[inaudible question] >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> c-span, your unfiltered view of the government. created by cable in 1979 and brought to you today why your television provider.

>> the senate impeachment trial of president donald j. trump resumes that when people eastern council about 30 minutes from now. they are back to resume with questioning. they are halfway through the 16 hours of questions that senators get. those questions asked through the chief justice. the chief justice redid the cart on which the senators have written the questions, so halfway through, eight more hours today or up to eight more hours a week. the next phase tomorrow with potential discussions on motions for subpoenas, witnesses and documents and four hours allotted for that on friday. our coverage, live coverage on c-span2 of the trial itself getting underway at 1:00 eastern today. checking our capital producer craig kaplan on the amount of questions yesterday. 93 questions were asked yesterday. he said all of those are posted at the congressional record.

you can find that through craigs tweet. also in capital, the hill for fox, i never think to look for today including this and there's been some discussion about the whistleblower. watch to see if republican sender rand paul tries to force chief justice roberts to read a question on the floor which could reveal the name of a whistleblower. roberts would likely not do that as it would be he, not sender to paul, who would be publicly revealing the whistleblower. on the timeframe on of what's ahead, per the trial framework, there would be four hours of debate by counsel's from both sides on friday. that would set up a potential getaway vote on friday evening on whether or not the senate would have witnesses, vote for witnesses or documents. that's chief justice john roberts makes his way in from across the street into the

senate side of the building. [inaudible conversations] >> although reporting from reuters from this morning on the senate impeachment trial. republicans hopeful senate will acquit trump in impeachment trial as early as friday. richard cohen and jeff mason write a democratic push to force republicans to accept witnesses at president trump's impeachment trial appear to be flagging on wednesday. raising the possibility he could be acquitted as early as friday. senators question both the trump legal team at the democratic managers of the trumpet trump lawyer dershowitz offered an

expense of defense of presidential power that provoked astonishment among democrats. the reporting of reuters. we had send it around of south dakota with us on this mornings "washington journal" and asked him about what he asserts '04 in the questioning yesterday. >> mike rounds joining us from capitol hill. the end getting insight. did you get your questions answered yesterday? >> guest: one questions was in the first tranche of groups of questions i was asked so i did have the opportunity to participate in that respect, and then i was there for the entire type i think i counted 922 questions as both republican and democrat. it was a reasonable approach to take to ask and allow both sides to clarify their positions. there were some give-and-take back-and-forth which is helpful but this is not the kind of the case which people are changing their mind. i think the real question for most of us is will there be

enough votes for the democrats to continue this with additional witnesses or least attempt at witnesses for extended period of time or as republican for the most part have espoused that it's time to basically tell the house that you needed to do your homework first. you need to put this together. you needed to have those in place and then bring the record to the senate. that's really the debate that's going on and it's the next step that has to be taken is to decide whether or not we are ready to call into question the actual verdict itself or if we're going to extend this out over literally weeks or months to what is your sense among the republican caucus among your colleagues about whether or not you can block witnesses, a book for witnesses? >> guest: i don't think most of them are looking at it as and think they want to block witnesses as much as we've got enough to make a decision to we got enough of the facts had been laid out, or with regard to the find itself in terms of the

articles whether or not they are valid in the way they been presented to where it would require the removal of the president from office. we are not asking any member to publicly disclose their position. our discussions which are among republicans just like the democrats, we have our dinners will be can sit down and visit. most folks understand it could be very, very close and there's a number of people who have said look, i'd really like to know more. i think the argument or the discussion that goes on is way to change your position? is it something that needs to be laid out that adds additional information in the decision-making process? mr. bowman comes to mind. i'd like to read his book. i have respect for mr. bolton, but what mr. bolton is offering is not something which changes my mind based upon what he says he had a conversation or he didn't have a conversation with the president. >> host: you mentioned a moment ago that yesterdays

russian and answer session helped clarify things on both sides. what couple of points for you further clarified where you will fall eventually on the question of impeachment? >> guest: they had the opportunity on both sides was to questions prepared that allowed them to find hone their point of view, just as an example, why would the president have an interest in ukraine and in the issues surrounding the corruption that is could have been occurring in that country? what were the points? why was he asking for additional information? or in the case of at what point did he actually asked for information about other countries who were providing support and how much support? were we being asked to be unfairly burdened with additional support where other european countries were not helping ukraine in a similar manner? those are the types the questions they had a chance to refine in terms of the timelines

involved and the president asking those questions. on the democrats side they want to try to hone in on obstruction and what they believe was obstruction. i think both sides try to .2 different things that they felt important to bring it to the american public. >> host: and the withholding of aid and the ousting of the ambassador yovanovitch, do you think the president the preside administration did anything wrong in terms of ukraine? >> guest: when were talking in this particular case about impeachment we are talking about did what they've alleged to have done rise to an impeachable offense? and in all of the cases that we've seen so far, in my opinion, the answer is no. is any administration perfect? absolute not. is there always a chance to look with hindsight and say i wish this would've been done differently or that would've endeavored to fully -- tentatively? most recent people would agree there's always a better way to do some of these things but with

regard to the specific rush we been tasked to look at, number one, abuse of power, if you think that abuse of power by itself is a reason to remove a president from office, we are say no. in this particular case the abuse of power issue is that the issue. the framers made it very, very clear that were specific issues that a president could be removed for. abuse of power is the argument that mr. dershowitz and others are making, that's not an issue and i happen to agree with them on that particular one. democrats on the outside as an example on articles you are suggesting obstruction of justice, but what they're also saying is while the present try to delay our decisions, the president said he was going to take us to court. those are legal remedies that the president does have. the house just decided they're going to cut to the chase since they're going to dump it in the senate lap but were not going to take the time and work through those do processes which the

president truly believes he has. we did have taken time? yes, it would have but now they want the senate to have that same burden and go through that same process. we think that should've been up to the house to do before they brought it in turn with many republican colleagues and others have called for the american people to have the final say in the election and the underlying issue through on a lot of this is the interference of russia in elections and allocations of ukrainian interference into u.s. elections. how concerned are you or are you concerned about the security of the 2020 elections? >> guest: i serve as the chairman of the cyber subcommittee for the armed services committee in the senate. i can tell you that his favorite fy '17 the department of defense laid out very clearly the russian attempt to interfere with our election process but it's not what some people think. they attempted to look in and to see whether or not they could get into certain election platforms around the country but

-- and they were not successful in doing that. but what they were successful in doing was influencing the election process i providing lots of misinformation. by the way they did on both sides. they tried to foment anger and animosity among republicans. they were successful in doing that. so in that respect they interfered in the election process. whether or not there were other people trying to do it at the same time, good question. that's part of the discussion that's been laid out here but with regard to the russians a definitely were doing it. since that time we have sent a pretty powerful message to the. will change our public policy with regard to what we allow our cyber offensive folks to be able to do to stop them from getting in. 2018 election was a good example of where we were successful in sending a very powerful message to the same groups that did interfere in 2016 here for 2020 we also have to be on guard. door of the people who are

watching very carefully to see whether not the antics that the russians did in 2016 could be duplicated in 2020. >> host: really appreciate your perspective and joining us this morning. >> guest: thank you. >> host: that conversation in the cannon house. comments from members, comments from senators and others, the senate coming back to 1:00 eastern. we expect that trial to resume. we will have of course live coverage for you. a number of reporters talking with senators on and off camera. i tweet about rick santorum quote, i think it's over on impeachment trial. josh marshall talking points memo said increasing signs republican senators have steadied themselves after the bolton news ready a can to shut the child and without witnesses or evidence.

center mark warner of virginia missing this in a in a briefine just showed a few minutes ago on the impeachment trial court if this was a secret vote we absolutely have a full set of witnesses. olivia deaver summerhill impeachment manager jerry nadler tells us that when asked if they will subpoena bone if the senate does not quote that might be and when asked going to court for his testimony he replied, we will see. ryan rally from the "huffington post" with a photo outside today of one of the protesters day two of questions at the impeachment trial and the sign saying respect for the divine right of the president and a president trump imitator outside of the u.s. capitol. this is a look at the "politico" with her headline, senate and john roberts face possibility of at the time on witnesses. the spotlight will fall on the chief justice if the senate

deadlocks are a critical trouble. that issue came up a number of times in yesterdays eight hours of questions. response from patrick philbin, deputy white house counsel and from adam schiff. >> is it true that in these proceedings that the chief justice can rule on the issue of production of exhibits and the testimony of witnesses over the objection of either the managers or the president's counsel? would 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're going to start talking about subpoenaing witnesses, subpoenaing documents, have things cometh evidence that way, the first question will be subpoenas would have to be issued to the witnesses or for the documents or if the subpoenas were resisted on the

grounds of some privilege or immunity, then that would have to be sorted out. because if the president asserted the immunity of the senior advisor to the president or an executive privilege over certain documents then the senate would have to determine whether it was going to fight that assertion and how through some accommodation process and negotiation, or if the senate were going to go to court to litigate that. that whole process would have to play out. that would be the first stage and i would have to be gone to anytime the president resisted a subpoena on the witnesses or 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 resolved on a screen 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 then that

the presiding officer, the chief justice, could make an initial determination if there were objections to admission of evidence but all such determinations can be challenged by the members of the senate and would be subject to a vote. so it would not be, i think there was some suggestions are later that we don't need any other court. >> we don't need anything involving anyone else because the chief justice is here. that's not correct. on the subpoenas at the front end, that's not going to be something that is determined just as with all respect, by the chief justice. that something that would have to be sorted out in the courts or by negotiation with the executive branch. then once we are here on specific evidentiary objections, if we have a witness and there are objections during depositions, that had to be resolved or by weight is on the stand if there are objections to particular documents, vindication or things like that, the chief justice could make an initial ruling but every one of those really could be appealed to this body to vote why a

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. is the senate empowered to overturn the chief justice under certain circumstances? is the vote 50 or is the vote two-thirds? that would be something we would have to discuss with the parliamentarian and with the chief justice. but the chief justice has about to do it. and what's more, under the senate rules you want expedited process, we are here to tell you we will agree with the chief justice is ruling on witnesses, on the materiality on the application or nonapplication of privilege. we agree to be bound by the chief justice. we will not seek to litigate an

adverse ruling. we will not seek to appeal an adverse ruling. will the president's counsel do the same? and if not, just as the president doesn't trust what is witnesses have to say, the president's lawyers don't want to rely on what the chief justice rulings might be. why is that rex faye as we understand the chief justice will be there. i'm not for a moment suggesting they don't think the chief justice mr. quite the contrary. they are afraid he will be fair. they are afraid he will make a fair ruling. that should say something about the weakness of their position. they don't want a fair try with witnesses. they don't want a fair justice to adjudicate these questions. they just want to suggest to you that they would delay and delay and delay. >> congress and ship from yesterday answering what 93 questions asked during yesterday eight hours.

a total of 106 questions were asked during the clinton impeachment trial in 1999. about ten minutes away from the scheduled start of this thursday edition of the senate impeachment trial with eight hours left of questioning your we hear from cnn, who is ready for senators questions? the lightning round, it's going to be eight hours like yesterday. they can go until ten to 11. also from burgess from medical impeachment vote tea leaf reading. amy klobuchar just noted an iowa event or 10 a.m. on saturday. the hill, , senator hawley sayse believes more likely than not republicans will have the votes do not call witnesses during the senator roberts adds he is not whipping the votes were counting the votes. but yet senators arriving for a, lee zeldin one of the house defense team, and for the session this afternoon.

the hill is reporting about a question that will likely come up again whether to name the whistleblower. rand paul to insist on a whistleblower question. he will likely today try to force chief justice john roberts to read out loud a question regarding the anonymous whistleblower at the senate impeachment inquiry. it will escalate a standoff on the senate floor after much behind the scenes haggling. question posed by senators ted cruz, senator moran and senator hawley yesterday in the session. >> the question from the senators to the house managers. in august 26, 2019 letter 19 letter from the intelligence community inspector general to the director of national intelligence discussing the so-called whistleblower stated that the inspector general identified some indicia of an arguable political bias on the f the complaint in favor of arrival political candidate.

multiple media outlets reported that this likely referred to the whistleblowers work with joe biden. did the so-called whistleblower work at any point for a with joe biden? if so, did he work for or with joe biden on issues involving ukraine? and did he assist in any material way with a quid pro quo in which then vice president biden has admitted to conditioning loan guarantees to ukraine on the firing of the prosecutor investigating burisma? >> i think the senators for the question of the want to be very careful in how i answered source

not to disclose or give an indication that may allow others to identify that unity of the whistleblower. but first i want to talk about why we are making such an effort to protect the identity of the whistleblower. if you could put up slide 48. this slide shows -- and make it difficult for some of you to read so let me try to -- if you could hand a copy of that as well. i haven't had a chance to distribute that to everyone. it's not just that we view the protection of whistleblowers as

important. members of this body also made strong statements about just how important it is to protect whistleblowers. senator grassley said, this person appears to follow the whistleblower protection laws and ought to be heard out and protected. we should always work to respect whistleblowers request for confidentiality. senator romney come with a floor should be entitled to comforted shallot and privacy because they play a vital function in our democracy. senator brown, we protect whistleblowers. we protect witnesses in our committee. even my colleague the ranking member mr. nunes, we want people to come forward and we will protect the identity of those at all cost. this has been a bipartisan priority and one that we've done our best to maintain. i want to be very careful but let me be clear about several things about the whistleblower. first of all i do know who the whistleblower is. i haven't met them or communicated with them in any way. the community -- the committee staff did not write the

complaint or coach the whistleblower what to put in the complaint. the committee staff did not see the complaint before it was submitted to the inspector general. the committee including its staff did not receive the complaint until the night before acting director of national intelligence, we had an open hearing with the acting director on september 26 more than three weeks after the legal deadline by which the committee should have received the complaint. in short, the conspiracy theory which i think was outlined earlier that the whistleblower colluded with the intel committee staff to hatch an impeachment inquiry is a complete and total fiction. this was confirmed by the remarkable accuracy of the whistleblower complaint which has been corroborated by the evidence was subsequently gathered in all material respects. so i'm not going to go into anything that could reveal only to the revelation of the identity of the whistleblower. but i can tell you because my staffs names have been brought into this proceeding, that my

staff acted at all times with the most complete professionalism. i i am very protective of my stf as i know you are. and i'm grateful that we have such bright, hard-working people working around the clock to protect this country and assert our committee so well. and it really reads me to see them smeared and some of the mission to do safety and online threats to members of my staff. as a result of some of the smears that a been launched against them. i could tell you there's no one who could understand the plight of ambassador yovanovitch more than some of my staff who been treated to the same kind of smears now have concerns over their own safety. they acted at all times with the utmost propriety and integrity. your senate intelligence committee and your chairman and vice chairman can tell you, encourage whistleblowers to come to the committee and so do we.

and when they do we try to figure out is there complaint within the scope of jurisdiction of the intelligence community. and if it is, then we suggest they get a believer we suggest you talk to the inspector general, which is what happened here. the whistleblower did exactly what they should, except for the president that's unforgivable because the whistleblower exposed the wrongdoing of the president. in the president's view that makes him or her a traitor or a spy here as the president tells us that the way we used to treat traitors and spies. you wonder why we don't want to call the whistleblower? first of all, we know firsthand what the whistleblower -- wrote a second and a complete. there is no need for the whistleblower anymore, except to further endanger that person's life. that to me does not seem a worthwhile object for anyone, in

this chamber, and of the pedestal to come in the oval office or anywhere else. >> we just heard -- that question was a response dash response was a question posed by senator cruz roosters in the chamber. that's the ohio clock corridor waiting for senators to arrive a couple minutes before 1:00 on east coast. the start time this afternoon of the session this afternoon which will cover the last eight hours of questioning by senators. again yesterday and 93 questions submitted. they are expected use much of the day-to-day. how many questions, some news reports indicate up to a total of 160, so perhaps 70 or so more questions today. we did want to point out that we did this a short while ago to senator john cornyn walks by, that he watched or didn't want yesterday all of the eight hours of all questions, we have them

in our video library c-span.org/impeachment. as you watch you can see the points of interest feature we have that you can go right to the question that you interested in and a response to that as well. find that at c-span.org. live live coverage of you cominp on c-span2. -- of the u.s. senate coming up on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

one of the cameras c-span is using across the capital today as we wait for members to arrive, for the majority leader the chief justice has arrived at the capital and the session set to begin shortly . [inaudible conversations]

>>. [inaudible conversations] we

just saw the majority leader mitch mcconnell and his staff enter the senate chamber. a live signal is up, just to point out again, the lay of the land. the house managers on the

left of your screen, the presidents defense team on the right of your screen. the managers and defense team encompass the senate right in front of the desk, chief justice roberts will enter from the right side. you see the chaplain very black on the right-hand side of yourscreen. things about to get underway here shortly .

>>. [ inaudible conversation] >> colors, could we return to our desk please send mark >> the senate will convene as

a court of impeachment. the chaplain will lead us in prayer. >> let us pray. eternal lord god, send your holy spirit into this chamber. permit our senators to feel your presence. during this impeachment trial.

illute