trial is on, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell plans to offer a resolution that would give house managers and president trump legal team 24 hours each to present their arguments over two days. senators- after that, will have 16 hours to ask questions before hearing an additional four hours of arguments, equally divided between house managers and the president lawyers. o whether to subpoena witnesses and documents. senators would then have time to vote on the motion as well as a possible motion to dismiss the entire case. impeachment trial live on c-span two, online at www.c-span.org or listen live on the free c-span radio app. the washington post, talking, talks about the senate impeachment trial. newster for bloomberg

discusses the role of chief justice roberts in the trial. will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. ♪ announcer: the senate impeachment trial of donald trump set to resume at 1 p.m. eastern today. senators will spend the day debating the rules that will guide the trial. the president is spending his day on the world stage in switzerland. he is made comments this morning about his trial in the senate. we will talk about all of that this morning washington journal. we want to hear from you. give us a call. phone lines are open. (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independence (202) 748-8002.

you can also send us a text at (202) 748-8003. send us your name and where you are or catch up with us on facebook or twitter. very good tuesday morning to you. the impeachment trial gets underway in earnest today. we learned what that trial might look like. releasing hisl long-awaited resolution, setting the parameters for the trial. here is what it would look like. house democrats and president trump would get 24 hours to make their case. the arguments would be condensed ayso today's -- into two d that could stretch past a minute. they can submit written questions through chief justice roberts will pose those to each side. senators would then decide if they want to consider any new

uments.es and doc will vote yes, they discuss the documents and witnesses they will hear and say. you will hear more about that resolution today on the floor. here is a sense of what democrats in the senate felt about it. duckworth:is, tammy kim midnight mitch. he is working with trump on the impeachment trial and violating his oath to be impartial. holding the trial at winamp -- at 1:00 a.m. shows that he is helping them perpetrate. the resolution is not one for a fair trial. they are trying to hide the evidence in the dead of night and block witnesses who know what happened. more throughout our program today on the reaction to that resolution.

president trump is at the world forum and he may comments already. thatthink it is important this is a hoax. it is disgraceful. host: that was the president. we will bring you more if he has more to say about his trial. his lawyers had plenty to say. they submitted their 171 page legal brief yesterday demanding the trial be dismissed and talking with the president's argument, here is some of what that legal brief had to say under the constitution. offenses must be defined under established law and objective wrongdoing, not suppose it motives john up by a hostile faction in the house -- drawn up by a hostile faction

house. a vaguely defined abuse of power bycept beyond the limits set the constitution and they should be rejected by the senate. that is the president lawyers today. . it gets underway at 1 p.m. eastern time. democrat. chicago, a your thoughts. all i can say is that this just shows the corrupt nest of the -- corruption of the republicans. nancy holdhy did back the articles? she said, we don't know what the rules are.

this has been set up as a cover up. it is that simple. accept whatgoing to the house did as evidence. you have to decide whether or not to use that as evidence. i saw the post that came out this morning. people said there should be new evidence and witnesses. believe he did do those two impeachable actions but the republicans, because they are corrupt, they don't care with the american people want. host: that is carl in illinois. follow up on some of what he was talking about the resolution not accepting with the hosted. here is a little bit more on -- what the house did. here is a little bit more that.

senators admitted with generated by the inquiry into president clinton but not this time. it would not be formally considered by the senate as part of its official record and would only do so if a majority vote to do that. a senior republican aide said the change this time reflected a fundamental difference in the clinton and trump cases. trial, there was evidence compiled by ken starr. conducteddemocrats the investigation themselves. trumpuse denied president proper due process rights afforded to president clinton from the new york times today.

we have seen plenty of reaction i what will be debated. here is the reaction from the senate minority leader chuck schumer saying this about the resolution. it is nothing short of a national disgrace. to partmcconnell's want dramatically to prevent the senate and american people from learning the full truth about president trump's actions that warranted impeachment. they do not allow the basic step of admitting the record into the trial. the resolution stipulates the key facts be delivered in the night because he does not want the american people to hear them. any senator who puts with, conical -- a, resolution will hide from the american people. presidentrom both the and other senators to his statement. the president said chuck schumer

is asking for fairness when he and democratic house members work together to make sure i got zero fairness in the house. what else is new? one other tweet from the republican from texas, chuck schumer's entire statement should have written at the top propaganda. our next colors out of texas -- john from texas. caller: i am a lifetime republican and i'm disgusted with media. how many lawyers are in the d.c. area and no one can put one plus one together? i believe in the power of the old adage that the truth

shall set you free. crisis -- the hostage it started with the unconstitutional scotus ruling of citizens united. it should have been the legalization of treason act because it opened the floodgates to foreign interference just like george washington warned us about in his farewell address. the political parties would be a gateway for foreign interference. does anyone really believe that vladimir putin and the russian mob would cosign over $2 billion in loans from corrupt deutsche bank if they expected nothing in return from trump? something.hey expect look what they are getting. they have a green light for genocide, flooding euros with more refugees -- flooding europe with more refugees.

this is right in front of our faces. alan dershowitz, you should be careful what you wish for. i saw you on fox saying there is no criminal action here. i think treason counts. putin kills u.s. soldiers in afghanistan by arming the taliban. play that helsinki tape in your head again of trump giving aid and comfort to our enemy. that equals treason. what does that take? 30 seconds to prove. mexicohat is john in new referring to alan dershowitz one of the members of president trump's legal teams. some news about president trump's legal team expanding including several house members after excluding house republicans. he announced monday night that

eight of them would serve as his personal warriors, that is how political puts it. republican members doug collins, mike johnson, debbie lesko, arc meadows, -- mark meadows would serve as part of the team. the white house did not specify what exactly the members would be doing. politicosource told they are expected to play a more behind the scenes role with a focus on messaging and strategy. i would consider them a cause i reserve unit -- qusi unit. the political story goes on from there. if you would like to read more. ake is in south carolina, republican. startedthis impeachment

on day one of his presidency. they are trying to impeach him for something that happened in 2017 and 2018. how are they going to impeach him for this before he ever did it? if trump is listening or his people are, there are four people running in the senate for president. to have mitch mcconnell a call to vote every day to keep them in washington so they cannot go out and campaign. it limits them from running for president. we all know it is a joke. they wanted to impeach him from day one. it makes no sense. before he ever did anything. he was not even president and they wanted to impeach him. host: that is mike in south

carolina. you mentioned the democrats running for president who will sit on the trial. today makeson times reference to them as well. writing in the column if lady justice were truly blind, justice roberts would have been obliged to strike for democrats from the jury. as candidates for the party nomination all are running against mr. trump. they are biased against him and all stand to benefit by voting to expel him from office. some impartial justice is what they want to write. if you want to read more, that is in today's paper. this is roy out of melbourne, florida a democrat. caller: what i see right now in the senate's they are not introducing new evidence. they got the guy on tape.

he cannot be right about everything. this is totally ridiculous. trump has not given one document over. not one document he has given congress. they are basically putting a overer over the -- blinder the government. like a rock. just not as bad. impeached.e host: all it takes is 51 senators to vote during that vote toof the trial to allow more witnesses, documents. do you think that will happen? chamber controlled by republicans? caller: it will never happen. there is no more republican party. you are either loyal to trump or you are not. it is pathetic.

what is going on with our government, people need to open their eyes and protest. host: do you feel that way about those republicans who are being closely watched? mitt romney, susan collins, lisa murkowski? caller: they better or we are going to lose our country to a dictator. i just wanted to tell you, what's going on now is only going to get worse if they do not stop it now. him andtter to impeach put pence. i am scared something worse will happen then this. he is mentally deranged and needs help. lost all the help i had in my heart that he would do and he has let everybody down. he has given it to the 1%. it is the same old thing with him. host: we mentioned the

president's lawyer submitting their brief over the weekend. the house impeachment managers also submitting their brief. here is what they had to say about the senate role and need for additional witnesses and evidence. only if the senate sees and hears all relevant evidence, insist upon the whole truth, can it render impartial justice. they should require the president to turn over the documents he is hiding, we should hear from witnesses asked him with every impeachment trial in history. we should hear from witnesses the president blocked from testifying in the house. president trump cannot have it both ways. he must surrender all evidence relevant to the fact or concede the facts as charged of the west this impeachment trial will fall short of the american system of justice. that from the house impeachment managers looking to the senate role. getting your thoughts ahead of a

1 p.m. eastern start time today on the floor of the senate. aaron in clear lake. caller: good morning. say thank youto c-span for being up this early and taking the time to help educate us on what is going on. host: i appreciate that. we tried to do that every morning. caller: i watch you as often as i can. the only way you can get an impartial view of what is going on. you see all the hyperbolic rhetoric coming from both sides. it is harming our country. the democrats have had six years now. they started investigating president trump when he was a candidate. they have had all this time and they are crying that they cannot get witnesses in time.

pelosi has been holding these articles for about a month. it is this political football that is tearing our country apart at a time when we need to be unified more than ever. china, a lot of enemies, iran, north korea that we are dealing with. theseela, we have all of geopolitical things going on and our congresspeople are more worried about terry each other up instead of building the tearing ourared -- country down instead of building the country up. i feel like we should have health care for every citizen. i think that is something warren will get done. trump mentioned he wanted to do that in the past but we cannot get past the impeachment stuff to really do what is best for our country.

i hope we can get past the sooner rather than later. host: you talked about the witnesses. the four witnesses democrats say they want to hear from our john mulvaney, robert blair, and michael duffey. do you think it is important to hear from one or all of them? i definitely think it is important to hear from everyone involved including the bidens. if democrats want to subpoena bolton and some other folks, we should also hear from the bidens and what was their involvement. that is what got this impeachment inquiry started. wanted investigation ukraine to investigate burisma and their involvement. we want to hear from these democratic witnesses and we

should hear from the republican witnesses. i feel like this whole impeachment thing is a sham if we don't. host: is there anybody else you want to hear from yo? caller: you want to talk about the obama administration i think they did great things. maybe there are people in this should beration that subpoenaed. i just feel like there has to be -- if there are going to be witnesses from democrats, there should be witnesses from republicans. the bidens would be appropriate to have on the stand. host: thank you for the call. john is in houston, texas. a democrat, good morning. hear all ofnt to the people. mulvaney, mikeck

pence, everybody on that phone call. that guys talking about the bidens. i am tired of hearing about them. about hearing about hillary's emails. it has been four or five years. fox news talked about it. host: is that a fair trade if you get to hear from -- caller: quiet! i listed a couple days ago and you let someone go on terrorizing your guest. his name was bob and you let him go on about two minutes. host: but what do you want?

caller: i want those witnesses on that phone call. host: that is john in texas. city, new york republican. are you with us? caller: i am with you. hatet have to remark the that comes out of the mouth of these left-wingers. it is pathetic. saying andther had a she was talking about her son's. i am talking about the national news media that lies on a daily basis, that distorts everything this man is doing. then i am talking about the useful idiots that believe what they hear. -- only honest new station yours is honest because you allow both sides to talk -- and

the fox news is the only other one. let's talk about impeachment. there is nothing there to impeach. when they went through that and shifty nadler they could not find the one witness -- every witness was asked if they had solid evidence. could produce that. this whole thing is about a phone call. the left is interpreting their opinion that trump today quid pro quo. if you listen to the transcript, which none of the news media puts out there, if you listen to that, he did not say anything about a quid pro quo. he did what a president is supposed to do. soneard about biden and his

and corruption and it is his constitutional duty to protect peoplenst foreigners, who would be against america and corruption. he did his duty. they did not prove anything and we are moving onto the senate. they still have nothing, nancy is stalling. how many shots do these guys get? he has been called a traitor which is another lie. this goes on and on. there is nothing there. please, wet hope, need to have more conservatives call in and expose the lies. i could give you a list of lies. charlotte where he

claimed that he liked white supremacist. he never said that. host: we are going to stick with the senate impeachment trial today. we do try to rotate through the phone lines. democrats, republicans, independents. you will hear plenty of voices from all sides as you watch this program today. you will also hear the voices via text and social media. here are several of them. john in pennsylvania, president trump is only guilty of bad judgment which does not constitute a high crime. in georgia, can we trust the senate to complete the removal process honestly echo trump has been committing crime since he started running for office. trump becauseon he picked abuses power. paul saying i cannot wait till

they acquit the president so we can get on with it. joanne, only the guilty don't want witnesses. mcconnell is telegraphing he would be unfair. americans deserve a fair trial with witnesses. we will find out exactly how that trial will go today on the floor of the senate. that is when they will be debating the rules that will be governing the trial. we are getting your phone calls throughout the morning. ,emocrats (202) 748-8000 republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. faith is next out of ohio. caller: hello. can you hear me? what is your comment? trump: i think president is doing a fine job. i think it is all gossip. 80's and when i was

in my girl scout we would play a game where people whisper something to each other and i think it is a gossip game. it is our responsibility as citizens to support our president. to not be so mean and cruel. we should join together and be unified, stand behind our , and to be kind to one another. i think we should be kind to our president. thank you so much. host: this is keith out of baltimore, maryland. caller: i want to talk about democrats, republicans, and independents. we are divided because the media, the rich people, the politicians come on tv every day

and the democrats say something bad about the republicans and the republican say something bad about the democrats and we feed into that. but we are also suffering from their policy whether they are on the right or left. i think we need to wake up to both parties. jesse with a are doing and what is going on. what they are doing and what is going on. we need witnesses in any trial. it does look like a cover-up and it looks bad. both and let out some bombshells . we did not get to see or hear. that is all i have to say.

you just need to look at these rich people and politicians and the media. host: we mentioned earlier the president has added several members to his defense team. members of the house that will be part of a messaging effort on behalf of the president. not necessarily appearing on the floor but you will hear a lot more from doug collins, jim jordan, debbie lesko, mark --dows, police stuff on it elise stefanik. those are some of the people he has added. this is doug collins wall street journal noting that throughout this sham impeachment, democrats refused republican calls by seeking redress and permitting counsel to participate in a meaningful way. the ranking member of the house

judiciary wrote one thing remains clear, house democrats are focused on a self-imposed deadline and nothing can get in their way. not even the facts. could get in their way, not even the facts. there is only one path that will uphold the will of the founders and acquit the president." if you want to read more from doug collins of georgia, top republican on the judiciary committee, today's wall street journal is where you can go. laura, you are next. caller: i hope none of those people were the ones that signed a piece of paper saying they were going to be impartial and look at everything fairly. the comment the gentleman made before about the bidens, ivanka, jared, they are doing all kinds of stuff. that wasn't the comment i am calling about. i am calling because of

mcconnell with these rules he made. i really do believe this man is not really that worried about donald trump as much as he is worried about his life. his wife works very closely with donald trump, has worked with him since he has been in office. is always right next to him in all the meetings. has reports that her hands at all times, she knows everything going on. i don't know why anybody hasn't picked up on this. someone called c-span a few weeks ago. i thought about that comment. how the someone override a proceeding like this like mitch mcconnell is doing when his wife works for the defendant. she is lockstep with the president and i feel mitch mcconnell is trying to protect his wife. aboutyou start by saying the concern that these senators

remain impartial. what about the caller who doesn't think the democrats running against the president, that they cannot be impartial, that they should be dismissed from their seats in the senate as this trial moves forward? caller: the senators that are overseeing it? that are on the board -- that took the oath? host: do you think elizabeth warren and bernie sanders can be impartial? caller: i do. yeah, i do. your point is your other republicans that are signing it -- they are standing up and getting to be spokespersons for the president. you said there are 8 people. host: these are house members, not senators. as they haven't signed that saying they are going to be impartial. host: it doesn't matter for those folks because they are

members of the house, they will not be sitting as members of the senate jury during the impeachment trial. dave is next out of virginia, good morning. caller: i think what triggered the whole thing is you had an earlier caller talking about helsinki. he said something about crowd dncke and the server, the server. what is a dnc server doing in ukraine? i think this impeachment is to cover up their own wrongdoing and they sufficiently -- especially don't want to know who hacked into the server because any time anybody trump talks about it, they go into this mccarthyism on steroids. there is a group of nsa officials, retired nsa officials that have maintained a could not have been the russians because the data was downloaded too fast for it to be anyone but someone

within the dnc. it is unfortunate, seth rich's family doesn't have the money -- host: bring us to the senate trial. caller: the senate trial, there -- the senate trial doesn't make any sense to me at all because there is a lot of reasons. a quid pro quo? we are supposed to give money for countries when they are not supposed to do anything in return. what are we supposed to tell ukraine? here is a billion dollars, have a good time? there is a videotape of biden complaining -- bragging about threatening down the -- shaking down the ukrainians. host: it is just after 7:30 on the east coast this day of the

impeachment trial gets underway at 1:00 p.m. eastern and today is expected to be filled with the effort to come up with the rules to govern the rest of the trial. here is the resolution released by the majority leader in the senate, mitch mcconnell. this is what will be voted on and debated today under mitch mcconnell's plan. house democrats and the president will get 24 hours to make their case. the arguments would be condensed into two days instead of the three days given to each side during the bill clinton impeachment trial and it suggests arguments could make for very long 12 hour days that could stretch well past midnight. after the -- arguments, senators will have 16 hours to submit written questions submitted through john roberts, who poses the questions to each side. senators will decide whether

they want to consider new misses and documents. if 51 senators vote yes on that, senators will debate and vote on specific witnesses and documents that will be added to the trial. push back byready, democrats today and we are expected to see a lot of debate on the resolution on the floor and it is a different resolution than that which governed the bill clinton impeachment trial. we talked recently to don ritchie about the effort that resulted in the rules during the clinton impeachment trial. those rules passed unanimously before the clinton impeachment trial and here is what he said -- had to say about that effort. [video clip] >> there was a sense of relief when the senators came up unanimously with a set of rules. they protected the dignity of the senate and it was the appearance of what they were

doing. it reminded people it is a partisan institution. senator durbin was the most concerned about the image. he sent at the beginning of a closed-door session in the chamber about why impeachment was so important and so serious and why senators had to read the oath they had taken about being an impartial juror. he gave an impassioned speech and that helped and senators cited that when they were reaching the agreement. midway through the trial, senator byrd surprised everybody by putting up a motion to dismiss the case and everybody thought maybe he is doing to -- this to protect senator clinton. he said i am doing this to protect the senate. what we are getting lately is

dueling press conferences by the parties and we are beginning to look as partisan and rough as the house of representatives. he deplored the polarized politics. the senate voted the -- down the motion to dismiss, but it got people back into the seriousness of the trial as well. reportse already seeing someone could move to dismiss at the beginning, but it would have historical precedent. >> they would have to consider with the public reaction would be. host: don ritchie recently on qa program. in nevada, you are next, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning and thanks for taking my call. let's play connect the dots.

2006, 2000 seven, donald trump was looking to build a trump tower in ukraine. he is given money to ukraine, $300 million each year without asking about corruption. 20, right after the phone -- the very first congratulatory phone call to zelenskiy, 90 minutes later, they decided to stop the funds going to ukraine. the second phone call, neither phone call had any conversation about corruption in ukraine and how to fix it. his points were biden, paris burisma, crowd strike, 2016 election, he said talk to my main guy giuliani and barr. now you have lev parnas coming texts,h documentation, with his buddies, with giuliani.

he has a voicemail of giuliani saying we need information. you have some guy trying to run we werece saying following the lady -- you have all these dots connecting to trump. he did not ask about corruption, he asked specifically and exactly about biden and trying .o get dirt, that is all he did this was russia, if you can find the emails, you will be rewarded. you don't have to say we are going to do a quid pro quo. all you have to say is if you do this for me, i will do that for you. donald trump knew specifically and exactly what he was doing, trying to get information on biden so he could use it in the 2020 election just like with hillary clinton. host: this is bill out of the

bronx, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. thank you for taking my call. as far as the senate goes, the republican side of mitch mcconnell is obviously going to advocate to the president because they want the republican party to stay in power and it would be normal for them to try and move this as fast as possible. unfortunately, it is going to look really bad for the republican party. if you look back in history, the party and -- whig what happened to them and they became this offshoot. it doesn't look good, the evidence keeps coming out every day. to what theithesis trump administration and trump

himself is saying and i think that is the reason why they are so afraid of the truth coming out. i wish it would all come out. as far as hunter biden and biden , i don't see any relevance, but if that is what it takes to get the truth out, then so be it. i think it would look even worse for the republicans if they get biden on the stand and realize all this has been hyperbolic rhetoric and twisted stories prosecutore had a removed with the threat of a bribe. not, itthat is true or doesn't seem to be because the international community was behind him and they had seen the corruption and burisma was not being prosecuted and they wanted

a prosecutor in there to give everybody a fair shake and a fair trial and fair investigation and apparently they found nothing after that either. seest hope the republicans that they need to step up to the plate because the truth is going to come out no matter what they try to do. thank you for taking my call, have a good day. host: president trump out of the country as his senate up each -- impeachment trial begins, he is at the world economic forum in switzerland and there he was from earlier this morning entering the forum and taking a couple questions from reporters. is theay notes davos latest incidents in which donald trump is overseas or meeting with foreign leaders during a key phase of his impeachment. judiciary committee

held the first impeachment hearings in december as he was attending a nato summit in london although the president's lawyers keeping a close eye on proceedings. submitted a more than 170 page brief on the trial calling the charges against the president charges proved along party lines and constitutionally flawed and setting a dangerous precedent. here is part of the conclusion memorandum.trial the articles of impeachment presented by house democrats are .onstitutionally deficient theories underpinning them would do lasting damage to the separation of powers. the articles are the product already -- of an unprecedented and unconstitutional process that denies the president every basic right guaranteed by due process and fundamental printable's of fairness.

they reflect nothing more than the persecution of a designing majority in the house of .epresentatives the senate should acquit the president immediately. we should be hearing more from the president's lawyers in the coming days. we are expecting house impeachment managers to begin tomorrow. today will be taken up coming up with the rules. kentucky, next out of good morning. elizabeth warren, do you think she is partisan? klobuchar, do you think she is partisan? bernie sanders, chuck schumer, theyhave all come out and have said donald trump should be removed from office.

when these democrats call and talk about republicans need to do this and that, republicans are going to shut this down as soon as they can. destroyed theas constitution and what the impeachment clause meant because of their hatred for donald trump, not the presidency. the presidency is what has gotten destroyed because of this impeachment process. host: when you say they are going to shut it down as soon as they can, what does that mean? do you think there will be a dismissal motion? caller: they will make a motion to dismiss and it will be voted on and this will be gone. have maxine waters come out with anything she has got because it cannot be any worse than what they have done. it is a sham and it is terrible

what they have done to this country and i want to say one more thing to c-span. i know i get upset when i talk to you people because i hear the stuff that goes on when you let people call. we have to try and stop this hatred. hillary clinton is never going to be president of the united states, you have got to get over it. thank you. today looking at the various factions of senators who play a key role in the impeachment proceedings. senators will not be able to speak themselves to ask questions of the impeachment managers and the president's defense team. plenty of senators being watched to see what kind of role they may play including what politico calls the three amigos, the republican triumvirate, who have

been the center of the media frenzy for weeks. the unpredictable trio wants the option to hear from additional witnesses, especially john bolton. testifyas said he will if subpoenaed, but president trump suggested he may invoke and back -- invoke executive privilege. those three senators just one group of senators being watched. others including republican institutionalists. politico points to this group including lamar alexander, rob ,ortman, roy blunt, pat toomey republicans who believe in protecting the senate prerogatives or are retiring and have less to fear from perhaps a vengeful donald trump. if you want to read more, it is their lead story today leading up to this day as the senate impeachment trial begins in

earnest. margaret out of illinois, you are next this morning. caller: i want republicans to look at right and wrong. i tell you something. there is more of us than it is of them. you should not be nasty. us.p is messing with he is going to bankrupt us. anybody making a certain amount youoney, $40,000 or under, need to put it aside. these chickens going to come home to roost. trump is a crook. he doesn't care about democrat or republican, he only cares about trump. you make fivef dollars, you need to try to put one dollar aside. it will get ugly. host: what is your prediction about what happens in the next couple weeks? caller: i think trump -- they are going to let him go, but he

is not going to stop. they are going to let him stop because that is the way the republicans look at it, but he is not going to stop. he is going to do something really, really bad. we are going to lose to him, but the world is going to be fired for it. whether you are democrat or republican and you need to start praying now because trump is a crook and he is the worst kind of truck. the: margaret talking about economy. president trump's latest tweet focusing on the economy saying it is the economy, stupid, except when it comes to trump. and fake media hates talking about the economy and how incredible it is. that was the president this morning at the world economic vos, switzerland.

scott in kansas, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. i really appreciate it and i appreciate c-span because of its diversity of ideas and as an independent, i wish all the sourceswould get their of information from a varied source instead of a single source. i think that would unite people more. i am old enough to remember when there was the fairness doctrine on the news media where you got to hear a little bit of both sides so you had a more balanced point of view and as that went away, there is a lot more partisanship. host: besides listening to this network, where else do you go for your news to make sure you do that? tried to look at -- i

think the atlantic is good and there are some stories in the journal. i try to watch pbs and listen to npr. i try to be diverse and read a facts pofull of atitifacts -- read a story facts to see if it is true or not. democracy around the world, there was a story that a lot of other leaders in democracy have been removed and i thought i heard they said 170 over a period of time since there has been democracies since they have had a leader and they have been silly. one of them was run out of office because he was seen on a cooking show. that is crazy.

the constitution is pretty clear congress has the right to impeach and there should be a fair trial and when i think of a trial, it is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. that is what needs to come out. host: do you think this is setting up to be a fair trial? caller: i hope. i am just like that lady that called and prayed. i hope. if it becomes a partisan issue and the truth comes out later, it is bad for all of us. host: scott mentioning several news sources. one he didn't mention was the washington post, but want to point viewers to a column in today's washington post by george conway, an advisor to the lincoln project, one of the anti-trump super pac's and the husband of the counselor to the president, kellyanne conway. he writes this in his article today, his column in the , president trump

and his attacks on the impeachment process represent an attack on the constitution itself. it isn't really process was fullmentally unfair -- opportunity to ended cross-examine witnesses and make whatever arguments they deemed worthwhile to make and if there was any exculpatory evidence to be heard, the white house could have offered it. trump did everything he could to block the evidence from coming in. the headline of his column, the worst thing about trump's answer to the impeachment articles. you can read it today in the washington post. jim in montana, republican, you are next. meler: thanks for having back. i would like to say your job is an interesting one.

the senate impeachment trial where they are going to set the rules. how did we get here? we got here through a series of events close to five years ago where theyest to could -- i am not talking one person or two people. i am talking a concerted group. i try to find the truth in the middle. videos, to see what these senators, what these house members, what all these people have put together in a concerted effort to remove a constitutionally and people elected president from office is utterly ridiculous. we are here because there is no

truth left in politics, it's agenda. we are a -- an agenda driven society now. everybody has their own agenda and way of wanting to do things. they don't care with the other side has to say. they have their view. driven.l agenda we are not doing anything but putting on a show for the american public for notoriety. when you put all these things together, this is how we are where we are today and unless we do something there to correct the problems that are widespread right now, everybody wants the same thing. when you put these together, it is a mess. host: you started by saying you think this job is an interesting job, if you could ask a caller on one of the other phone lines

that called into the program a question, what would you want to know? know how would want to do you arrive at your views -- what sources? is it a product of the environment you live in? do you live in an area where everybody thinks the certain way. if you live in florida, do you think everybody in kansas is some kind of boob? what are you going to do to correct your sources? where you get your information? host: where do you get your information calling from montana -- how did you come up from your views? caller: i get my views from various sources. i don't care if it is cnn, fox news. , the't care if it is

atlantic, and br -- npr, many circles. you can get some things from social media buried deep. try to take those, i condense my information and try to make a solid judgment. host: thanks for the call from montana. wayne in missouri, independent. help me out with your hometown in missouri. caller: minden mines, missouri. host: go ahead. caller: it shames me that everyone is thinks -- forgets they are a branch of government, that is the judiciary. the house has accused the president of contempt of congress. if the executive and legislative cannot get along, it goes to the judiciary and everybody knows that if john bolton or anybody else in the white house is called, the president is going to put out executive privilege

and the senate will not do what the house does, the senate will have to file with the judiciary and that will drag this thing on forever until i have not heard in any of the news -- it does not matter whether it is c-span or anybody else, nobody talks about the third branch of government and they are the ones that decide when the first two cannot agree. the judiciaryhat is completely overlooked. i don't understand it. host: stick around, we will be talking more about the third branch of government later in our program today. plenty more to talk about as we take on this day in the senate impeachment trial. up next we will be joined by greg stohr atthen

8:30 a.m., supreme court reporter with bloomberg news. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> the impeachment of president trump, watch unfiltered coverage of the senate trial on c-span andlive as it happens, follow the process on-demand at c-span.org,/impeachment, and listen on the go using the free radio app.

>> campaign 2020, watch our continuing coverage of the presidential candidates on the campaign trail, and make up your own mind. you can watch our live coverage of the iowa caucuses, on monday, february 3, campaign 2020, your unfiltered view of politics. washington journal mugs are available at the c-span online .org., go to c-span store check out the washington journal mugs and see all of the c-span products. washington journal continues. host: always glad to welcome show.ane back to our what's your read on this four page trial rule document. guest: the highlight that

everyone is looking at is the way mitch mcconnell is trying to compress the trial. he does not wanted to go on for as long as the clinton impeachment trial did 21 years ago. acrossial was sprawled five or six weeks, there were multiple spots because they were bringing in witnesses and taking off.me mcconnell is setting this up so that you could pre-much be done, conservative estimates are the first weekend of february. some are even suggesting it could wrap up next week in the middle of the week. that's probably a little faster than we think it will go, but the house managers for instance get two days to present 24 hours of testimony. i have an old timeline from 1999 with me. they did it over three days in 1999. and the presidential lawyers, bill clinton's team, they spread

their defense over three days. he said to each side you get two days, up to 12 hours if you wanted, but i think that's also his way of trying to say don't expect to use all 12 hours, because look around. this is a body filled with some older people on both sides of the aisle. a lot of people will want to go so compress or 9:00 what you are doing in two days and we will move this along. this does set up a big clash of witnesses, and more testimony, more documents. that's going to be the biggest moment of the trial. host: provokes trying to wrap their head over the schedule and what was released yesterday, can you walk it out for us? today they will be voting on this whole package, if it passes, take us to tomorrow, the start of the house impeachment managers and their first 12 hour

day. is unique, senators are not really debating this, this is the house managers and the trump legal defense team debating the rules that they are going to govern the trial. it will pass, mcconnell has the votes, all 53 republicans have said they support his plan for this. so tomorrow, at 1:00, there will be some fighting over emotions, some preliminary motions from each side. i don't know how long that will take. tomorrow, the house managers will begin to present their case. you will have adam schiff and six other democrats dividing up of case, two articles impeachment, one for abuse of power, one for obstruction of congress. up to 12 hours on againday, and come back

on thursday, going through that process. some point on thursday night they will finish up their case. and i'm certain they will dismiss the jury, the senators, and on friday, the president's lawyers will come back. the indications we are getting from the white house is that this is not going to be a long presentation. the clinton team took three days of going through and defending president clinton. i would be surprised if trump lawyers took more than one day to present their case. at that point, the next phase is senators get to ask questions of the two legal teams. they have not put any sort of hours, andn the 16 they literally writes down the questions and hand them to pages

who bring them up to the chief staffe and the expert will sort through the questions. i'm not exactly sure whether they will take all of the questions for the house managers , i think that still needs to be determined and to some degree will be up to the chief justice. across tworobably go or three days. if they start that on saturday, the senate takes off on sundays for impeachment trials, they come back on monday and tuesday to finish up those questions. and then you go into a four hour debate, two hours for each side for the house managers, prosecutors, and the defense team. even if you do this on tuesday of next week and you wrap it up, you get to the point where the senators them selves have to

figure out a way to debate the witness issue. it's a little unclear, they mention deliberations in the resolution. if they go into a closed-door deliberation, we would be looking at around tuesday or wednesday, and it's unclear how long that will last. it's unclear whether this is going to be a shorter time frame , or they will go back for a more extensive deliberation at the end of the trial. has hada senate that very few bipartisan all 100 get-togethers with no staff around. most of the senators have probably only had to have experience once or twice. it will be an interesting dynamic to see how it plays out. how much of those deliberations, when you get to that point, how

much is it the leaders leading? and the senatorial sheep following? or do something more organic breakout? atrank-and-file members, that point everybody is just one vote, there is no real majority and minority leader when the group of 100 gets together. not toe more likely than just follow their leader because the modern senate has become this place where leaders have incredible control over the rank and file. canwildcard is whether you see people like mitt romney talking about john bolton, can he work with democrats to try to get a trade where you can witnesses? that's the real wildcard, and it's always been the wildcard, even if you try to compress this i still think,s,

ultimately, what we will see is sometime next week the issue of witnesses is going to come to a head. host: how will we know come if they allow witnesses, how long the process will last? guest: that's to be determined and negotiated. that's part of those deliberations, and there will be votes, there is first a vote on just a generic question of does the senate want to have more testimony? more witnesses? if the answer is no, that short-circuits the process and they could move quickly to a which would almost certainly acquits trump. but if they vote yes, they will have to work through each of those witnesses, do you want to hear john bolton? if so, what's the process for that? they would have to come up with

people that would depose bolton, because they would be in depositions first, in private. --ely in some passion fashion to be videotaped like in 1999. there was videotaped depositions of monica lewinsky, and bill clinton's close friend. there would be something akin to that, and it's a wheeling and dealing thing. i don't think we will get to a point where we see last testimony on the senate floor. happened, if you go back to andrew johnson's trial for something like that, that's 1858. modern precedent is generally that witnesses do not show up in the well of the senate. host: and tomorrow we begin with preliminary motions, is there a motion to dismiss? guest: everybody has been

waiting to see whether or not somebody will try to do that. the president's team is allowed to offer motions, and emotion commonly offered in a trial is a motion to dismiss. eric you lend, the head of white house legislative affairs was in the capital yesterday, he's been there a lot lately, has been expressing the view that the president really wanted to have all of his rights maintained in this resolution. well, it's maintained. the reality is that most senate republicans don't want to dismiss the trial right out of gate. therefore if they held a vote on a motion to dismiss, it would fail. the case would not be dismissed. the republican party break ranks. voting toe a 25

immediately dismiss, 28 not, you would have a very fractured republican conference at the outset. they don't want that to happen. also there are a group of center republicans who are trying to let president trump know that in their estimation, it's better for him, politically, if there is an actual trial. if there is the appearance at least of an actual trial. and at the very end he's acquitted. they think that will be politically better for him then if he just dismissed the case outright. the president, on the other hand, seems to like the idea of just dismissing it. i think there's something instinctively about him and branding where he thinks that the case is dismissed it's just better for him. but the ted cruz is in the lindsey graham's are trying to coax him into understanding that at least a 10 day trial or so would be better for him.

kane is our guest, our first caller is on the democrat line. caller: i have been a republican in the past, i went to georgetown, and mcconnell went to georgetown law and he's a disgrace to that place as well as the people of kentucky. most outrageous of the rule changes which he has is the notion that the house evidence is not automatically admitted. what is that? does that me know trilateral? all?a care -- no trial at i'm really counting on those four or five republicans to make some changes. my guess is that he puts those outrageous things in there so that some of the so-called moderates will have a success and get rid of one of them, as if that makes a difference. host: that was john, and germantown. guest: he's a university of kentucky law school graduate, he

went to louisville undergrad and then u.k. law, he was not a georgetown, just to clear up. he is veryhing particular about. issue, they are not immediately accepting the house evidence as part of the trial. .t's weird it's procedural. it's parliamentary. , they will be able to present their case, they will be able to talk about everything they did in the house intelligence committee and the house judiciary committee. there may come a time where they do not admit into evidence everything that they did, and there's an issue of some of it is considered hearsay because it was about what the lt. col. heard about what somebody else

said. there has been this fight within republicans about what should be considered evidence are not. roberts telln united state senator that you cannot consider what's coming up with your verdict in the impeachment trial? guest: it's ultimately whatever 51 senators decide is evidence. john roberts, and a lot of these contentious issues can be punted but anye chief justice, of his rulings can be challenged by the full senate, at that point to 51 senate -- senators overrule him, they have the final say. and we expect the people -- chief justice to let the senate decide and let them have the will. nobody expects him to play super active role, but house democrats are going to be able to present

their case. they are going to be able to tell senators what they have not whether it's excepted into evidence is ultimately not issue, it'sl of an ultimately about what 100 senators view. david on the line for republicans. bates tweeted out a picture of five reporters for the washington post celebrating impeachment, it was an impeachment celebration. this guy she said paid for it. i was wondering if he could explain why anybody should trust or take anything the man says as being impartial, because he obviously showed himself to be completely biased, i will hang up and take your answer. guest: he's referring to a

picture of the last day of the house impeachment process, a very long and draining process for all of us. we went down the street to the dubliner, a restaurant afterwards and we were not celebrating donald trump being impeached, it was really just the end of a long three to four month struggle. narrow, downht, the middle. were not here to present one side or another and we are really here to just try to guide people through what is a really strange and cumbersome process. host: how long have you been covering congress? guest: at least 20 years if you count the time we worked together with roll call, it was 13 years at the post and seven years at roll call. there has been a lot of focus on reporters and the access that they will have. can you talk about that process

on a daily basis pre-impeachment? and what has changed now? host: -- guest: the capital has great freedom up there to move, constituents can meet the representatives to come in, sign a book, weight, and try to get a meeting with someone. it's also great in terms of press access where we have pre-much -- not free reign but we can move about the capital and we can go in and watch the debates. freedomes us a lot of to talk to members about what their inking. how they are being pushed by constituents and interest groups. they have pushed us farther away from senators both in the basement of the capital and

senate side, which is a good place to catch them, and also even just entering the gallery. today, for the first time ever that i have seen and my friend danny taylor of the associated press has ever seen, we are going to have to go through a magnetometer just to get into the chamber. we already do that to get into the building. to get into the capital at all, you go through a security device. this may not are -- this mag now thatr -- this is here so people do not leave recording devices into the chamber so when they go into closed session when they have all 100 sitting around -- i don't know how to plant a listening device. trusts a weird lack of that has gone into the process, i don't understand some of the decisions.

it seems like they were searching for a problem to fix. that theusually note cameras are controlled by the united states senate, they are not c-span cameras that are in there. we have asked traditional candles and more act -- cameras and more access to this process. host: and -- guest: and they are only going use two cameras, but they have more but they will only use two. there's this immortal shot of john mccain flashing thumbs down at 1:30 in the morning on the health care vote, that's a .orner camera angle shot i'm not sure that camera will even be working. this is the real moment of history. it's a real moment of vindication for president trump if he's a kit -- if he is acquitted. i would think you would want as

many camera angles as possible. he would want as many reporters as possible to be able to cover this moment. it's a moment of history for democrats, it should be recorded . and the house of representatives as actually handled this in much more free and open process. and even under speaker ryan in the last two years, there were no real restrictions and under speaker pelosi there has not been any restrictions. host: alex, on the independent line. good morning. caller: i have a comment about mitch mcconnell. i wanted to make sure that we understand that america is really under attack. having mitch mcconnell, i don't even know how to start out the statement, but that man is the robert e lee of this generation. he does not care about anything the politics.

that makes me really scared. i've been around the world, i've traveled to different countries, and the things that people say about america now is dangerous. we are under attack and it is sad to know that we are under attack from within. it's within the country. host: can you give a specific example as it relates to the impeachment trial? caller: for example, why would a clear trial? why have this done overnight? we can't even tell what's wrong or right, when we try to find out the truth, they say trump he's innocent from the charges. so let the case be for itself. host: let's alex, out of new york. he mentioned finding out at midnight finding out that a lot of senate democrats and their response to the rules resolution that mitch mcconnell put out

focused on doing this and the dead of night, hiding this from the american public. his mitch mcconnell worried about those kinds of attacks from democrats? host: no. -- he enjoys the attacks of his opponents in a way that few people on capitol hill really have. he and speaker pelosi could not be any different stylistically, personally. but they both had this ability to really relish their opponents for assessing over them in a way that -- in a way. been winning, he has won three straight elections in a row for republicans, and has done so through somewhat extraordinary means. especially when you are looking back at the moment of merrick garland, and the supreme court seat.

that has infuriated democrats, and there is a mcconnell syndrome that grips a lot of democrats and activists. bend,ly way to make him is to break him, litter clay. democrats really need to go out and destroy the republicans if they want to defeat mcconnell. they have failed three times in a row. host: for viewers more interested in the power of mitch thennell, nancy pelosi, and dynamic in their individual caucus" for us -- caucus and conference i would point them to this january 11 column in the washington post, the showdown underscores the power of pelosi and mcconnell, a lot of great history there. and the author, paul kane. -- our in tennessee

guest in tennessee, on the democrat line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have several things, i appreciate you letting me get through some of them. i think the idea that there should be a time limit or time concern on this trial -- time is not a concern to me, the truth is a concern to me. who -- ifthe truth of the current president is guilty of obstructing justice, and quid pro quo. with theselty charges coming from the house of representatives -- if he's guilty or not, the trial should be held like any other trial. , theyuld hear witnesses should be sworn in to tell the truth.

in thats should come are germane to the articles of impeachment. first,ould be discussed and then the lawyers and the representatives should be discussed next, and then the -- the senator should talk about making a decision. host: the process that larry is laying out is very different. guest: there's a real danger for democrats. they don't want to go too much into the process argument. they know that they have to to gethis process to try more witnesses and more facts, or people can cooperate -- corroborate the case. but there is a danger if they go too far into just talking about

process and they don't defend their own case that they have developed. the case that they have developed in the house, in the intelligence committee hearings, was a strong case. revealing and damming to what the white house was trying to do . if they keep focusing over and over on the need for more witnesses, there is some fear that they undercut their own as ifthe validity of it, it's not complete. they're trying to do a balancing demanding more witnesses, trying to get john bolton and mick mulvaney to testify, and still supporting their own case as worthy of impeachment. host: and one more promotion from over the weekend, house democrats balancing act, arguing the case against trump a solid while seeking more evidence coming out on saturday. again from ball kane -- from paul kane, and on our republican

line, good morning. caller: i have a question, what is the process for removing biased jurists who are democratic candidates for president and to stand to gain politically of president trump is removed from office? that's my question. processere really is no for any of the 100 senators. they get to sit down and hear the case. it's the way it is. senate democrats right now who are running for president, bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, amy klobuchar, michael bennet, a couple more were running, kamala harris, cory booker. thates, you could argue there is some level of bias there. you also have several republicans in the senate who ran against donald trump 2015, marco rubio, rand paul, lindsey

graham, his campaign did not make it to 2016 but he ran. there are lots of intrinsic biases and conflicts in the senate. the reality is that this is not a formal jury trial. trial, was a formal jury these 100 people would not be the jury hearing this case. there is conflict of interest on just about every senator there. host: the last call, george, in illinois, on the independent line. caller: just one question, as far as more witnesses, the democrats have stated that they have an airtight case, so they have an airtight case, why do you need more witnesses or documents? host: this goes to what i was saying earlier, they run the

risk of undercutting their own case the more they demand more witnesses. but john bolton is particularly at the center of all of this. the testimony that we have heard from witnesses back in the house intelligence committee, bolton referred to this as a drug deal that mulvaney was cooking up. and he is, by no means, a liberal democrat. he is without question a staunch in everyive, he worked republican administration going back to reagan. there is a gap there in the that would be fascinating to hear ambassador bolton's views on this, because sony people have tossed -- talked about him and his role in views. ,hat's the democratic argument there are a couple of central

players here who trump refused to allow to testify. without their views known, you're still going to have an incomplete case. trump has blocked them from testifying area so democrats want to hear from them -- testifying. so democrats want to hear from them. host: paul, we know you have a busy day, we will let you get to capitol hill. we always appreciate your time. up next, a focus on the supreme court and john roberts's role in the senate impeachment trial, greg stohr is our guest from bloomberg news. stick around. ♪

>> go shopping and see what's available at the c-span online store, including our campaign 2020 ceased -- t-shirts, sweatshirts, and hats. go to our website and see all of our products. >> campaign 2020, watch our continuing coverage of the presidential candidates on the campaign trail and make up your own mind, voting begins next month, watch live coverage of the isla caucuses on monday, february 3. campaign 2020, your unfiltered view of politics. >> the impeachment of president trump, watch unfiltered coverage of the senate trial on c-span to c-span2it happens -- live as it happens.

you can follow online and listen on the go using our radio app. >> washington journal mugs are available at c-span's new online store. go to c-span store.org. check out the washington journal mugs and see all of the c-span products. washington journal continues. host: supreme court watchers are familiar with rick stohr, let's start with chief justice john roberts and his schedule. what will that be like in the coming days as he serves double duties on both sides of the street up there? guest: in some ways it's not a bad time for him to do this, the court will hear arguments today and tomorrow in the morning, two arguments today starting at 10:00 and ending at noon. one argument tomorrow ending at 10:00 and ending around 11:00.

he will be able to do that public role in the courtroom and then go to the senate to hand out impeachment proceedings. then the court is on the bench briefly on monday, to issue opinions, and then a four-week recess. his main duty during that time might be the impeachment trial. host: john roberts has never presided over a trial. guest: that's right, sonia sotomayor is the only justice who has ever been a trial judge, and john roberts spent his career -- briefly as a federal appeals court judge and before that he was an appellate lawyer. he's very comfortable with making arguments about the constitutional issues, and he is certainly comfortable going back to his chambers and writing an opinion over the course of several months, but it will be a new experience to be presiding over something and having to potentially make decisions in very short order. host: it begins in earnest today at 1:00 eastern on the floor of

the senate, should we think of him as a judge when he sits up there? he has used the term umpire before, how should we think of john roberts? guest: probably not a judge in the sense of what we are use to, he's unlikely to be called upon -- he will not be applying the rules that judges normally apply, not the federal rules of evidence, but rather the rules of the senate, most likely he will do a lot of what chief justice rehnquist did, which is not a lot, generally deferring to the senate. there is nothing that john roberts can do up there that 51 senators cannot overrule. he's likely to be pretty deferential, and there is a way he could make it to the entire trial without having to decide any real issues of substance. host: in terms of influence, when could he exert the most and does he want to?

guest: undoubtably he will want to portray an image of fairness, somebody in control of the proceedings, to reassure the public that there are some rules. you talk to people who know him well, he is probably not happy about being there, it's not a role he's comfortable and he does not like to be in the political limelight. he thinks of judges as people who are not politicians. for that reason he is likely to be rather deferential to the way the senate wants to handle things. host: we invite viewers to call in to chat with greg stohr, for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. as folks are calling in, how much and how has john roberts been preparing? guest: we don't have a lot of details, the court has not

provided us a lot of information and we do know he's working with is very likelyhe been working with jim duff, the head of the administrative office at the u.s. courts, he's important because he worked with rehnquist during the clinton impeachment. he has been studying past proceedings and is very much a student of history. one would imagine that he has read through the entire transcript of the clinton impeachment proceeding and knows how rehnquist handles things. host: where was he during the proceedings? guest: he was a lawyer in private practice at that point, before he became a judge he was a widely understood that she was widely understood to be one of the best supreme court agnew on behalf ofates corporate clients, but certainly familiar and no doubt following the impeachment closely. host: very familiar with the

supreme court, we have questions, jeffrey is up first out of ohio, a democrat. good morning. caller: i don't really have a question, it's really in the form of the statement. i don't have much faith in our court system anymore. i think mr. trump has basically torn down our judicial system under the attorney general act. i don't have much faith in the everybody knows that the votes are rigged towards a certain party. cheat.y still have to and then they ask young people out here to violate the law, and do the right thing. and we are watching this mockery of justice, people are defying the courts, find the constitution -- defying the constitution.

these are words written on paper and it's up to men to respect those words on paper. host: thank you. how much is john roberts thinking about someone like jeffrey and his view of the court system as he sits up there in the spotlight? guest: it strikes a cord with john roberts, he cares a lot about judges in the federal judiciary not being seen as partisan actors. one well-publicized episode was when president trump was criticizing a judge ruled against him, john roberts in an extraordinary statement in response to the question put out a statement that said we are not obama judges or trump judges, just men and women trying to do our level best to apply the rule of law. he really cares about that, whether he is successful about that and undercuts his own case is a matter of debate. but certainly in terms of the end goal, he wants judges to be seen as people who apply the law

thanre umpires, rather people who favor republicans or democrats. host: mike, in illinois, on the independent line. caller: it seems to me after created a runaway train running around the bend, it seems that there's one big elephant in the room, the court ordered taxpayer-funded mueller report that was supposed to be released. uphink they are covering ,hat if that thing comes out they will run like roaches when the light comes on. i think that's what it is, they are covering up for that report. do you have a question? yes, how can we get that released for the american people to see?

because this thing -- this phone of the 1/10 of 1% problem. my question is, we found out last week that he stole $1 billion of our servicemen's pension and nobody will talk about it. he's doing things like this over and over. host: that's mike in illinois, what you want to take? guest: the mueller report was made public. there is some information, some grand jury information that has not been released yet and there is a court battle over that, one that may ultimately make it to the supreme court although right now it's at the federal appeals court level. democrats obviously made a political choice or judgment that the impeachment would go forward not on the mueller allegationsn these involving ukraine. in danville,

virginia, a republican. adam schiff stood up proofand said that he had trumpnd over about colluding with russia, but nobody said anything and they didn't find any proof at all. they've been telling untruths so much so long without anybody saying anything about it. host: republicans and president trump have certainly focused on adam schiff, with tom bringing up a specific member, when it comes to john roberts, what's his relationship like with adam , chuck mitch mcconnell schumer, the people that will be in the room with him, does he have relationships with these members of congress outside of his formal duties?

guest: he does to varying degrees, i don't know if he's ever met adam schiff, certainly the senators who had to vote on him, likely mitch mcconnell when he was nominated. there are a few other senators he has had past relationships with, like josh hawley from a is a-- from missouri former law clerk. an ted cruz and he worked a little together on the bush and werecontroversy when they doing work on behalf of future president. it varies, and no doubt he has better relationships with some than others. host: 15 minutes left with greg stohr, the phone lines are as usual. stepping away from the , what are theial cases you are watching this we at the court? guest: they are hearing

arguments in three cases, the one that will get the most attention will be argued tomorrow, it's a religion case that has to do with public aid that goes to religious schools, it's a montana program that let people make contributions to an organization and get a tax credit for that, and then the organization would use that for scholarships for students to go to schools including religious schools. the montana supreme court struck that program down according to a provision in their constitution that says no public aid should go to religious organizations. so it's coming to the supreme court. primarily it's a question of religious rights, also a federalism, whether montana can have this rule that struck down the entire program, not just the funding to religious schools. it's one of these cases that will very likely divide the court along ideological lines. host: and the courts to rule on

faceless electors? guest: they just agreed to hear on that on friday. the question is whether states can do anything if somebody was supposed to vote for the winner of the states popular vote, instead decides to vote for someone else. these are electors who are vetted by the parties, presumably they are going to vote for, and we expect them to vote for the democrat who won that state. in the last election there were 10 people who did something other than vote for donald trump or hillary clinton. a theory this could swing presidential election, where there is a possibly summit he could sam going to vote the other way and swing the election. so with the question of federalism, whether states can do anything, once these electors

are appointed and they get to use their own judgment. host: when as a go the court? guest: we don't have a date, probably late april with a ruling likely at the end of the term in june. host: and it was important that the court agreed to hear it -- guest: it was important the court agreed to hear it so that they are not deciding in the middle of election controversy. host: evelyn, in chicago, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm calling because i'm concerned about the country. people are fighting, nobody can get on the same page. while russia and china are just waiting, because this country will implode and we know it. we have to get our act together. thank you. is jay, out of california, a democrat. during my question is,

the presidential debates with hillary clinton, donald trump he had any business is going on in russia. it's been pretty much covered that he had seriously considered an office tower in moscow. and the president testified that he never had any business or anything going on. so why doesn't the media covering more and be specific on those details about an office building in moscow, which seems to contradict everything the president said during 2016. host: that's a lot to cover. guest: that's kind of the answer to a lot of things. we talked about a number of issues, and the caller has raised another, that's part of the dynamic of the time we are in. host: the status of cases having to do with the president's

business interest come are there any we should be updated on? guest: a few very important cases later in the term, in march, having to do with subpoenas for his financial information, their two sets of cases, one involves a new york that's looking into allegations stemming from the stormy daniels payment, the other is a congressional subpoena or a series of congressional subpoenas trying to get financial information not directly from donald trump, but either his accountant or his banks. the question is whether the president can intervene and say i have right sierra and try to -- rights here and try to block the subpoena from going forward with financial information being turned over. that will be a hugely important political case, and maybe one that john roberts wishes he were spending more time on rather than presiding over the impeachment inquiry. host: our guest is with us for

about 10 more minutes, you will be heading to the court after this, can you ask lena schedule today? have they shifted anything on your side because of the impeachment trial? guest: not publicly, everything in the court publicly is the same. we have an orders list, a list of cases that will generally today be that we are not going to hear. there are thousands of cases every year where people say supreme court, give us a hearing, and the supreme court has almost total discretion about which cases it thinks are worthy of being taken up. we will get a list of mostly we will not hear that case and we will leave the lower court ruling intact. and sometimes they will take some new cases, but there are other cases. and they will take the bench for two arguments today, one at 10:00 and one at 11:00.

not the highest profile issues, one has to do with the career in criminal act which is a statute that the court has dealt with over and over, and the other is the enforcement of international arbitration. host: the supreme court is about four blocks away from our studio , that's where greg stohr spends his time. jesse is in indiana, an independent, good morning. caller: your last guest made a point, made a statement that mitch mcconnell is trying to rush this through. i don't see it that way. i see that the clinton impeachment had a lot of investigation and a lot more evidence introduced that they had to get through. they kind of rush this through the house and i don't think it's gonna take as much time to get through. now that thee know obama administration's justice

department illegally surveilled the trump administration during anycampaign, would there be way to have a retroactive forachment of barack obama illegally using the resources of the justice department to surveilled a presidential campaign? i love c-span, but i can't believe you all have a reporter from the washington post followed by a reporter from bloomberg whose boss is running for president, and you believe this is impartial. i'm surep watching, you will find reporter you do like, but greg, will you address the last part. it is a fact that mike bloomberg is running for president, and i'm going to do my job the way i have always done it. and in stories where mike

bloomberg has an effect we make the appropriate disclaimer. and going back to the clinton impeachment, -- host: going back to the clinton impeachment, what parallels would you draw between rehnquist and john roberts, and also the relationships between the senators that one chief justice had and the other apparently had? guest: republicans will tell you there are a lot of parallels, democrats will dispute a lot of what the caller just said. that's why mitch mcconnell is essentially saying we are going to have this trial proceed the way the clinton trial did, where we don't make a decision until later about whether we are going to call witnesses and democrats would counter that by saying a lot of these witnesses are people who we wanted to have come testify, we would've had john bolton testified the house but the president blocked him from testifying. a big difference between the two

trials will be back in 1999, republicans and democrats in the senate agreed on the ground rules. that made it much easier for rehnquist to not have to decide a lot, he famously at the end of i did very little and i did it very well. john roberts probably won't be able to say that, because he has all of these disputes between the two parties about how the trial will proceed, whether witnesses will be called, and may be disputes about having witnesses called to closed-door depositions and what do they do with the testimony? will they show it on video? will the transcript be available? there could be a lot of things that john roberts may have to deal with, he may throw those to the senate to be decided but it will probably be a lot more contentious. host: one thing that's probably not contentious, but why does rehnquist have the gold stripes on his robe when he presided

over the impeachment trial and why john roberts doesn't? guest: rehnquist put those on his robes several years early, there is a character in an operetta, and in the production he saw had stripes on his robe and rehnquist liked it and he decided to adopted at the supreme court and use it for several years. john roberts decided to go back to the traditional black, he did not think that embellishment -- he did not like it. republicanis paul, a , in oklahoma, good morning. action i think we heard from paul and he's not there. joanne, in annapolis maryland, and independent. caller: i have a comment in a question i would appreciate if you would not cut me off. first of all the independent to called from indiana is no manyendent, and like so

alternate facts coming out of the white house, which is being kind, the truth is that the inspector general came out and administration did not surveilled the trump campaign. this is another spin, and another lie, being propagated. trial, thet to the so-called procedures that mcconnell was following. if anybody knows anything about truth, the constitution, and the way trials are conducted in this country, it is not the way mcconnell has set up the rules. there's evidence, witnesses, and documents. argument, opening and closing arguments. thisact that he is calling to be similar to the clinton impeachment is a lie. i was alive during the clinton

impeachment, i was alive during the nixon impeachment, this is much worse. my question, to what extent will the chief justice have the right to intervene and stop the travesty that mcconnell has set up? this is not about contention, it's about rule of law and protecting this democratic republic, which republicans seem hell-bent on destroying area -- destroying. guest: he will have the right to rule on any dispute in question, but the key thing to remember is that this is very different from a trial. it's the senate that sets the rules, so there's nothing john roberts could do that 51 senators can't overrule. and he has the ability to say, and likely will on a number of occasions, maybe a lot of occasions say i'm not going to rule on some motion, i'm going to put it to the senate.

john roberts probably does not want to be making controversial ruling after controversial ruling. he does not have to, that's not the way the system is set up, the constitution says the senate has the sole power to try impeachment. this does not provide him any particular powers beyond that. chicago, a, out of democrat, you are next. caller: good morning. question,omment and my comment is, i believe everybody can forget it, mcconnell is not in a colony going to -- is not call any witnesses, the american people will have to step up. , i have nevern is inmy lifetime seen russians

the oval office, has anyone? we have about a minute or two left, you can take at this question but i want to give you another chance to talk about what else we should know about john roberts in this impeachment trial. what did we not get to? overview, in my to benswer, he's going there front and center but it's really the senate running things . he will care a lot about preserving the image of the judiciary. he will want to present himself as somebody who is conducting things fairly, but will also recognize that he is not the person running the show. it is whatever 51 senators decide to do, it may be 51 republicans and it may be democrats having grabbed a few votes along the way. one other point i would make is

that there is a dispute about what happens in the event of a tie? what if 50 senators want to do something? mitch mcconnell and republicans are arguing that it takes 51, that the chief justice does not have the ability to break a tie. there is some precedent that if it is 50-50, the chief can break the tie. in the impeachment of andrew johnson back in the 1860's the chief justice did break a couple of ties on procedural questions. so people say that roberts does have the ability to break a tie. host: and it all gets underway at 1:00 eastern, you can watch it on c-span2. also make sure to check out our impeachment webpage at c-span.org/impeachment for all of the documents and the hearings. and this segment will be on that webpage pretty soon. greg, thank you.

host: coming up next come more of your phone calls as we look ahead to the impeachment trial in the senate. getting your thoughts with the release of the rules yesterday. democrats can call in at 202-748-8000, republicans at ,02-748-8001, independents 202-748-8002. we will get to your calls in a few minutes. ♪ go shopping and see what is now available at the c-span online store, including our on ll-new campaign 2020 t-shirts and hats. browse all of our products. campaign 2020. watch our continuing coverage of the presidential candidates on the campaign trail and make

up your own mind. as voting begins next month, watch live coverage of the iowa caucuses on monday, february 3. c-span's campaign 2020, your unfiltered view of politics. the impeachment of president trump, watch unfiltered coverage of the senate trial on c-span2 live as it happens, and someday re-airs. follow the process on demand at c-span.org/impeachment, or listen on the goat using the free c-span radio app. washington journal" mugs are available on c-span's new online store. go to c-span store.org. check out the washington journal mugs and see all the c-span products. washington journal continues. about one hour left in our

program today. we are getting your thoughts as the senate impeachment trial gets underway at 1 p.m. eastern today. democrats,r 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. 202-748-8002. today, debate on the floor between the impeachment managers and the president's lawyers will be on the rules that govern the impeachment process from here on out. mitch mcconnell reprising his -- releasing his proposed rules yesterday. here is what the senate majority leader has proposed. house democrats and president trump will each get 24 hours to make their case. their arguments will be condensed to two days, condensed from three days that took place during the bill clinton impeachment trial. it was also suggested that arguments could the long days, 12 hour days. after the arguments, both sides will finish their arguments.

senators will have 16 hours to submit written questions submitted through the chief justice, john roberts. he will pose those questions to each side. up, andose 16 hours are that is expected to take place over two or three days, then, senators will consider if they want any new witnesses or documents. the proposed rules allow a four-hour debate on that. if 51 senators vote yes on that, senators will debate and vote on specific witnesses and specific documents. expect to hear a lot more about those proposed rules today. we have already been hearing a lot of reaction since they were released yesterday afternoon. here is the official statement today from the house impeachment managers, the democratic members of the house who are arguing the impeachment case in the senate here is what they had to say

on the rules resolution. for weeks, mitch mcconnell has asserted that he wanted to follow the precedent of president clinton's impeachment trial. it is clear why he hid his resolution all this time and reduced it the day before the trial is about to begin. it deviates sharply from the clinton precedent, in an effort to prevent the full truth of pres. trump's conduct from coming to light. they go on to say, there should be a fair trial, and equally the.tant, fair to american people and anyone who wants the same should reject the resolution. those are some of the arguments you will be hearing from impeachment managers today on the floor of the senate. that is from their walk over to the senate to deliver the articles of impeachment late last week. we are getting your thoughts on it this morning on "washington journal." 202-748-8000,

republicans, 202-748-8001, 8002.ndents, 202748 we have a caller from las vegas. good morning. caller: good morning. i what all your shows every day. fox.ched pbs, cnn and what i have come to the conclusion is that from day one, before trump even ran, they were out to impeach the guy. n jeffries wanted to impeach trump years ago. then you have all these callers calling in with totally different reasonings. our government at this point is so corrupt, i don't know how we will get through this. i understand that mcconnell has the kill switch. yeah, he will use it, because if you go back to the cavanaugh hearings and you see how they brought that professor lady in that was paid off with a

gofundme, $1 million at the end -- and i know i am jumping around -- she couldn't remember the day, the time, what happened. they are afraid that democrats will come out with some crazy person. that is what he has to do the kill switch and stop. this has to go quickly for trump. he was calling in to ukraine to find out what was going on. it was corrupt. there is a book coming out , with theer sweitzer progressive elite and how they have all been paid off. i started listening to put of the book. it is unbelievable. host: that was tina in nevada. hakeem jeffries, one of the impeachment managers, one of those who will be on the floor of the senate today, arguing the case the house made for impeachment alongside adam schiff, jerrold nadler, also val demings, jason crowe and sylvia

garcia. those are the seven tapped by nancy pelosi to make the case on the senate floor. they will be up against the president's lawyers and the president's team, which yesterday,heir brief their response to the impeachment case made by the house. -page brief with another 60 pages, specifically of extra documentation, contending that the two charges approved by the house largely along party lines were constitutionally flawed and set a dangerous precedent. here is a bit from the memorandum. >> the articles of impeachment are constitutionally deficient on their face. the theories underpinning them will do lasting damage to the separate powers that separation of powers under the constitution and to our structure of government. are aay the articles

product of an unconstitutional process but denied the president the fundamental principles of fairness. these articles reflect nothing more than the prosecution of an intemperate or dissenting majority in the house of representatives that the framers want against. the senate should acquit the president immediately. that is what the president's team is calling for. again, it gets underway at 1:00 p.m. eastern. you can watch it all on c-span2. robert in washington, democrat, you are next. caller: hello and thanks for taking my call. what i see, and i will make it remember as i can, i when donald trump on television in the primaries and asked russia for help with 30,000 emails against clinton, and said, if you do that, you will be rewarded. follow the ball. what has gone on in the last three years. see what is happening. and then start thinking about

what he said on national television. and everybody a think thought, will that is just a joke, he is just being silly. well, i don't know about that. immediately, investigations started, which i believed they should. and we get on down the road here a few miles, and as far as i can see, what is on trial today is not donald trump, so much as oracle station -- our constitution. of course, it is part of the politics. politics are partisan. but the simple fact of the matter is about you had to push the lucy with a bulldozer to go nancy pelosint -- lo with a bulldozer to go to impeachment because she didn't want to. trump is like a rabid dog. pretty soon it will start chewing up its friends maybe

even its master. so be careful, your dog is liable to you up. host: that is robert in washington. 's firstspeaker pelosi statement on the resolution by senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. 'se said, "leader mcconnell plan in the dark of night for the impeachment trial confirms what the american people have seen since day one, the senate would rather cover up for the president rather than honor constitution.e leader mcconnell's process is designed to hide the truth from the senate and the american people because he knows the president's wrongdoing is indefensible and the man's removal." that is part of what speaker pelosi had to say in her statement released this morning. john from bristol connecticut, independent. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. listen to the polls.

the american people want witnesses. the polls show that. trials have witnesses. coverups don't. i just want to cs get through this and get trump out of office -- i want to see us get through this and get trump out of office. host: jerry, republican, good morning. caller: a couple of quick comments. the guys that are talking mouthfuls, when he asked people, you getant witnesses, 69% because a whole bunch of republicans want to hear from biden. it is a fake poll presented under those numbers, like somehow it is represented. host: the think that is a fair trade? caller: do i think it is a fair trade? yes i do. but at that point, what will happen is that they will ask for executive privilege and they should. it is a prerogative that has

been known for years. though you want now that the house of representatives can ask for any discussion with any country that is private, we want to know all that, the think that is good for the country question , to i would say this, too your first two guests this morning. you have a guy from bloomberg news who is owned by a guy running for president, who comes and says they will not investigate anything on the democratic rival. really. you bring him on as if he has some kind of integrity. the man before him paid for a party after the impeachment was done. the caller brought it up. to pretend that those two guys were anything but biased was not fair. host: jerry two long-term reporters who have been covering d.c. in washington and politics for a very long time. as you said, if you don't like the reporters we pick, keep watching, i am sure you will find somebody like. we bring a lot of folks, to try

to give you a variety of outlets and reporters and members of congress as well. . appreciate you watching. jerry in month -- mount vernon, illinois, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. he has done some terrible stuff. standing upell is for him. he is doing exactly what he did with obama whenever he tried to get justice. and he wouldn't do it for a year. that is not right. i don't care whether it is a republican or democrat, it is was --ht to do that that to do that. eri inthat was g

illinois. the president has added seven potential new members to his defense team. the white house announced they had assembled eight members of the house to serve as part of the team, including some of his fiercest defenders -- doug collins, mike johnson, jim jordan, debbie lesko among others, in the stefanik, called republican members of the house. the "new york times" in your story about a white house announcement that it would add those republicans to its defense team came despite objections to mitch mcconnell. in deference to him, they will not argue the case on the senate floor, but will appear as surrogates according to a person working with mr. trump legal defense. that is the reporting on it today. here is a recording of john radcliffe, the republican congressman saying, a i tookn oath to honor the constitution.

this impeachment is unconstitutional. i am grateful to for the opportunity to make that clear for every american during the senate trial. from minneapolis on the republican line, go ahead. caller: good morning. host: turn down your television so we can have a better conversation. caller: ok. my question is this. how come the media is not covering the fact that adam schiff is connected to burisma ? the state department has documents online that show some companies that are connected to burisma. he should not be prosecuting anybody. he should be prosecuted. host: richard, where did you read about this? caller: the state department online. it has an advertisement online about it. that, butve not seen i can look through the state department's webpage. anymore guidance as to where to look, richard?

we lost richard. came in antioch, tennessee, independent. caller: good morning. i am wondering how trump can afford alan dershowitz and star r, when he isn't taking presidential pay and he has declared that grips he several times. i am very curious about that -- he has declared bankruptcy several times. i am very curious about that. i heard that he will have six more, some kind of representation -- wouldn't that be a conflict of some kind of interest? host: we were just talking about that. the house members, as far as the reported so far from the "new york times" and a couple of other outlets, it is expected to be more surrogates speaking on behalf of the house. they will not be making the case on the floor of the senate but more talking about it in the

media and outside of the trial itself. caller: right. but isn't that a conflict? host: why do you say conflict? caller: i don't know, i just have this nature on my mind that they will be running around over there trying to figure out what the democrats are trying to do. sorry, are you there? ma'am.yes the think there is a conflict of interest? caller: i think they would do better to have her that lawyers -- private lawyers. callerne other issue a brought up earlier on the republican line, they said they thought it was a conflict that the senators who will be sitting and get a vote in the impeachment trial, that four of them are running against donald trump in 2020, it running for the presidency. ? caller: the think that is a conflict? caller: i don't see any difference in that than what the

republicans are doing. they are all behind trumpism matter what he does. i thinkg i want to say, all the money we're spending on the elections and on this stuff is -- are they doing that great of a job that we are spending all this money to do that, $20 million -- wouldn't that be better spent on us? host: that was kim in tennessee this morning. she started talking about alan -- or with, a member of the president -- alan dershowitz, a member of the team.ent's legal he was on the program must month and was asked about reports at the time that he would be joining the president's legal defense team. he also talked about his view on the constitutional arguments in this impeachment matter. here is a bit of what he had to say. >> i cannot comment on any possible conversations i had house.e white

i am strongly opposed to impeaching the president on the two grounds proposed by the judiciary committee. neither of them is found in the constitution. there is a broad, general, open-ended criteria weaponize against virtually any president, when the opposing party has the majority in the house of representatives. it is hamilton's nightmare. hamilton said the one thing he feared most was that impeachment would turn on the number of votes each party had rather than the innocence of the person being impeached. madison worried about open-ended criteria, making it president serve out the will of congress and turning this into a parliamentary democracy that we fought against in the revolution. we did not want a parliamentary democracy in which the president can be thrown out of office by a vote of no-confidence. so i am strongly opposed to the two materia on impeachment but i cannot -- a teary-eyed on impeachment. but i cap -- am strongly opposed

to the two criteria on impeachment. host: if you want to watch the interview in its entirety it is at c-span.org. while you are on the website, check out c-span.org/community to learn more about the c-span bus. 2020, ifnew look for freshly wrapped campaign 2020 bus. it is in iowa today to kick off our community efforts for this year. it will be on-site for a candidate events and rallies at local schools or universities so that first time voters and caucus-goers can go learn about our 2020 campaign coverage. after iowa, it is on to new hampshire, then to nevada for the democratic caucuses, than los angeles for super tuesday. you can see the c-span bus also at political conventions and presidential debates. to learn more about the c-span c-span.org/community.

you can also follow its travels at twitter and instagram @c-spanbus. the senate impeachment trial is getting underway at 1:00 p.m. today we will have full gavel to gavel coverage on c-span2. and he is in california -- andi is in california, republican. caller: good morning. three metaphors -- sour grapes, circus, red herring. i think everybody knows what i am talking about. or maybe they don't, i don't know. host: would you like to flesh it out a little more for those who don't? caller: sour grapes is about the election. just can't get over the fact that they lost the election. herring is ae red pageantry -- not pageantry, but partisan

politics. things that distract us a be from what we need to talk about. we have 5000 homeless people out here in oakland and in the bay area, where i live. maybe wehe things that need to research as we go towards -- they are not going towards us, they are going towards this kind of thing, which i think is kind of ridiculous. other people disagree with me in my own household, but that is what i think. host: you want to talk more about what happens in your household and how you have approached it the impeachment trial? caller: i have five roommates. what of them is a cnn and msnbc addict. he watches every day. he is telling me that he will be impeached and he is going to go down in flames. pete buttigieg is going to be our next president. he has got all kinds of prognostications.

then i have a boyfriend, a good friend who is a strong trump supporter. he does not live with me, but he is just annoyed by the whole thing and just kind of ignoring it at this point. host: when it comes to the impeachment how often does it come up in your household with the different views? is this a daily conversation you are having? caller: i would say daily, yeah. times.s can run high at host: what do you do when the feelings run high? caller: just leave the room. or try to be peaceful about it, because we all love each other. we don't want to really get crazy about it or anything. host: do you think you will watch the trial together? caller: i think that is possible. i have to work so i cannot today, but i think it is possible we will watch some of it together. host: in the ground rules when

you watch together? caller: [laughing] i guess it is like two football teams, you know, i guess you just try to be a gentleman and a lady about it. host: thanks for the call. good luck out there in california. caller: thank you. host: linda from ohio, democrat. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i have a comment on the question. 45 years ago, when i was a young mom and full-time worker, i paid very little attention to politics because this is after all, america. this is the u.s. i knew everything was still going to be ok. i didn't agree with the little snippets i heard here are there, but i always figured we would be fine, because this is america. i don't feel that way anymore. i have a question, i don't know

if you can answer from your not, but do you happen to know if any of the staffers are able to get a hold of the senators that they work for during these meetings? -- i have in the past called my senator to say that we need to hear witnesses. what is happening now is a fiasco. i want to hear witnesses and you should, too. do the staffers have any way to reach out to the man they work for? you know? host: linda, what i know is that they are not allowed electronic devices with them. they have to sit in their seats and cannot bring other reading material or anything like that. they have to be in their seats and listening. i imagine they can talk with their staffers doing breaks -- during breaks in the trial. it is not like they are sequestered when there are breaks in the proceedings on the floor, but when the senate is in

session, the trial is in session, they have to be in their seats and it is not like they can check their phones. caller: that is the way i understood it. i just wondered if they were allowed to bring -- allowed potty breaks and stuff. they have to go. so that their staff could say, listen, we have had 60 calls here, 70 calls on that. i guess you answered as best you could. thank you very much. are: linda, when you call you calling rob portman and sherrod brown in ohio? caller: yes sir. frequently. host: how many times have you called them on the impeachment tropic? caller: i have called each of them at least three times. host: what sort of response to your gut? what do the staffers say you end up talking to, or do you just leave a message? caller: with senator portman, i usually get a machine and leave a message. i actually get to talk to

somebody at senator brown's office. and i say, i need you to get word to them, you know, these witnesses and things like that. so i find it very telling. i am trying to keep a very open mind about everything. host: these those calls help in what you are trying to do? caller: hack year. pop -- heck yeah. public pressure can change quickly. host: linda, thanks for the call. here in washington, d.c., independent, good morning. caller: hello. i would just love to say that this whole impeachment process is destined to be a sham, not because it is not the right thing to do, but because in no way is it going to be impartial, or fair, or a part of the constitution. as we can already see, mitch mcconnell and lindsey graham

pledging their allegiance to the president. it is clear they don't want the public to get any information that they don't want out, with the rules they are setting. first of all, they are not allowing you guys, one of the most impartial organizations out c-span, to have your cameras, as you have done every senate, house, every political issue that has been out there. you all have been able to cover it. may have changed the rules. -- host: chris, to be clear, most of the time in the senate and the house, it is the camera controlled by the united states senate and by the house of representatives that you are seeing. occasions, on certain issues, we have been allowed in in the past. things like the state of the union. that.: i understand my point is, they are trying to limit and restrict access to the people to prevent us from seeing

what is happening within the process. for example, there is a 30 .inute-rule that they have now they are starting the thing at 12:00 or 1:00. the politicians know that they can come 30 minutes before exactly when people cannot ask them questions. the thing is, we already know -- i am tired of people looking towards these republican heroes now,-- oh, he will testify bolton is a lifelong republican. what makes you think you will give you something that will help? wellsituation, people say, , comey was for the democrats. comey brought out information about clinton a few weeks before the process. robert mueller, another lifelong republican, who you are counting on. this guy who is a big part of the iraq war and a whole bunch of other things, to save you.

you have to stop doing that. you need to do like the lady said, call your senators. put pressure on the senators to do the right thing. force this guy to follow the constitution, because he is breaking the constitutional rules at every turn. host: have you called it is senators? caller: absolutely. host: who have you called? caller: actually, i am calling on a d.c. phone, but i live in maryland. i have called many of my state senators. i can go down the list. host: have you called in the united states senators? caller: not recently, no. that has not happened, but i have called -- you have to start locally. months ago,y said, i was reaching out and i was inquiring to the u.s. senators about it. jamie raskin, those guys. couldn't get them. you have to go to a lower level.

host: that is crazier in washington, d.c. by the way, chris was talking about access to senators. if you missed the conversation we had with long-term capitol hill reporter paul kane, he talked about changes reporters are facing during this senate impeachment trial. "washington of the journal" should be on our website now. you can go back and watch it. in michigan, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. host: turned on your television for me. caller: turn it down. ok. turn down the television. host: go ahead with your comment. caller: ok. thank you for taking my call. i am from michigan. that i amt to say really tired of the democrats wasting our money for the last three and a half years.

they simply cannot get over the fact they lost. it is like little kids. get a grip. mo vaughn. we didn't like -- move on. butidn't like obama either, we didn't waste money. second of all, you people cannot say anything good about trump, nothing. when he called it fake news, i thought, boy, he's got to be wrong. no. he was dead-on. it is nothing but fake with you people. host: where do you get your news? caller: pardon me. host: where do you get your news. caller: fox. host: why do you trust fox? caller: that is the only one i at least can believe. back home, it is also local. but i watch -- i have never been included into politics before, but this year, i am. host: glenn is in michigan this

morning. a few comments from text messages and social-media. mark writing in -- if democrats want bolton, the senate should call biden and the was a blower, too. jetted in florida saying, trials take however long they take, one have judges ever been so constrained by such limitations of time, witness and evidence? from charles writing, it is strange we are about to witness at trial but wondering whether there will be any witnesses produced. from isaac in california -- president trump's defense really boils down to abuse of power, it is not an impeachable offense. acquitted,ident is the g.o.p. will have set a very dangerous precedent. getting your thoughts for the last half hour of our program today. the house is coming in for a brief pro forma session at 10:00

a.m. as always, we will take you there when they do. until that happens, your phone calls as we prepare for this day of the senate impeachment trial. team in hudson, florida on the independent line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think the whole thing is just, it has been going on since mr. trump was elected. democrats have tried everything they can to find anything they can. there is absolutely nothing impeachable here. they know that, so they are putting on this horse and pony show. sure.impartial, i'm 24 hours. then just get rid of it. through it out, it is done. host: explain what you mean by that in the process you're talking about. caller: both sides get to give their case, and that the end of that, it should be painfully obvious that there is no case. host: would you cut out the senators questions the 16 hours

allowed for senators to ask their questions? no, the 16 hours are their face time. it is all a big show and it is costing us a lot of money and a lot of time. it is amazing that this president -- host: they will not actually get face time. , the senators doing that portion of the trial, if the rules packages adopted today, and we are hearing that mitch mcconnell has the votes to adopt it, but when the senators ask the question, they have to submit them in writing through the chief justice. john roberts will then pose the question. it is not that they will be on the floor to challenge the impeachment managers or the presidency legal defense team. caller: they may not be on the floor but you can make sure the

cameras will be on them after the fact. host: here is the proposal mee h mitch mcconnell released yesterday, and as paul kane noted, it is expected to pass. house managers and the president's attorneys would each have 24 hours to make their case. then there is a 16 hours of senator questions that is expected to go over to our three days for that to happen -- two or three days. after that, there is a motion to subpoena witnesses from 4 hours of debate to see if they will actually subpoena witnesses or additional documents. if 51 senators agree, they will vote on which witnesses or documents would be allowed, and how it would be allowed into the trial. that is not expected to happen until sometime next week. jackie is in new hampshire, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say that i think alan dershowitz is having a

senior moment. what he said -- when he says the most powerful person in the world cannot be held responsible for that power. that is just plain absurd. so what do we do if we go by this, if this is allowed to take place? other are forow people who have broken the law and abused their power question mark what about the cutter airbags?- takata do we just let them continue to make those airbags question mark what about bernie madoff? do we hold him accountable? he stole billions. do we allow that to continue? abuse of power, so what. one more thing i want to say -- i'm i still on the air? host: yes ma'am. caller: we've got a judge here they really powerful person. he abused power and stole money from his clients. retirement funds.

if we allow -- say there is no such thing as abuse of power -- this judge went into hiding because he got caught. if we say there is no abuse of power, that judge could stay here in town and continue to operate as a judge. he wouldn't have to going to hiding. he eventually killed himself because he didn't want to go to jail. host: that was jackie in new hampshire. out of connecticut, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. new republican, 43-year democrat before. i supported nessie pelosi and john kerry back in 2006. supported the -- joined the team party in 2010 one nancy pelosi called us astroturf, but we warn the house bama -- we won the house. didn't decide to register as a republican until donald trump. i love this president, because he gets things done.

said we the people that need to have the bidens do the witnessing for the republicans, definitely, i want to hear both bidens. i don't know if joe is even going to want to testify. i doubt he will. i think he will escape it. as far as what people are saying about what news you listen to, yes, i listen to fox. i got an education while obama was president. -- i was very unhappy about this. and i feel that, not the witnesses, but the republicans that are also going to be on the defense team, they are awesome. they talk a lot better than mitch mcconnell would. you know. i am very excited about this. i am very scared.

i love my president and a want him to run another four years. he has done great things and made america proud again. host: that was mickey in connecticut speaking of the president's defense team who will be on the floor arguing for the president. , former independent counsel kenneth starr, harvard law professor allender show its, trumps personal lawyer, jacek ulow, jamiesek raskin who served on president trump's robert miller defense team, and two deputy attorneys at the white house. that is the list of folks who will be on the four. but as we heard yesterday, the president adding members of the house, allies in the house who are expected to be more of spokespeople outside the senate

chamber for the president judging defense. jim in red lion, pennsylvania, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am just outraged at this whole process. i think it is trying to nullify an election. i was an independent. i didn't necessarily like donald trump, but now that he has been the president, he is our president. what we are trying to do is nullify an election and i think it is terrible. i contacted my senators in pennsylvania and left them messages. i have not heard anything back from them. host: that was jim in pennsylvania speaking of the president. he is at the world economic forum in davos, switzerland today. this is the story in "usa today" about it, noting that davos is one of the only instances in which president trump will be in a meeting with foreign leaders in key days during his

impeachment. house speaker pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry as the aesident was attending n.a.t.o. summit in london. president trump in davos today was asked about being out of the country during the impeachment trial. here is that interaction with our reporter briefly in the hallway at davos. reporter: the trial now getting underway. why is it here to be here in davos done in washington, d.c.? >> the biggest most important people in the world. we are bringing back tremendous business to the united states that they are all here to see. i will be making a speech and then we will be leaving shortly. but i think it is very important. that other thing is just a hoax, a witchhunt has been going on for years, and it is frankly disgraceful. host: president trump in switzerland earlier this morning. a few minutes left before the house comes in for a brief pro forma session.

until then, we will be taking your calls. 202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i watched the house judicial hearings, and i found it really ironic how chuck schumer is already complaining about the rules for the senate hearings. when back in the clinton impeachment, he did an exact 180. some of the hearings i watched, especially during adam schiff's kangaroo court, there were questions asked by jim jordan and other representatives from the republicans. he bought right in and would not

allow the witness to answer those specific question -- he in and would not another witness to answer those specific questions. especially the colonel from ukraine that was a special advisor. he said he had spoken to a couple of people, mentioned two of the three, and when jim jordan asked what the name of the third person was, adam schiff said, we will not beveled who the whistleblower is. adam schiff claims he does know who the whistleblower is. neither did the colonel. if nobody knows who he is, why were the democrats so insistent on them not naming the third person, unless they knew exactly who the whistleblower was, because they met with the whistleblower as per jim jordan and the other republicans. host: that is true out of new york. senate majority leader -- minority leader chuck schumer

released a statement yesterday responding to the release of the proposed rules that would govern the senate impeachment trial. this is what it said in part -- the resolution is nothing short of a national disgrace. senator mcconnell's rules differ from precedent in ways that are designed to prevent the american people from learning the truth about president trump's actions but wanted his impeachment. the mcconnell rules don't even follow the steps of admitting the house records into evidence at the trial. furthermore, the rules stipulate that key facts be delivered in the wee hours of the night, simply because he doesn't want the american people to hear them. any senator who votes for the resolution will be voting to hide evidence from the american people. that was chuck schumer in his statement yesterday. this is president trump just before 11:00 a.m. saying -- crying chuck schumer is asking for fairness when he and democratic house members worked together to make sure i got zero

fairness in the house. what else is new. the president on twitter yesterday. in gary indiana, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. hi. you know, the government -- schumer, what can they do when mcconnell -- and the already said that he is just the president's hack. host: so what do you think will happen here? caller: you know, the republicans said that they will be behind the president. mobilizeeed to do is the people. host: that was star in indiana. a reminder, turn your television set down when you are waiting on hold. makes the conversation a bit easier. rachel in texas, an independent. good morning.

caller: good morning. i remember watching the press conference where he said, yes, he talked to the president, and the president did not get over it. now we have a president that will not answer questions under oath. are you still there, sir? host: yes i am. caller: he will not answer oath.ions under they are saying that trump's witnesses are being withheld -- the president is the one who committed the crime. we have people who overheard his conversation but they will not let them speak, and will not produce evidence they had showing that trump did this. it is not only trump in trouble, there are numerous people around ukraineare aware of the blackmail, what trumpeted. host: rachel -- what trumpeted. rachel -- what trump did.

host: would you be ok with biden testifying? caller: i have no problem with biden coming in to testify. he probably did take money. but what trump is saying is that if you can't dig up evidence on him, i i'm not giving you money for the weapons. trump's children themselves have made foreign money. daughter, they have made deals just from the fact that trump is president. shouldn't they be brought up? they ought to' be brought up. host: from michigan republican, good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to ask a question to everybody. sideould anybody be on the

of the senators of the democratic party to demand that they want to be both prosecutor and jury? more explain that a little ? caller: [indiscernible] -- the system in america works. jurors can ask questions of people that are already a witness, but jurors cannot call you witnesses -- cannot call new witnesses. host: that was kevin in michigan this morning. 10 minutes left in the program. taking your calls. action in the senate gets underway at 1 p.m. eastern. you can watch it on c-span2. maybete about a lesser-watched aspect of the trial, the odds makers setting

their betting. the betting favors president trump, as he faces his senate impeachment trial. this is jennifer harper noting it in her column today, inside the beltway -- the odds of trump getting impeached according to u.s. bookies, an online industry source, is 10-1. while the odds of not getting 0.nvicted are more likely, 1-4 the odds say that no republican senator will vote against trump in the trial those are 4-5. looking are also tracking the election. they have trump at a 52.5% chance of being reelected. that is the highest it has been in 12 months, according to the organization. if you want to read more about the oddsmakers, relating to the impeachment trial. jennifer harper's column today. in franklin, north carolina, democrat. good morning.

nancy, are you with us? we will go to lynn in north carolina, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a little bit surprised at the lack of the substance of some of the republicans. i find that a lot of them don't seem to know what actually the charges are and the evidence against him. i am concerned that folks don't future, if they condone this kind of behavior about asking a foreign country to help in the election of an american president. if that becomes a norm, other presidents will be able to do this. then they will point to the impeachment trial of trump years down the road. democrats, and

they decide that they are going to go this route, then we will have an open season on other people from other countries attempting to influence our elections, similar to what now, thatdoing right the trump administration does not seem to be at all worried about. host: here are the two charges against the president as past -- as passed by the house. president trump solicited the interference of the ukraine in the 2020 united states presidential election. he did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the ukraine to publicly announce investigations to benefit his election, harm the election prospects of a opponent, and influence the 2020 presidential election to his advantage. article tw obstruction of congresso.

the charge accuses president trump but he directed the agency's offices and officials not to comply to subpoenas of congress. president trump used the powers of the presidency -- inter-posed the powers of the presidency against lawful subpoenas of the .ouse of representatives just a few minutes left in our program today. texas, from mission, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. -- we have find out our tax dollars going to this sham impeachment. a person has a right to ask other countries to be investigating what we might be going into as far as other

-- cyber wars against that. we have a right to be investigating, asking our allies , as we do if they ask us to do the same thing. we would help them. our tax dollars are going to these -- this impeachment, which we elected them to do, work for us. why are we paying them to do this? we don't do that. host: deborah out of new york, democrat. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i had a quick message. i have been trying to serve the caucuses, what we are going through as a group, as humans. how we are managing this. i find myself biased. i think i know what is happening and i get angry, then i realize

i really do not have all the facts. so i tried to stay humble and i try to remind myself that we just need more information. i guess i also try to remind myself that as a group, our country is a group, and i want our country to work. i am very grateful for c-span. i have been watching it religiously for the past couple of years. i just hope we can all try to be humble and hopefully get witnesses on both sides to find out what is happening. that is all. host: is our country working any better now than it did during the last impeachment process? caller: think we have different challenges. the challenges posed by technology are creating a very big up he will. pheaval.-- ou it is almost like a gorge and we haven't learned how to speak the language it. if we can have the patience and humility and learn how to

tolerate one another, it will work much better. in the meantime, it will be a little more painful, unfortunately. host: do you use twitter or facebook? caller: i started using twitter to follow what people are saying on both sides, the democrats site and republican side. i tried to agree or find agreement, even as a democrat. i tried to look for any republicans with whom i agree. i want to give a shout out to senator sasse. i do not agree with many of his policies, but i think he has a great deal of integrity. i like following him because as a person, i think he has a great character. host: give an example. where the think he is of great integrity? caller: i read his book called helped me understand his thinking and showed that he has an open mind in many regards. he engages in little experiments to try to dig down to what is the truth.

he do most traded that he will have a perspective and an opinion, but then he tries things out to see whether or not they are the truth -- he demonstrated that. i like that a lot about him. i highly encourage everybody to read his book. i have no conflict of interest here. i think that is the mentality we need heading into this next election. trying to find out what truth is using an open mind and humility and engaging in exercises and dialogs. host: how much of the impeachment trial do think you will end up watching the next few weeks? caller: probably all of it. i think i will dvr the whole thing. i love c-span. i can't express how grateful i am. i think every school in the nation should be having the students watching c-span as part of the mandatory education, for civic education. it has really been one of the things that as a primary news -- withand as

"washington journal" being such a bipartisan platform, i value hearing other perspectives. i think many times democrats think republicans across -- republicans think democrats across -- each group is looking for different pieces of information, through "washington journal," my mind has opened up a great deal to recognize different perspectives, but it is not all about corruption or lack of integrity, it is about different perspectives. i think. washington journal or other c-span shows could dig down further into what are the assumptions underlying the beliefs of the different parties. host: deborah, thanks for that. call.iate that john is next out of minnesota, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. wow. i am on! [laughter] so this is a big deal. and impeachment of a sitting president is a huge deal.

i urge the nation, everybody, the public, to be objective and rational. [laughter] like, it is crazy. you know, whichever way this thing goes, there will be people on the left and the right that are -- their feelings will get hurt. is in the republicans' best interest to run a fair, saying trial. if they don't, the world will see and it will hurt them in the next election. , uh -- host: john, we will have to end it because the house of representatives is about to come in for session. the senate impeachment trial starts at 1 p.m. eastern. you can watch that on c-span2. we will be back here tomorrow morning on the "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern and 4:00 pacific.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. january 21, 2020. i hereby appoint the honorable g.k. butterfield to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, the reverend benjamin hogue, lutheran church of the reformation, of washington, d.c. the chaplain: god of love, truth, and goodness, you promise to join us along the way. give those gathered here open spirits to discern your