answers. i hope we can follow both of these examples during this time. >> during the impeachment trial of president clinton chief justice rehnquist advised council quote the counsel on both sides that the chair will operate under the rebuttable presumption thatha each question can be fully and fairly answered in five minutes or less end quote. this transcript indicates the statement was met with quote laughter end quote. nonetheless managers and counsel limited their responses accordingly. i think the late chief's time limit was a l good one and would ask both sides to abide by it. span off mr. chief justice i ask unanimous consent that the trial adjourned till a 1:00 p.m. wednesday january 10-order constitute the adjournment of the senate. >> without objection, the court is adjourned. >> host: a live view for

capital just passed 520 gluckin evening the president's lawyers wrapping up the defense on day three of the impeachment trial. this will include questions to the impeachment managers from senators that will be written and directed by the chief justice of the united states john roberts. we want to hear from you and we want to ask you this question. if you were in the senate what question would you ask the president's defense lawyers or the house democratic impeachment managers and our phone lines regionally in the eastern or central timezones 202-748-8920 and for those in the mountain or pacific timezones 202-748-8921 and we are taking your text messages at 202-748-8003 and if you were to ask a question what question would that be? the chief justice john roberts will take questions eight hours

for each side the democrats and republicans and further requirement by then chief justice william rehnquist but the answer has to be in five minutes or less. from that impeachment trial from 1999 a video library from c-span.org i want to show share two bits of news from "politico" senate republicans calm down after the bolton panic. the story points out just days after national security adviser john bolton's ukraine resolutions rocked capitol hill and they are pushing for quick end to the president's impeachment trial. then there's the story that broke just a moment ago from the "l.a. times" or this is the headlines read senator dianne feinstein leaning toward acquitting the president as lawyers and their arguments. the story points out the following quebec just after president trump stiffens lawyers ended arguments in their central and tuesday senator dianne feinstein democrat of california he came the first democrat to

suggest that she would vote to acquit him despite serious concerns about his character. telling reporters in nine months left to go the people should judge. we are a republic based on the will of the people did the people should judge. that is my view and it is still my view. the story that broke short while ago from the "l.a. times" web site. again the question we are asking you is what question would you ask the impeachment managers or the president's defense lawyers. christopher in nevada could have -- good afternoon. >> caller: good afternoon. my name is christopher and i live in nevada. i've been watching this senate hearing for quite some time now. i just can't believe that there are actually people there doubting the voracity of the impeachment managers on the democratic side. they have full view, all this compelling evidence not including the evidence that was

withheld by the president. people who are innocent do not behave in this fashion. >> host: christopher i take that point how would you frame it in terms of a question that you would want the chief justice to read to the impeachment manager or the president's defense lawyer? >> caller: the first question i would like to have is, is there any relevance to hunter biden or joe biden being a part of something that the president did knowing that he is the one that withheld what was are ready appropriated be sent by congress >> host: christopher thanks for the column we go to martha and lansing, michigan in the same to you what would be your number one question? hello martha? you are on the air. >> caller: oh yeah thank you. yes, i am very disappointed in

the democratic, way of thinking. they have wanted to impose impeachment from the very beginning for this man. he has done wonderful things. the question that i would have for them is half the people considered the lies that shiffmack and adler -- nadler and the democrats have said during this procedure? i have watched every minute and there have been so many pinocchio's from even the newspapers saying that there were lies by these people. i'm hoping that people will take and realize that not everything that came through with the democrats is the truth and i used to be in attendance and i still am an independent but i

did support monetarily trump this time because i think that he has really gotten a bad rap. i feel once you take and vote for a senator and a congressperson that they are voted in to do what is best for the people. >> host: martha thanks for the call. they go to robert nexium brace canyon new jersey. if you had one question you would want to read to the house impeachment managers or the president's defense team will without question be? >> caller: it would be to the chief justice to say how can you indict the speaker of the house and the house managers for presenting that fraud to the united states senate? was to thank you for the call. casey and krusbe oregon, what is your question?

>> caller: my question is why would they have the sham process going on at all since it's so unconstitutional for the articles of impeachment to even be there. it seems like it's ridiculous. to the people i know it's absolutely a sham. it's embarrassing to that country and ours and you know it's horrible. why would they allow this to go on? >> host: pad is next from elizabeth city. what would your question be? >> caller: my question is, this is an embarrassment to our country with the democratic people and the managers and schiff and nadler. people just see the lies of what they are doing spending millions of dollars on an impeachment a false impeachment or a sham and

the president has done what he said he was going to do i i support the president. i hope people will look at their constituents like feinstein. >> host: will show the headline not only by feinstein but joe manchin from the "l.a. times" the senior democrat is leaning toward acquitting the president as the impeachment argument by defense lawyers wrapped up earlier today about 2:30 eastern time but how significant is this for senate democrats? >> caller: well, i hope they need to acquit the president. he doesn't need to be impeached. >> he's already been impeached. the question is will he be convicted? >> he's got a government contract. if i had a government contract

that be put in jail. >> host: another caller from houston, texas. what question would you want to ask katrina? >> caller: the question i want to ask they are not ashamed of themselves. i am an old person democrat and if somebody treated my son like they are treating this president i don't know what would i have done. they should be ashamed. look at the fisa courts in the fbi and the cia. everybody, they are all liars. they are professional liars making money and we should kick them out of the office altogether. >> host: thanks for the call point we are one week away from the stay the union address that will have live coverage on c-span at 8:00 eastern time to the president's remarks before a joint session of congress scheduled for 9:00 eastern time and the democratic governor of michigan will provide the democratic response. more of your phonecalls in just a moment bitterly to the one of

the house impeachment managers in california adam schiff at a capitol hill news conference. >> are you confident enough that the senate will be in preparation for that and if so how? what conversations are you yourself prepared for? >> first are we preparing? we have prepared for john bolton and we have a lot more work to prepare now that we know more of what he's likely to say. we will be prepared when the time comes and at the most crucial is not the skill of his examination or cross-examination but rather letting the senators evaluate his credibility and letting him tell the story and not tell it in the book. are we really going to require the country to wait until his book comes out to find out if the information the senators could use to make the right

decision on conviction or acquittal blacks in terms of the sort of red herrings, if we are going to call if the house managers want to call relevant witnesses we want to call in relevant ones because we want to make them pay the price of forgetting witnesses at the heart of this game that's not a game we are interested in playing. i can tell you what my testimony is come he's guilty and he should be impeached. i think the idea is an absurd one but this is what you have to fall back on when you'd know just how damaging john bolton's test may it's going to be and i would say the same of hunter biden. if they want a witness for witness then let them call mick mulvaney. mick mulvaney has said that he disagrees with john bolton has to say. let them call mick mulvaney. let them call secretary pompeo. let them call people better

percipient witnesses to this corrupt scheme if they want a witness to witness but that's not really what they want. they want a distraction and i don't think the senators will allow for proceeding to be turned into a circus. >> host: portion of democrat adam schiff the lead house democratic manager that chair of the house intelligence committee. our phone lines are open. we want to hear from you on what question you would ask to adam schiff fellow house managers or the president's defense lawyers. we are taking your text messages this is from bill in manassas with regard to congressman schiff. congressman schiff. he's saying if adam schiff thinks his argument is so effective why does he have to keep giving these long monotonous press conferences with all of the manager's? why does he not allow the other managers to make some of these points? trust the issue's? congressman jerry nadler here today. he was not there is today. his is battling pancreatic cancer and he said he would not

be there for yesterday's presentation by the president's lawyers they kicked off in washington today protects message from georgia new jersey saying please correct me if i'm wrong but how can president can't be guilty of looking into his opponent when biden not come -- has not declared he was running when this alteplase? next phonecall from indiana, good afternoon. >> caller: thank you. my question is the debate over motives and people's actions seeking self-interest, how is it that those in the senate seeking the democratic nomination should be allowed to vote on the outcome of this impeachment? is that not a conflict of interest? would they be able to offer that they are truly voting for the country and not just to get their political opponent out-of-the-way? >> host: evelyn thank you and for democrats in the senate running for president. mary in california what question

would you ask of the impeachment managers are the presidents lawyer's? >> caller: you know when i called i wasn't aware that there was a question that i was supposed to ask. i was just going to say we need witnesses and i have called everybody i know in washington who has a phone number saying we need to have witnesses. i guess what i really am appalled about is why anybody whether they are republican and democrat or independent, why they are not just scared about having elections interfered with by a foreign power or? to me, that just shakes me to my core and i really don't care what party you are from.

it should just be unbelievable that this would be happening. >> host: mary, thank you for the call. the president is back on the campaign trail. this afternoon heading to wildwood, new jersey. the campaign rallies underway at seven eastern time. it's the congressional district of van drew the democrat turned republican voting against the articles of impeachment. there is the president on marine one as he arrives at joint base standards for the rally taking place tonight again live on c-span3. we will listen to nancy on c-span2. they are moving to c-span2 is now the trial is complete. >> caller: i was just going to ask a question and it's actually for both the impeachment managers and the president's

defense team. my question is about high crimes and misdemeanors. at the time that the constitution was drafted was the word felony in existence and did it exist in all of the states of the union at that point? because i don't know it could have a legal bearing. the facts are what they are but if everybody is going to argue these points that's a question i want to know and i'm sorry if i have shown my ignorance. >> host: no, we appreciated that the president will be in des moines iowa for a campaign rally which they live on c-span networks seen -- nevada california you are next. if you have a question or had the ability to ask a question what would it be?

are you with us? >> caller: oh yes. my question to all of congress is how can a witness or someone else's point of view of something be considered a fact? and criminal. i think trying to get witnesses points of view is irrelevant to actual facts. >> host: scott wong from "the hill" newspaper. no clear conclusions on the issue of witnesses at a gop meeting today. there was a meeting among senate republicans to see how they would proceed. with regard to witnesses. this is ed in new hampshire good evening, go ahead please. >> hi how are you. >> host: good, how are you?

>> caller: very good thank you. my question would be to the house managers. both the house managers and schumer had pushed very hard to have witnesses included in the senate hearing and we have four people wanting precedent against mr. trump on the jury. how can they argue that there should be more witnesses than were sitting with four people running against the president as his jurors? >> host: thank you for the call. lori is next from washington and if you have a question to ask the impeachment managers of the president's defense team what would it be? >> caller: i would ask what right all the allegations previous to the impeachment trial that caused democrats to want to impeach the president?

was it that the family didn't divest assets that is a conflict of interest or was it that he didn't release his tax returns or the meetings where they try to get hillary clinton from foreign companies or was it that china gave her additional trademarks to the u.s. or applications, they granted them just before policy decisions were made by president trump? or collusion with russia or instructed his attorney to lie? i'm just wondering if any of those were what the senators thought that the democrats got impeachment earlier than this impeachment trial may have taken place? >> host: thank you for adding your voice to the conversation. chuck what is your question?

>> caller: i'd like to know how someone could bring this to the senate and be convicted of impeachment when everything that i have seen on tv is circumstantial or hears the evidence. here's the evidence. the united states has never been used in court. >> host: thank you for the call. charlene in newark new jersey what would your question be? >> caller: hello? >> host: go ahead charlene. >> caller: it's in new york, not dude jersey. two questions. who is the whistleblower and where the documents that the managers are keeping and not submitting and the second question is could we the american people sue the democratic party after president trump had been not impeached for all the funds that they are using to try to impeach him?

>> host: he has been impeached you mean if he is not convicted? >> caller: yes, i'm sorry. >> host: what is your question wreck. >> caller: my question is that like to know the date and the time that adam schiff met with the whistleblower and why the whistleblower's name has not been brought to the public eye because he is accusing our president of something and according to the law it is that president trump has the right to see his accuser. >> host: thanks for the culprit a couple couple of treats from reporters a copper capitol hill jordan carney senator barrasso leaving the gop meeting quote the consensus is we have heard enough. it's time to get the final judgment. that's -- no final decision on witnesses at the gop conference committee and eric watson a vote

by senator alexander saying he still undecided on witnesses in a trial. this from "politico" alan dershowitz tells me plan to the president tomorrow and thursday in case they have inquiries related to his presentation per that the plan he said in an e-mail. tomorrow's coverage getting underway tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. eastern time 16 hours divided by the democrats or republicans but the format is questions are in written form and they will be handed to the chief justice of united states john roberts who will read those questions directed to either the democrats or the president's defense lawyers. earlier today on capitol hill reaction from senate republicans including kevin cramer of north dakota. >> your question was do i worry that if we don't have more witnesses we equipped john bolton's tell-all book comes out presenting information in their

will it blow back on us? schiff is the person award to the judge that john bolton went to to get residents and they said we no longer want john bolton to testify now. he passed on john bolton as a witness. [inaudible] >> it is not the job of the judge. >> you voted to acquit and. [inaudible] >> i don't know that is potentially damaging at all. it's not my job to present the prosecution's case. somehow the only people that get to have witnesses or the prosecutors and accused is denied their rights. giving the prosecutors more witnesses as though the senate is a fishing pole for adam schiff to go fishing for the big

fish. he moved the opportunity to have john bolton as a witness. i don't know why we would remedy that for him. god knows they are not going to stop investigating in the modus operandi. adam schiff may be worried about blowback because he passed on the opportunity. he basically had an invitation to have john bolton in. [inaudible] >> i don't know that would. he called the witness and the house with the same request. >> you are saying it too close to the election? >> what makes it go quickly? do you think the president would exercise his rights as a defendant and his right as an

executive? i would imagine he would and i would imagine he would exercise it sfrc could exercise it. i don't know that we really would get it done any faster here than in the house but if it was important in the house they should have gone to court is john bolton himself and basically invited him. instead adam schiff to use that moment to say no, we no longer are calling john bolton. >> senator you said before. [inaudible] >> i can only speak for myself. [inaudible] >> i don't know that it was ever going to be unanimous but at this point all we know is my vote is the only vote that i know of. i don't know where people are. i know it's a couple of days away and minds can be changed. i imagine there will be a lot of people trying to influence mine and not waste a lot of time.

i have seen enough to know this impeachment should never have been over here that it was unconstitutional that was poorly thought out and a giant net looking for evidence instead of bringing evidence. >> you said before there was discussion about some people talking about a vote and how witnesses would affect its? is there concern within your caucus they are vulnerable republicans for whom this could be a very difficult vote if they vote against bolton? >> think each member has to search their own conscience, consider their own constituents and look at the evidence and make up their own minds. without question a vote either way will make some people happy and make other people not so happy. that is not dissimilar to every vote that we cast pretty much in this place.

this is more divisive obviously been a highway bill but it's nonetheless what we do and the job we ran four. [inaudible] >> i think there is a deliberation period. there is at least an opportunity for both sides to wrap up their cases as i recall. it seems to me and i don't want to play out the scenario necessarily but it would seem to me the sooner we can get to a vote on conviction or acquittal the better. part of the problem with all of this is that it's already wasting a lot of senate's time and when i say wasting as you know we can't do anything else in terms of moving legislation and having substantive hearings. we have oversight hearings and whatnot and legislative hearings and so i want to get about the business of.

we passed the largest highway bill in the history of this day. our committee unanimously and we haven't been able to give for time to pass it. >> he said there was a discussion. tell us about that discussion. about witnesses. >> well i don't think there is any new argument that you haven't heard before and the fact that the republican family of senators got together at this moment on the eve of making the decision. i don't think it's a problem for me to speak for anyone else which is one speaking for myself. it was a very family gathering with serious thinkers and somewhat diverse views i suppose that for the most part we have been 100% united in this process to this point. the mac where their senators in there that made the case against its?

spent there was a discussion. there was no debate in the classic sense like let's do this and other people saying no, let's not do that. they were just speaking their minds. >> senators at not helpful for republican colleagues to attack your other colleagues? saying he's trying to appease the left by voting for witness is? >> i can only speak for myself. whether it's senator romney or me or senator collins whoever it is we are not robots and we are not cheap. we are individuals that represent our communities and there are not white people in the united states senate. we all have conscience and we all have experiences and we all have different intellectual not

just capacities but intellectual backgrounds and some are a lot trained and some are not. we bring all of that is a group to the discussion and it's valuable to hear from each other we hear each other without judging or condemning someone else's views. >> for their attempts to wrap up and conclude? >> no one asked for a show of hands. we are at this phase where we have heard the two could argument starting the q&a. we want to regroup to tackle the process and how that's going to look and the questions we have presented and what order they will be asking them. those are two additional things and then -- >> you can't predict how the vote will go. >> yeah because i can't speak for the other republican

senators. if somebody asked me if i thought it would be close, think it's pretty clear i don't think we would reach any confidentiality. it's either going to be 53, 52, 51 or some number that starts with five would be my guess would be the vote did not have witnesses. >> senator on process the democrats said they are putting their questions out. >> we are doing that to some degree and remembering to help the chief justice facilitate because he's really the traffic cop, that's judicial efficiency and it's a good idea because that maximizes the time. efficiency, efficient use of time means a more productive outcome. [inaudible] >> he didn't say that but i don't know if you noticed the leader said that i think in the wrap-up. he said we discuss this at the end of the day.

the chief justice will probably give 10 minutes. >> the chief justice stated he wants to follow the rehnquist rule which is five minutes. >> keep talking. >> you keep talking. this is way more entertaining. >> he's the most entertaining man. [laughter] >> i don't know what you get for that but good people in north dakota. so, here's the consensus that if there is one witness that there's going to be a bunch of witnesses and i don't think we need any more witnesses. senator langford had an idea that if it's possible to go look at the portions of the transcript referred to in "the news york times" article, go see it for yourself or that's probably a good idea and maybe that's not possible. there is a line of thought that constraint affects most favorable to the government that

is not an impeachable offense but if you get into witness land we will expand of record in a couple of areas. the house refused to allow the record records include any evidence of corruption of hunter biden and the bidens vice president time in ukraine but i promise you that will be corrected. why is it relevant? the president had a reasonable belief that somebody should look at what happened when the bidens in ukraine that it wasn't for personal gain and the manager said there's not as intel of evidence and i would say there's a tsunami of evidence that would go to that point. there are some media reports about the dnc staffer talking to ukrainian officials. i don't know if it's true but he would go down that road so the idea that you just called one witness is not remotely possible. think would be best for the country. you need to talk to the vote counter. >> you made the point there

would be a lot of witnesses. >> i made the point if you go down the road of witnesses it's not going to be one comments going to be many. you will be ruling on privileges of the senator most likely. these witnesses are warning now could have been called before they should have been called. could have litigated privilege in court whether the senate having to decide legal issues. there's a body of thought when it comes to deciding privilege it won't be article iii courts. it will be the court of impeachment at a bunch of senators and i think that's bad for the future of the country. let's go back from lindsey graham to chair the senate judiciary committee. he was one of the house republican managers during the bill clinton impeachment two decades ago. "the wall street journal" with this tweet gop leaders say they do not currently have enough votes to block witnesses. senator mcconnell telling republicans the vote total was and where it needed to be.

he is a card that said yes one that said no and when the said may be marked on it. according to the account that would be -- i want to go back to the headline should with you from the "l.a. times" senator feinstein leaning toward acquitting trump as lawyers and their peach mint defense arguments. just a month ago senator feinstein trying to clarify what she said. the "l.a. times" misunderstood what i said today. before the travelers said they keep an open mind and now both sides have made their case it's clear the president's actions were wrong. he was withholding vital assistance and that cannot be allowed to stamp you taking your phonecalls from redding spurred california sandy what question would you ask the impeachment managers or the president and the defense lawyers? >> caller: yes, my question would be when president trump's acquitted of these charges will there be charges brought against joe biden for all of the

collision that he did in ukraine? >> host: thank you and the president with this tweet at 5:23 this afternoon. it's amazing what i've done, the most of any president in the first three years by far considering that for three years i've been under phony political investigations and impeachment hoax. keep america great. the president new jersey tonight live coverage of his campaign rally in one hour on c-span2 but mark is joining us from buffalo valley tennessee did what question would you have? >> caller: well i've got 33 things i'd like to mention. first of all the lady that commented earlier about the senators that are running for president its conflict of interest for them to vote. number two they always say if you lie to congress it's a felony or crime and if they lie to us it's politics. adam schiff lied to the american people but i also like to

congress. he didn't say it was a -- until a couple of days later so he directly lied to congress. there's a double standard between the democrats and republicans. democrats think they are above the law and the other thing is they have not made their case. the investigation, all investigations are supposed to be done by the house. they didn't do their job and they are just trying to fish for more information. like everybody else said there's no need for no more witnesses because they didn't do their job to the senate shouldn't have to be put through all this and all these people happened to be put through this because they didn't do their job. that is the biggest thing on here. everything was said that he hadn't done anything wrong and they are just fishing for anything because they should be charged for and are faring in the 2020 elections. >> host: the democrats under the senate rules the republicans defense lawyers a fraction of

the time a full day yesterday only a 90 minute sessions a day and two hours on saturday. today of course the president's lawyers wrapping up their defense arguments. they are saying the president should not be convicted and impeachment article should not be put forth. patricia and homer are alaska what question would you want to ask? >> caller: first, it's not a question. i was actually appreciate professor dershowitz's comments. however i want one comet. bill clinton during his impeachment was questioned via closed-circuit tv for four hours he'd gave testimony during his impeachment process. my question is why are we not defending the same of donald trump pics people talk about

hearsay and lack of evidence. i think if you go to the source we might get the information that was shed more light on this process. i think the democrats have done an admirable job in putting together this impeachment and i feel any evidence should be presented to the people. >> host: thanks for the call and we go to joe in mechanicsville, new york. bill, what question would you ask? .. >> on that note the president is in new jersey tonight and

one of just a few house democrats at the time when he voted not to impeach the president as a way to pay him back he is in new jersey tonight live coverage on c-span2 and the c-span radio app but we will have much more tomorrow morning on the "washington journal" and what you heard from the presidents defense lawyers they concluded their arguments and then tomorrow we will begin the next round which is questions to the lawyers directed by the chief justice of the united states perk as we've said throughout our coverage it's available on the free c-span radio app and on the web a special page is set up c-span.org / impeachment

ally view of the us capitol this tuesday evening the senate came in at 1:00 o'clock p.m. eastern with a session that lasted just about 90 minutes as the presidents defense lawyers concluded their arguments wrapping up the defense of the president thing is time for the senate to move on asking them not to convict the president following impeachment of the house of representatives becca we carried it live on c-span2. >> the senate will convene as a court of impeachment and the chaplain will lead us in prayer. >> let us pray. o god, you are our rock of safety. protect us. in the unsaved world. guard us from those who