sufficient. proven except 31 times. that is what the record said. it is true that the record from the house was accepted professionally with evidentiary objections. but they are the ones who set overwhelmingly and improved. as a matter of fact in a matter of law for them to come up here and argue proved in overwhelmingly a total of eight s. 64 times in a couple of days tells me a lot about what they want. what we are asking for is proceeding to continue, and with that, we are done. >> thank you, counsel. the majority leader is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent that the trial adjourned until 1 p.m. thursday, tomorrow, january 30, and this order also constitutes the adjournment of the senate. >> without objection, so

ordered. >> host: and your reaction and questions you would like to see asked and what did you learn today. here are the numbers, 202-7489 to zero if you live in eastern and central, 748-8921 for those in the mountain and pacific and you can text us, (202)748-8903. you can also continue this conversation on our facebook page, facebook.com/c-span. so, 93 questions were asked today. they are back at 1 p.m. tomorrow to ask some more. about 84 senators have spoken so far. mike from jackson, tennessee checks in. i would ask exactly what witnesses would be sufficient

for the closure of the trial. and chad from fox news sends out this. fox has told a supreme court justice john roberts is attempting to block senator rand paul from naming the whistleblower on the floor during questions in the senate trial, and this is chris murphy, democrat of connecticut. connecticut. it's all about in the open now. the president's council just argued that there is nothing wrong with any candidate for office to list dirt on their opponents from foreign countries, they are not even trying to take it anymore. in own army in minnesota, what did you learn to my? >> caller: hello. i've learned an awful lot. i will try to make this as quickly as i can. i fell in love with our constitution thanks to the presidential president's attorneys there, the constitution is what we americans live by. and it was just amazing what i

learned and how much i love our country. i do know that if this impeachment trial is not shut down for more witnesses about this or that or we have to get subpoenas, what it boils down to is the house screwed it completely up and you cannot just say to the senate overturned this and do this and that, it will call for a new president on the constitution and then we are sunk in as a constitution and as a nation, and it will no longer ever be the same. >> host: has this been a useful exercise? >> caller: very much so. and every american needs to understand this. because what the democrats are trying to do is change the constitution. if we do that, then we no longer have a country. >> host: thank you. let's listen to senator warren of virginia.

>> i know it's late, but i could not abide the president's counsel saying foreign interference and it's okay if it doesn't fall into the classic definition of campaign contribution. and the whitewashed doj investigation somehow makes anything and everything the president has done in terms of soliciting foreign interference legitimate. that is not the policy of the united states government. that is not what mr. trump's own director of the cia, national intelligence director of fbi have all said their top priority going into 2020 is to make sure that foreign interference does not continue and is not allowed. the president's counsel in a sense gave a green light for that kind of behavior to continue. i hope and pray that cooler heads will prevail, but i think there was a dramatic step backwards in terms of protecting the integrity of the election

into the signal sent by the presidents council. >> we have heard a lot of reaction from democrats about [inaudible] have you heard from republicans -- >> i have not. i cannot imagine there would be any republican senator on the intelligence committee that would endorse the president council's position that foreign interference, as long as it doesn't meet bill barr's contribution to finish in under the doj is totally okay. that is not our policy. it is dangerous. it's against everything our intelligence community and law enforcement community is working on a and again, i'm going to call on my republican colleagues to stand up and reinforce that we do not want, whether it be russia, china, you're on the ukraine were others interfering, and we spent three years working

on this to put in place the kind of infrastructure to prevent this from happening. and i was flabbergasted by the presidents council remarks tonight. >> [inaudible] >> i have not. i will tonight, but it is -- it was wrong, it was inappropriate and it wasn't in the best interest of our country. >> host: that was senator mark warner, democrat from virginia. the call from minnesota was talking about how the house in her view rushed through this come into senator martha mcsally tweets out a dangerous precedent will be set if we rush through the impeachment with no due process that shuts down the senate for weeks or months to do the houses work. brenda in texas, what did you learn tonight? >> caller: i learned that the

house keeps saying nobody is above the law, but yet they have not followed the law in the way that they've handled things and getting the impeachment articles approved before they proceeded with all of this. they keep saying that in order to have a fair trial you have to have documents and witnesses. well, why didn't they get a fair trial in the house? >> host: have you been watching all week? >> caller: i have, yes, sir. i sure have. >> host: any question, but today that you would have asked? >> caller: yes, i would ask that the democratic house, i ifa fair trial is so important to you, why didn't you get our president a fair trial in the house? >> host: that is brenda in texas and thi and desist on in ,

arizona. >> caller: hello. my question is the democrats keep digging up, trying to dig up the fact that he was meddling in the 2020 election, but they've never brought up any facts that that is true it's been on here a couple of times today, the four senators, democrats, running for president, they should absolutely not be able to vote on any of this, because it is a conflict of interest. and that's been brought up, but i think that it should be brought to the floor with some of the senators, because i don't understand. you cannot be involved in something that you are trying to get rid of somebody else in the same situation. >> host: your senator, martha mcsally, has been pretty vocal during this process. >> caller: yes. >> host: what do you think?

>> caller: i'm from north dakota. that's where i do my voting. we are in arizona for the winter. >> host: enjoy the warm weather. brick in west virginia, i. >> caller: hello, how are you doing tonight? i just have one question. i've listened to this thing since it was in the intel committee, the judiciary and throughout the whole process but my question for the managers. over and over i'v i heard them y that this was quid pro quo and he said he did it for personal reason to get an edge on his campaign and basically to hurt biden. why would you be so afraid to bring hunter biden in for a witness, why aren't they willing to do that considering that is where this is centering around his hunter biden.

>> host: thanks for calling in tonight. the hill newspaper is reporting looking ahead to friday that senator chris van hollen, democrat of maryland, is planning to force a vote to require chief justice john roberts to subpoena impeachment witnesses who he believes are relevant and also rule on any claims of executive privilege. the move comes as gop senators are increasingly confident they will have the vote to block witnesses from being called. the effort would let roberts issued subpoenas if he thinks the motion is relevant. the senate come if you disagreed with the decision, could still overrule hi them with a simple majority. that is in the hill publication. and there was a related question asked tonight. >> is it true in the proceedings the chief justice anthe chief jn the issue of production of exhibits and the testimony of witnesses over the objection of either the managers or the

presidents council? with a determination by the chief justice be subject to judicial review? >> mr. chief justice, senators, thank you for the question. let me answer it this way. my understanding of the process, if we are going to start talking about subpoena witnesses and documents and having things come into evidence that way, the first question would be the subpoena would be issued to the witnesses before the documents come into this subpoena were resisted on the grounds of privilege or immunity, then i would have to be sorted out, because if the president asserted, for example, in unity of the senior adviser or executive privilege over a certain document, then the senate would have to determine whether it was going to fight that assertion and how through some accommodation process and negotiations, or if the senate were going to go to court to

litigate that. and that whole process would have to play out. that would be the first stage and it would have to be gone through anytime the president resisted the subpoena on the witnesses for documents. that would take a while. that's what the house managers decided not to do in the house of representatives. then once there had been everything resolve revolves on a subpoena or something like that, it sounds like the question asks further in terms of questions here in the trial, admissibility of particular evidence. it's my understanding that in that the presiding officer, the chief justice could make a initial determination if there were no objections to admission of evidence. evidence. there's also determination that can be challenged by the members of the senate, and would be subject to a vote. so, it would not be -- i think there were some suggestions earlier that we don't need any other records. we don't need anything involving anyone else because the chief

justice is here. that is not correct. on the subpoena at the front and it isn't going to be something that is determined just with all due respect, sir, by the chief justice. that is something that have to be sorted out in the courts or in negotiation with the executive branch. then once we are here on specific evidentiary objection, if we have a witness and their objection giving depositions have to be resolved or a witness on the stand, if their objections to particular documents, authentication or things like that, the chief justice could make an initial ruling. but every one of the rulings could be appealed to this body to vote by the majority vote on whether the evidence would come in or not. is the chief justice empowered under the senate rules to adjudicate questions of witnesses and privilege, and the answer is yes. can the chief justice make those determinations quickly, the answer is yes.

as the senate and power to overturn chief justice under certain circumstances? is about 50 or is the vote of two thirds, that would be something that we would have to discuss with the proletarian and chief justice. but, the chief justice has the power to do it, and lots more under the senate rules, you want expedited process. we are here to tell you we will agree with the chief justice ruling on witnesses, on their materiality, on the application or on application of privilege. we agreed to be bound by the chief justice. we will not seek to litigate an adverse ruling and appeal an adverse ruling. will thwell the presidents couno the same? and if not, just as the president doesn't trust what the witnesses have to say, it doesn't rely on the chief justice ruling is what they might be. why is that?

they as we understand it will be fair. for the moment, i'm not suggesting they don't think it's fair. quite the contrary area o they e afraid he will be fair. they are afraid he will make a fair ruling. that should tell you something about the weakness of their position. they don't want a fair trial of the witnesses. they don't want a fair justice to adjudicate a. they just want to suggest to you that they will delay. >> host: and the question about whether the chief justice can subpoena impeachment witnesses came from senators bahram at cornyn to republicans. senator bernie sanders tweets this evening, tonight i ask my question on the impeachment trial. president trump proclaims there was no quid pro quo holding back aid to ukraine. he's lied more than 16,000 times in office. why should we believe him?

virginia, carlsbad, california. virginia, did you have a question that didn't get asked tonight? >> caller: hi, how are you? i in virginia from carlsbad. it's a pleasure to be on here. first of all, i want to thank the president's managers for their amazing education on congressional congress standards, on the standards of our constitution based on how congress is supposed to lay all this out. i mean, it was just eye-opening. my question is coming and i just heard adam schiff speak about the worst possible crime is abuse of power. while, i want to ask these senators that are running california what do they think of their abuse of power?

the very thing they are accusing the president of doing, and his administration, i believe they are doing. so, my question is for them how about your abuse of power, and i'm coming from a very bipartisan position on this. because i'm feeling about not only is the president being abused by the senate and more the american people. >> host: that was virginia in california and this is denise in broken arrow, oklahoma. >> caller: hello, how are you this evening? >> host: please, go ahead. >> caller: yes, i thought -- i have been watching this. i am staying bipartisan. i don't feel that the house do not think they rushed all this and if theif they needed witnesy should have been called. i think republicans should have been able to call witnesses and to make it fair, and i think this was a rush and i would hope

any president in the past or future if we are sending foreign aid to a corrupt country, i would hope it would be investigated somehow if one of our politicians were involved, even if it was a prior politician independent to decide to run for office again. >> host: at the very end, alan dershowitz on the president's team talked about this being the most divisive time he's ever lived. and he is 81-years-old. >> caller: yes, if my mother is 93 and she has always voted democrat if she has never seen anything like this before in her life. mr. dershowitz, he is a

constitutional scholar, and i am so proud to be an american citizen and i love our constitution. i just think they put it wonderfully, but i think this sets a very dangerous precedent for future presidents of what's happening in the house. that tellthis tells us that whos the majority can just impeach for whatever reason. >> host: denise and oklahoma. and again, 93 questions were asked tonight. they will be back at 1 p.m. tomorrow, and we will be back all day getting your reactions as well. jocelyn anaheim, california. what question would you have liked to hear tonight? >> caller: thank you. good evening. my question, first of all i would like to thank the council dershowitz for explaining everything. it is an eye-opener as i

understand how the constitution works now. before i was just like closed minded. my question to the house manager schiff, they state they want to be fair, but why do they not allow the presidents council to cross-examine or question the witness especially the whistleblower? why are they protecting this person, and what is the motive or something like a cover up for this person to be exposed? are they hiding something about this person that would ultimately lead to more deep issues? that's my question. >> host: it sounds like you've been following this pretty closely. is that correct? >> caller: yes sir. >> host: what do you do in anaheim? >> caller: i work as an activity director in assisted living, and we watch this every

day. i have a very diversified community that are still very active when it comes to politi politics. i have residents that are conservative, democra democrat d republican and they are giving all this information thagettinga different era. it's not like something that happened in the past. it seems like something is changing now that makes them very worried. >> host: any fights break out during this? >> caller: actually there was a lot of screaming and yelling, but of course i don't want to allow that. i want them to be very partial and told them we ar were just exchanging our ideas and opinions. but there are some residents that actually are just telling me that this is kind of scary because it is changing. it's not like some of the framers, it's not like the

founding fathers. they are very scared. my residents some are 78-years-old and very cognitively participating in our activities especially in this impeachment trial. and they've expressed their concerns that the democratic party before is not the democratic party now. >> host: you make sure to tell the residents that we set high from c-span. jocelyn, where are you from originally? >> caller: actually from the philippines. i immigrated here 20 years ago. >> host: thank you for your time this evening and please, do greet the residents of the activity center. jim in connecticut. what is a question you wanted to hear tonight? >> caller: yes, sir. first of all i want to thank you for taking my phone calls. the first thing i have is the

presidents council has all the evidence, the call records, i mean it's all pretty much cut and try what really happened. with adam schiff, jerald nadler and the rest of the crew, those people know exactly what they are doing. if most americans don't know that former vice president biden and his boy, you know, his son were not crooked, i mean there is a serious cause serious problem. >> host: so are you saying that is a legitimate reason for investigation? >> caller: what i am saying -- it is, but it isn't. in my personal view, i don't feel president of trump was going after vice president bid

biden. i feel he was going after the vice presidents sans and his corrupt company. vice president definitely knew about it. >> host: should vice president biden or hunter biden or john bolton be compelled to testify? >> caller: i don't think so, because adam schiff had his chance with them. i really believe he had his chance with them, and if he really wanted them to testify, he could have found a way. there are ways to get them in. >> host: gym in connecticut. and this is paul in san francisco. >> caller: yes, hello. i would like to ask why do all

roads lead back to russia? the only person that benefits from all this is putin. and i would like for the democrats to present this question. >> host: and what do you think the answer is, do you have a suspicion? >> caller: i think it's been a long-term plan by russia to subvert our democracy, and i think they've been doing that to other countries around the world for quite some time. unfortunately, we've fallen victim, and trump is either a blind idiot to evolve or he's in on it. i think that is personally the reason why he hasn't opened any investigations into why russia pact fo or elections or how to p

it again in the future. and we all know that it is happening often now. they've already made attempts to hack into our 2020 election. it's deeply concerning. >> host: senator hawley, republican, missouri tweet. it is time to bring this to an end. they don't have a case, let's vote. charles enlightenment south carolina, good evening to you. >> caller: good evening and thank you for taking my call. one of the questions i was present to both managers and council would be what were the house rules established in the proceedings to this inquiry for the impeachment? that's something that hasn't been discussed because a lot of people have confusion between a trial as being judicial or political. this is a political trial.

and each process they establish rules the first night tha they t to the senate. we went through hours and hours of procedural voting for the rules. that would be very informative to the people of the united states to hear exactly what the rules of the house were proceeding into this inquiry for impeachment because they were skewed. >> host: skewed in which way, charles? >> caller: skewed in the fact that it was a procedural vote for the rules that were controlled by the house democrats who have the power. so come each and every procedural rule that they voted on would have been on a partyline vote.

>> host: thank you, sir. senator dick durbin who is a democratic web in the house and from illinois. first day of questioning, house managers and presidents lawyers debated the meaning of bolton and mulvaney's statements and conflicting the accounts of white house meetings. there's one way we can do to the bottom of all these issues. calling witnesses and key documents. genie in paris, texas. did you learn anything today by the senators questions? >> caller: i learned a lot, but my comment is that every time adam schiff or the other house managers state that the president's team come if they don't want witnesses that means they don't want a fair trial, i would like for someone to remind that they are trying to deny the most basic right that we all have which is innocent until proven guilty and that it is not

the president's burden to prove innocence. it's their burden to prove guilt. and if they are satisfied that they have an airtight case, then there need be no more. >> host: do you consider yourself a political person? has this attracted your attention because of that or for other reasons? >> caller: i was not -- well, i've been political all my life to a degree, but i became like many, so interested, fascinated really in about 2015. >> host: when donald trump announced? >> caller: yes. i've always felt that the others have been in power a long time coming and by others many democrati meandemocrats and repd been some things aren't so smooth. and i thought that i wanted to give ross perot a shot, and i

always vote. when it's democrat and republican, you know, when it's a standard traditional nominee. but anytime there is some outsider, even way back, ross perot, and now another businessman, i say let's give them a chance. they've been a big success. and i think he has been. and i don't say he is not guilty because he's been a success. i say he's not guilty because the senate hearings and the trial, all that i watched on television because it's hearsay. >> host: thank you for your time this evening. deborah in stockton, california. what was the question would like to have seen asked? >> caller: basically, what i would like to know, and this has to do with adam schiff. he apparently stated that he doesn't know what his staff did in response to his staff's

interest and working us with the whistleblower. i was just wondering where is the transparency between him and his staff that he doesn't know what his staff is doing, and yet, what such response be acceptable if the president said the same thing about his staff? so, isn't it hypocritical of adam schiff to say i don't know what my staff are doing, but i expect the president to be totally responsible for everything that everyone under my purview does? isn't that hypocritical? and also, i would like to know what you think of all the people calling in who have predominantly been pro- trump, doesn't that say something about the feel of the country, that we just don't want this democrat

crap to continue? >> host: deborah, who has been a standout presenter to you? >> caller: on the health? >> host: either house impeachment managers or the trump defense team? >> caller: i would have to say that definitely dershowitz was very impressive. i also think that a couple of the other lawyers were also very impressive. but to tell you the truth, they really laid out what the constitution is coming into the house has really gone over and above what their rights are and people are aware of that. so, you know, we will have to see come election time. >> host: deborah in california. and this is a tech from larry in winter garden, florida.

if the presidenthe president ise of power related to bribery as mr. nadler suggests, isn't ukraine's president also guilty and if so, why would we continue to give a corrupt government our taxpayer dollars? david in virginia, good evening. >> caller: good evening. thanks for taking my call. first, very independent. i voted for obama twice, and then i voted for trump. okay, the question i do have is why didn't the house of representatives gave trump a very fair shot in the house? he wasn't allowed to call witnesses, he wasn't allowed to introduce documents come into the house did not properly conduct a vote before sending it to the judiciary committee.

so, that makes the articles of impeachment invalid. also i am an attorney, and no way a case like this, it would be immediately dismissed by any other court in the nation. >> host: thank you, sir. this is a tweet from a "washington post" reporter. john thune, the republican whip on timing for tomorrow, doesn't think republicans they all find for cutie and david predicts democrats well, so probably about 30 very similar to today. next called his hope in bakersfield california. you are on c-span2. >> caller: thanks for taking my call as well. i would like to make a statement imh comp voter as well. was always a democrat but didn't vote for obama in either

election. however, i'm a huge fan of president trump. actually, i implemented a part of his tv series that he had into my classroom. but in any event, i do see that there is a pattern in our president. and the pattern is that he will go and he will try to find an opponent. i'm not saying that isn't what they all do. i think that politics is a certain curve for this for that if you will. however, once a president, just like what obama did, getting all the monegiving allthe money at n no one could talk about it, he was leaving office. this president as well has always utilized the platform and he's very good at it, to go in

to be a little controversial and what he does. >> host: what do you teach in bakersfield? >> caller: well, i was a teacher and it was in a valley college, so it was in the business sector. >> host: we have a lot of people that call and say i voted for president obama and then i voted for president trump. can you square that circle? >> caller: i did not vote for obama. >> host: i apologize. i thought i heard you say -- >> caller: i did not. >> host: i will ask someone else buelse that question. all right, thanks so much. jackson from new york is next. why should we believe the president when everyone that comes ou out of this administran talks bad about him?

if everyone that works with you talks bad about you, then there's something wrong with the boss. nancy in new hampshire, good evening. >> caller: hello, good to speak with you. thank you for taking my call. my concern is that the democrats are complaining that were stating falsely president trump was looking for a quid pro quo with ukraine when he mentions in the transcript to check the corruption that happened in 2016, not in 2020 but 2016 for us, for the american people, not for donald trump, for us. the other thing that brings the question to mind if they are so concerned about that statement, were they concerned women for obama administration did surveillance on then candidate for trump and his cabinet when they came into the white house? for that they didn't even do a

thing were mentioned. >> host: has this impeachment, is it going to be part of the new hampshire primary on february 11? >> caller: i hope so. new hampshire has unfortunately we were a very conservative state and we have a lot of massachusetts people that have moved into new hampshire to get away from taxes and things in massachusetts, but they want things they have there and they are trying to change it to blue. but i think there's a lot of interest in republican candidates now to go up against and do what's right for the people, and that's important. our vote is important and even adam schiff said the other night we can't depend on them to make the right decision. then, the american people? but thank you for taking my call. we appreciate it. >> host: thanks. we will see you in a week or so in new hampshire. what is the question you wanted

to ask tonight? >> caller: it's not really a question that it's a surveillance that i've had for quite sometime, becaus some timo enjoy listening to your program. and i can never get through on the democratic line. my thoughts are we all listen to all the senators and representatives out there that speak but we are hearing different things and that's what i find so interesting in the program because we can all be listening to this invoice coming from the president or from adam schiff or any of the people speaking and each one of us chooses something else like an opposite, democrats are bad, republicans are bad. it's like one said earlier, also

old people. i'm 78 also. it doesn't feel like the same government we've had for such a long time ago. well, it wasn't that long ago, but when we all got along and were able to work things out. also, all these republicans calling him, do they know how much they worked with obama for eight years? think about that a little bit when you are criticizing what's happening. i mean, i just called it politics. that is what is going on. republicans didn't want to work with obama and now it seems like nothing is getting done and it hasn't just been three years. it's been an additional eight

when nothing has been getting done. >> host: are you able to discuss politics civilly with your friends and neighbors? >> caller: i try to. tried to. my goodness, can i tell you all my children voted for trump and i said kids, my gosh. at least i have one or two that are now saying that they see some of the things. i called him pinocchio president because he's told so many lies and i just wish other people could see it. i can't even get through to my own children. they used to fact check me on television with the history and whaofwhat happened and they wouy you were off by a year and i said you've got to remember there was 25 or 30 years ago you

asked me to remember all this stuff. but i try to talk history and things like that especially with my grandkids, you know, to get them interested in government and what's going on, and to try to see the other side, to look at both sides and make your opinion. thanks for letting me talk. >> host: good look at family dinners. that will be the last word for tonight. we will continue to get your reaction tomorrow morning on the washington journal. the house is coming in at minus from seven to nine we will be getting your reaction to the first day of the senators questions. and if you go to c-span.org/impeachment, you will find a point called points of interest. all of the 93 questions asked by the senators tonight will be available and easily watched.

th >> the senate impeachment trial of president trump entered a new phase today senators directing questions to house managers and the president's attorneys. each question was written down on paper and read out loud by the chief justice. up next on c-span2, we will take you back to earlier this afternoon as today's session got underway. >> the senate will convene as the court of impeachment into the chaplain will lead us in prayer. >> let us pray. divine shepherd, honor, glory and power