in our system of impeachment. >> ryan, is there any argument to the made for the chief justice who is presiding, with a lot of am big gut over how he would do so, he was able to define the rules, he would not be willing to rule on motions of witnesses, documents, points of law? >> it's interesting, because the senate standing rules on impeachment actually rule 6 has a role for the presiding officer to rule on certain questions of evidence, like is the witness make statements that are relevant, relevancy is an issue. i think what's very interesting by this last amendment by senator schumer is it seems to be saying we're giving an opportunity to have the chief justice rule on questions of executive privilege. if you vote that down, it kind of shows that you weren't really

worried about elongated litigation because it would have had the chief justice resolve the issue here which is consistent with the standing rules. that's different than what the chief justice was saying before about breaking a die between 50/50 on the side of the senators. i think this is an important symbolic move that's different than the others that senator schumer has offered. >> let's go to phil mattingly. you have new reporting on why we're in this position, where a vote comes after the state of the union and iowa caucuses. given mitch mcconnell is the mon majority, the president didn't want this, that is the deal they've cut. >> that's right. we talked at the beginning of the show about competing pressures, republicans internally and versus democrats. what we've heard in the wake of the decision being made, they felt they didn't have a choice. what democrats were putting on the table is the deal they have right now or tactics that were

dilltory enough to have gone through the course of another week. to underscore how big of an issue was, i'm told by a source, senator mcconnell, majority leader, called president trump, walked him through the resolution, details, the realities on the ground, and the president ended up signing off on things. it shows that that this was pretty tense up here. democrats ended up having leverage knowing that mcconnell didn't have the votes inside the conference to move forward and trying to utilize that. every single democrat is going to vote against this when they have the final vote on it. but it underscored even though we know how this is going to end, even though the witness vote went down 49-51, there's gamesmanship to try to change chaz going and to have these votes. the way the initial resolution was laid out, after that vote that failed earlier, there were no more votes to be had on

witnesses. this is another series of votes on subpoenaing john bolton, mick mulvaney, documentsing with something that democrats didn't think they'd have the opportunity to do if they lost earlier this evening. >> it has been not once, twice, three, 4, but five times that republicans have had to vote against witnesses, when there is a witness willing to testify when he said the president is accused of doing exactly what they said? >> and they believe what's in it. they say and lamar alexander said yesterday, it's what we're going to do about it. the defense went from, you have to evidence to prove he did anything wrong to -- >> perfect call. >> perfect. to okay, you know what, that's not an abuse of power even if you you say is true. to we believe you, it probably

was an abuse of power, but we don't want to take him out of office. how do you explain that? this entire thing for many people in the senate was about a self-fulfilling prophesy, these questions were rhetorical, the idea of what they wanted to gain was something that was really trying to just prove the point. >> they are now handing this tally to the chief justice. >> 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. mr. baldwin?

no. mr. baldwin, no. mr. bennett, no. >> and now they are voting on the actual resolution. four amendments, all of them now complete. on the two relating to john bolton, collins and romney voting with the democrats. otherwise, voting with the republicans, so there have been five votes from republicans turning down witnesses and documents. this is the vote now, tim, on the resolution itself. this resolution will move ahead. once we get this roll call vote and that means they'll have four hours of closing statements equally divided. then they'll have time to talk, give their speeches, and a final vote on wednesday. >> yes. you know, precedent is really important. we've seen it in the past nine days. people referring to precedent. there's some major issues that have just been opened. again, i go back to the '70s, because much of our thinking about abuse of power comes from the nixon experience. congress, after watergate, said the american people have the right to know information about abuses of governmental power.

i want to know whether in their statements, republicans are going to limit this view of acceptable abuses of power or not. is it going to be acceptable to sick the irs against your political enemies? is it going to be okay to start fbi investigations on your political enemies? is it going to be okay to prevent money from going to certain groups that are dissenters? is it going to be okay to -- these are things that the nixon information did and congress recognized and both republicans and democrats said, oh, my god, the power of the presidency, we have to do something to contain it. the republicans have opened the pandora's box, allowing the possibility of abuse of power. okay, we're talking about ukraine, but the domestic consequences of this could be enormous. are they going to use their statements next week to say, okay, well, what we really mean is this. >> and david axelrod, it does come down to alan dershowitz now trying to swim around his comment, the comment, of course, was that if you commit

something, do something to get elected and you think that you will be the best president and your election is in the best interests of the country, what you did is okay, that it is therefore justified, even if that is just a small part of your motive. that's the argument that some people in that room are hanging their voites on. >> yeah, i don't know if anybody is going to repeat that argument. that argument is going to be an unfortunate cota on alan dershowitz's career. but it is true that just by the act of not acting and emascul e emasculating itself as a legislative body and surrendering its power to the president and saying that he can blanketly deny us the tools we need to have a thorough investigation, they have diminished themselves and they've enhanced the power of the president to a degree that we never, we never would have anticipated. and that is really the concern here. i'm wondering, given what

everybody is saying, what would happen -- and it won't happen, if someone proposed putting a censure motion on the floor of the senate after this impeachment fails. because the disturbing thing about this is that what it signals is there is no -- there is no recourse for a president who abuses his power. there's no punishment. there's no -- there's no action that can be taken. at least the senate should go on the record as saying this is not proper behavior. but they'll never do that. and as such, all of tim's fears, as we just expressed them, are very, very valid. and history is going to look back at this as a pivotal moment. >> you know, i wonder, scott, as david points out, that vote, he's saying, won't happen, because mitch mcconnell, you know, wouldn't want it to happen. but from some of the comments we've seen from republicans, you would have, if they were being honest and consistent with the statements they put out in the past day, you would have a clear

majority who would be willing to say what the president of the united states did was wrong and unacceptable. >> yeah, look. i think the statements are essentially an ad hoc, you know, censure, if that's what you want to call it, of what they think happened here. and i think the problem with the vote on a, you know, on language is, i'm not sure you could get all the senators to agree on what the rebuke should look like. maybe you could, but my sense is, you're going to see a series of statements and speeches that express varying degrees of disapproval with what they've seen. i think the wholesale rejection here is not of facts and is not of, you know, the idea that something went on. it's the idea that they didn't want to be given this binary choice. that there was another and maybe better way to handle this, a way that wouldn't have been so partisan. and that would have been through the normal congressional oversight process, where you have hearings and you bring people in and you pull the levers and you turn the knobs and you use the courts and you use all of your power to try to get to the bottom of something

before going straight to the death penalty of american politics. i think as much as anything, that's what the senate is rejecting, and if the house wants to, after they acquit the president next week, they could go right back in and do this the right way, which i'm curious to see if that's what they do. >> right or wrong, i won't jump on that, but they very may well have john bolton paeappear. >> that theory is the exact opposite argument that the republicans were making in the house. they were saying, you can't get all of this information, because you have to move to impeachment to do that. >> right, they were saying, under the oversight rules, you will not be able to get everything you want. >> there's always unintended consequences to any action congress takes. by extending this five or six days, the censure motion, the censure idea may take hold. and while it may not happen in the context of the impeachment, it would have to be in regular order, after. these republicans, as they hear from their constituents, may

decide they need something. and it's not what mitch mcconnell wants, it's what his caucus wants. so i wouldn't dismiss the censure out of hand, only because one of the things we've seen here is every single day, there's a new piece of information. >> and there's going to be more. >> and there's going to be more, and there'll be a bombshell between now and the wednesday vote. and we may be apt a place on wednesday where republicans feel like they need to do something more than just give an individual, as scott said, ad hoc censure. we don't know. but -- >> sorry. >> oh, sorry, go ahead. >> i was going to say, there is another player here who's going to have something to say about this and that's the president of the united states, who will depict whatever the senate does as exoneration, as vindication. and they're going to have to deal with that, just as he did the mueller report, even though mueller said, i'm not exonerating the president. so he's going to declare complete and total victory and vindication, and that's going to make an awkward situation for some of these republicans as

these facts come out. >> and that's exactly why the pressure may be on these republicans to do something more, because the president makes it even more uncomfortable for them. >> because he makes it absolute, the perfect call. >> the thing that chuck schumer has gotten, he's extended this story another five days. >> they are handing the vote tally to the chief justice, so let's listen to the tally. >> the yeas are 53, the nays are 47. 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 legislati legislative sessions of the senate on monday, february 3rd, tuesday, february 4th, and wednesday, february 5th, along with the full record of the senate's proceedings and the filings by the parties in a

senate document printed 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 that when the senate resumes legislative 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 the senate. >> without objection, so ordered. we are adjourned. >> and i want to go to alan frumin, who is our parliamentarian expert about the senate. and alan, what do you make of

that? they're going to have ten minutes each outside the actual formal trial itself to make their arguments. they are now adjourned until that begins on monday, before the closing statements, even. >> this is a nice escape valve for senators. they've been sitting here for two weeks, champing at the bit, desperate trying to speak, and speak on an issue that has enormous consequences for our constitutional order. so this does make -- this makes good sense and this is a way of the two leaders trying to keep their respective senators happy. i was gratified to see the chief do what he did earlier. i noted that the last amendment by senator schumer, with respect to the chief's authorities basically parroted rule 7. the chief does have a role to play and i think he understands where he should insert himself and where he shouldn't. >> and of course, now you have it. the resolution has passed completely along party lines for this trial to continue. the impeachment trial of president trump. they'll come in at 11:00 a.m. on monday morning.

they will have four hours of time for each side to make their final arguments and then senators with those crucial ten minutes each until wednesday at the vote, a chance to tell the country what they actually think. our coverage continues now with anderson cooper. >> good evening. you've been watching the end to a rather chaotic day on the senate floor. proceedings continue 11:00 a.m. monday. it looks like we have a possible road map to resolve the senate impeachment trial. it comes in the form of a resolution signed off on by president trump after speaking with republican leader mitch mcconnell. it follows a series of failed votes on democratic attempts to subpoena witnesses and a stop and start date with a lot of deal making evident on the floor itself. it also follows a damning new report in "the new york times" that not only has the president trump asking john bolton to aid his pressure campaign on ukraine back in early may of last year, but puts a member of the president's own defense team, pat cipollone, in the room when