>> c-span, , your unfiltered viw of government. created by cable in 1979 and brought to you today by your television provider. >> we are a little over 20 minutes away from the senate impeachment trial getting underway today at 1 p.m. eastern time. it is now turned to the phase where senators did ask questions. use the chief justice walking through the hallways of the senate. take his seat inside the senate chamber and the wealthy will be as he has been overseeing the proceedings. and how it will happen today is senators you to ask questions of

the house managers and the presidency team. the rules allow for 16 hours of questions from the senators. they are expected to around eight hours today and then come back in tomorrow and do another eight hours. then they would deliberate and vote on whether they can even call witnesses and documents in these senate proceedings. we learned a little bit more on today's "washington journal" from josh gerstein about how today will work. take a look. >> as the senate trial continues and moves into the next phase, we are joined by josh gerstein who senior legal affairs contributor for "politico." looking ahead the on the question phase, to the potential of debate over witnesses, you are writing about decisions that could be faced in terms of issues like executive privilege is claimed by the present. how might this play out in the coming days?

>> guest: this is one of the big things that has been put out there i've the president's defenders, that if the senate decided to go the route of calling witnesses we are looking at some kind of legal morass over executive privilege as the president tries to assert his right to confidential advice, and to exclude testimony from people like john bolton, the former national security adviser. obviously there's been -- in the courts involving former white house counsel don mcgahn and berries of the potential witnesses including at one point when the house was trying to get john bolton's deputy to testify. it appears there are two routes of fights over privilege could go. one is a question of whether it would be litigated right there on the floor of the senate possibly involving the chief justice himself in the first instance. any other possibility is that

the trump administration or even trump himself personally through his lawyers might go directly to court if the senate attempted to subpoena any of the four witnesses that the democrats are seeking at the moment or perhaps others. >> host: for john bolton a particular take us back to the house managers. did that at one point asking to testify and why didn't he? >> guest: they did indeed ask him to testify a couple of months ago. they never formally issued a subpoena but they did send a letter requesting his testimony, and he said that he didn't plan to testify without a subpoena certainly and that if he did get a subpoena he was also threatening that he would go to court to try to get some kind of legal resolution. he said he was inclined without a subpoena to abide by president

trump's letter that was sent through the white house counsel, pat cipollone, to say that he should not testify for this reason of what the call absolute immunity for presidential advisers. that was bolton's decision then. the move you hear people, republicans and trump allies discussing is at the house never actually issued the subpoena because they were at that point looking to not have that particular fight in court. they thought it would take too much time. another factor was they were already having a battle over don mcgahn which would not have been directly about ukraine, but rather more about the mueller investigation and alleged obstruction of justice by the president. the house seemed to have the upper hand in that battle. i think they were fairly happy with the judge that the case ended up in front of. she ended up rolling for them and that of course it up and at

the d.c. circuit. so rather than muddying the situation there was a strategic decision by democrats not to go forward with disputed witnesses and big subpoena court fight in the ukraine matter itself and just let those rollout in the previous investigation. >> host: in the impeachment trial it seems like john bolton, mick mulvaney, whether the democrats would want to call would be subject to a claim of executive privilege, correct? >> guest: yes. well, they would probably take, attempt to take the same position that they did with regard to these other witnesses that is a form of absolute immunity for close residential advisor to the other individuals that have been talked about by the democrats as witnesses in addition to mulvaney and bolton are in a two mulvaney named robert blair who is basically a deputy and staff of mick

mulvaney and michael duffey was a budget official at the office of management and budget who was involved in actually halting the distribution of a to ukraine. and they want those witnesses, not clear to me whether blair and duffey would really qualify as close presidential advisers or not. obviously mulvaney and bolton did and another reason for this playing out the weight might is the question of whether john bolton might be more entitled to or the the president more entid to executive produce because of bolton's role as a national security adviser as opposed to just a general white house lawyer or routine policy official. there are some previous rulings from the court suggesting those kinds of visuals that work on foreign policy and national security matters might be entitled to some more deference. but exactly how that would play

out is curious and there's also this question of whether john roberts as i said earlier the chief justice would rule immediately on a motion like that or whether he would wait for the legal dispute to make its way through the courts and then rule on it once it reached his colleagues at the supreme court. that's what seems to be a wildcard at the moment. >> host: does the chief justice have any precedent s fours the decisions are concerned? >> guest: -- precedent? >> guest: that are precedents from some previous impeachments but nothing squarely like this. there are previous investigations obviously both involving president bill clinton and president richard nixon where there were court fights over executive privilege. the nixon one is probably the most famous one where he was

told to hand over tapes, a lot of secret oval office recordings by the supreme court. and that is one where as i mentioned earlier there is language saying that if it was a military or diplomatic issue where the president is generally viewed as entitled to more latitude and more confidentiality, that the court might not have come out the way it came out. there are other cases though that lien in favor of the democrats, particularly saying that the senate should have the right to make these decisions. that is the decider if you will on any matter of executive privilege. it's not entirely clear where the courts would come out, although i would say most scholars i have spoken to believe the courts would not be eager to get in the middle of this kind of battle and would instead try to leave it to the discretion of the senate, which

doesn't mean the president would get no protection at all. it just means the senate would have to decide when his claims were valid and when they were not. >> host: josh gerstein, we'll keep an eye on your reporting as a potential legal issues unfold in the impeachment trial. thanks so much. >> host: at the latest today on john bolton. jake tapper cnn tweets out white house has issued formal threat to john bolton to keep them from publishing the book. the headlines this morning, this afternoon "new york post" rudy giuliani unloads on john bolton, causing and backstabbing and then you have the "new york times" this afternoon with evelyn trump's defense team discounts bolton as republicans work to hold off on witnesses. democratic leader chuck schumer of new york talk to reporters ahead of today's proceedings. here's what he had to say on questions and witnesses.

>> okay. i want to thank my colleagues for being here. yesterday as you know the president's counsel ended their defense of the president. up until the very end, mr. sekulow kept making the argument that the case against the president lacked eyewitnesses, knowing full well that his client the president was blocking the very eyewitnesses he said the trial lacked. knowing full well, he knew full well that one of the eyewitnesses, john bolton, wrote that the president told the he wanted to continue to late in military assistance to ukraine until it announced a political investigation that he was seeking. precisely the conduct charged in the first article of impeachment. mr. sekulow had the temerity to stand on the floor of the senate and say you must acquit the president because there are no eyewitnesses to the conduct alleged white house. also that senators must not call

eyewitnesses who could confirm it. of course, basher sondland's was an eyewitness. mr. mulvaney admitted the president held up the eight in a press conference. nonetheless, the president's counsel said you must have additional eyewitnesses but you are not allowed to have them. mr. sekulow's view of the trial is downright have to ask. remember the book the trial? okay, it's a short -- it's a novel, a short novel. not a long story. okay. now frankly the hypocrisy of mr. sekulow's argument was not lost on senate. i'm sure even republicans sort of added this up, hypocrisy. if anything, mr. sekulow's argument made the case for witnesses and documents even stronger. so inadvertently he helped us. i remain hopeful that four

republican senators will join us in supporting witnesses and documents in this trial. it's an uphill fight as i've always said, but the public is on our side and truth above all is on our side. that's why we're still in the fight. that's why we're still in the ballpark. now, i want to talk about three lights lines of pushback that they are using tremendous pressure trump/mcconnell is using on republican senators to try to get them to avoid any crucial friday vote on witnesses and documents. the first is well, it will take too long. we heard that win and that's what they're using, , number on, in their own caucus. this debate over witnesses and documents began a week ago with republicans saying we are not against new evidence, we just want to consider it later. now that the later is about to arrive the argument has become if we vote for witnesses that

trial will drag on too long. i predicted this. we said you may remember this, a week and a half ago they will say let's wait and then when we wake there was a it took too long. we shouldn't have waited. again, just doubletalk to avoid the truth. that's what they're doing, tying themselves in all kinds of pretzel knots to avoid the truth that the american people know the truth. so as i said weeks ago i said democrats wanted an agreement on witnesses and documents upfront because republicans punted the decision until the end of the trial they claim it would take too long and democrats were trying to drag it out. and lo and behold that's just what's happening. but the republican argument is wrong. it won't take too long. if my republican colleagues vote with us to subpoena relevant witnesses documents there's a reason for a protracted trial.

the four sets of documents we have requested have already been collected. they are sitting in boxes at the white house, state of public of at the pentagon. they are always for the asking. mr. bolton has said he would testify. there's a reason for delays if the senate summons bolton, albania, blair and duffey. a clean trial the witnesses were deposed each, were each deposed in one day. if the u.s. senate issues a bipartisan subpoena, signed by the chief justice, any lawyer would advise their clients to comply. if someone like mr. mulvaney still refused, will make a motion asking the chief justice to order mulvaney to comply. we could settle any and all potential claims of executive privilege right on the senate floor. so we are not talking about a lengthy delay. we're not going to be dilatory in any way. we've only asked for relevant evidence. it could be reviewed

expeditiously, four four witne, four sets of documents, the men who were in the room where it happened. no more, no less. that's reasonable. that's why the american people are so strongly in favor of witnesses and documents. every day the number gets higher, there's a number number i saw on tv today, 75%. my republican colleagues only have to, only have the answer is this, the question my republican colleagues have to answer, is president trump so insistent on immediate acquittal that the senate trial cannot take one second longer to have a fair trial? now, the second line -- that's coming out from senate republicans is there's no reason to hear from witnesses because even if they prove the president did what he was accused of, it would not be impeachable because it's not a criminal offense.

the dershowitz argument. but the truth is the argument made by mr. dershowitz is completely phony. just about every legal expert disagrees with him completely. it's been widely discredited even by the republican witness in the house trial, mr. turley. the criminal code was not written to be the only check on presidential misconduct. no citizen can order the fbi to investigate their neighbor or ask a foreign power to interfere in our elections. only the president can exercise these powers. if people can't hold a president accountable, for abusive seek only can commit, the impeachment power is meaningless. bear in mind, that folks like attorney general barr argued the president the president cannot be indicted even if the president did commit a criminal offense. by this line of thinking if the president can't be indicted for criminal conduct, , can't be impeached for non-criminal

conduct, that would surely put the president above the law. and we would cease being a democracy. the founding fathers were unaware that were terrible things that a president could do that don't violate the criminal law, and wanted to give the congress a power to stop it. there solely examples you could think of then and so many examples now. that's the clear facts, that's the clear evidence. mr. dershowitz is an outlier, a total outlier. i mean, outlier. okay, finally, the third argument we hear from republicans against witnesses and documents goes like this. the president will be acquitted no matter what. we know the results. nothing could change our minds. why even bother with a fair trial? talked about being political. talk about being cynical. i understand the pressure of my republican colleagues are under to wrap this up as fast as

possible because president trump demands it. but we, the senate, democrats and republicans, have an obligation to seek the truth. a fair trial matters, whatever the outcome. >> host: senator chuck schumer earlier today ahead of today's senate proceedings which will get underway and about x minutes here. also happening earlier today, bloomberg reported democratic senator joe manchin says he believes hunter biden is a quote relevant witness in the senate impeachment trial, a stance that breaks with his party. also political reporting democrats have owned potential impeachment trial defectors to worry about. joe manchin of west virginia, kyrsten sinema of arizona and doug jones of alabama all wrestling with whether to acquit trump on one or both counts. also msnbc reporting chairman nadler says house impeachment managers may call for former white house chief of staff john kelly to testify.

you also have meet the press nbc's reporting can republicans are watching to see who will vote in favor of witnesses in impeachment trial quote no one wants to be the 51st vote. earlier this morning on the "washington journal" we spoke with senator marsha blackburn of republican of tennessee. here's what she had to say about calling witnesses. >> oh, i think we will have the votes so that we do not call witnesses. we do not need additional witnesses. that is what this is. i think it's important to note that the house had 17 witnesses. there is testimony from 16 of those. we have heard from 12 of those witnesses. this would be a call for additional witnesses, and as professor dershowitz said, this is something that would change the way impeachment has historically worked in our nation.

it is the house's job to call witnesses, do the impeaching and then they send articles to the senate for review. we have heard that testimony by video -- >> you are confident that you have the votes but the majority leader, your leader mitch mcconnell by news reports indicating he's not sure he does. >> and there are also news reports that say he does believe he has them. so you're going to have all sorts of different things. let's wait. leader mcconnell is a very effective leader. i believe that republicans, senators and the american people are saying they have heard enough. >> host: marsha blackburn from earlier. senator sanders is talking to reporters ahead of the proceedings. let's go listen. [inaudible question] >> thank you, senator.

>> host: senator sanders talking to reporters. all the senators are starting to make their way into the chamber. they need to be in there when the chief justice comes in. they are required to rise as he takes his chair. they're supposed to get underway at one p.m. eastern time. they been running a little late the past couple of days. when we see the chamber lights come on and the cameras turned on, remember we don't control those cameras. we will then bring inside the chamber. chuck schumer now making his way into the chamber. he spoke to reporters earlier today and he was asked about senator joe manchin, saying that the bidens are relevant witnesses and he went on to predict that republicans don't have the votes to call the bidens. take a listen. >> member of the democratic

caucus joe manchin believes hunter biden is a relevant witness. what you say? >> look, our goal, we want witnesses, , documents in the rm where it happened. to quote the hamilton play, and actually bolton's book. the witnesses with suggested our eyewitness to what happened. the documents are eyewitness. hunter biden is irrelevant and a distraction. but beside that it's not up to joe manchin. it's not up to any of us. the republicans could call hunter biden today. they have the votes trump and mcconnell could call for hunter biden today. they don't want to. they know it would turn things into a circus. i don't even know if they would have the votes in their own republican caucus for it. and it's a terrible argument for the president. here, house managers have argued that the president was willing to risk our national security and risk the sanctity of our elections to go after joe biden and his son.

now they are saying we even want to risk the solemnity of a trial in the senate on impeachment to go after hunter biden and his son. it's irrelevant. it's a distraction. it's running away from the truth, and it's up to the republicans, solely for republicans to do it. we are not for it. >> host: senator chuck schumer from earlier today. we are back inside the halls outside of the senate chamber. senator richard burr, rob portman a republican of ohio, all the senators trying to get inside the chamber ahead of today's proceedings. as we told it's now question time for the senators. they have two days to ask questions for 16 hours total, eight hours today and eight hours tomorrow. now, we don't know how exactly the question will go but we've heard it had to bet the questions to leadership. we'll see how it works when you

get underway in just a minute. craig kaplan to c-span's capitol hill producer has this tweet out where he shows the question card from 1999. this is what it looked like for the clinton impeachment trial. we can see the cameras are inside the senate chamber. let's watch. ..

>>. [inaudible conversations] while we wait for the chief justice to take his chair gavel in these proceedings, we're showing you the hallwaysoutside of the senate chamber . some editors are running late and they are scrambling toget inside, continue to watch .

>> the president's defense team is in the chamber. you can see alan dershowitz in the lower right-hand part of your screen joined by pat cipollone and jay sekulow and the house managers starting to make their way to their table in the left lower corner ofyour screen. we expect the chief justice to enter any moment .

[inaudible conversation]

senators have most of them made their way into the chamber and you see the senate chaplain off to the right hand side of your screen, he is waiting to begin the proceedings with a prayer. we are waiting for the chief justice to enter theroom. let's watch .

[inaudible conversation] live

coverage of the senate impeachment trial here on c-span with the chief justice taking his chair, he will begin questioning in time with the senators, he is asked thatthe answer to the senators questions be kept within five minutes each. eight hours of questioning today followed by eight hours tomorrow , live coverage here on c-span2.

>> we are seven minutes past the hour, still waiting for the chief justice to take his chair. house managers team has all made their way to the table, you can see adamschiff in the left-hand part of your screen. jerry nadler , hakeem jeffries, sylvia garcia, val dennings all at the table waiting to answer questions from senators .

>>. [inaudible conversations] the majority leader in the lower right corner of your screen, he's ready to go. you can see he's at the leadership desk awaiting on the chief justice to enter

the chamber and begin today's proceedings. as a reminder to you, we have cameras stationed around the senate chamber as well to get reaction from the senators, the attorneys and we've seen house lawmakers all as well as the house managers of course talking to reporters at these what are called stakeout locations for the media. all outside the senate chamber. we go back inside the chamber now and continue to watch the floor.

>>. [inaudible conversations] and the senate again waiting for the chief justice to come into the chamber. we expect them when they start to go for several hours

today. they are going to, they set aside eight for the questioning of the senators questioning the house managers as well as the president's lawyers . they also take a break so when they do we will open up the phone lines and get your reaction. we want to ask you today what do you want your senator to ask of the house managers and lawyers? we want to know what question you want them to ask so we will open up the phone lines and get your questions when they go to their first break. in the meantime we will continue to watch outside of the senate chamber as well as inside . >>.

[inaudible conversations] >> the senate will convene as a court of impeachment. the chaplain will lead us in prayer. >> let us pray. divine shepherd, honor, glory and power belong to you. refresh our senators as they enter a new phase