[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] >> at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, a look at the skills and training needed to deploy 5g technology in the u.s. p.m., mike bloomberg speaks at the u.s. conference of mayors. the senate impeachment trial of president trump continues with opening arguments from house managers and the president's defense team. 3, a hearing on the economic development administration to create jobs and economic growth. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> this morning on "washington we are getting your reaction as the senate begins

debate in the impeachment trial of president donald trump. join the conversation with your phone calls, emails, facebook comments, and tweets. "washington journal" is ♪ host: this is the "washington journal" for january 22. the senate convenes at 1:00 this afternoon for the third day of the impeachment hearing of president trump. 2. can watch that at c-span also listen on the radio app. we will take your calls on yesterday's proceeding, which you can find at c-span.org, which not only dealt with the establishment of rules, cases brought forward for and against, the calling of witnesses, and other documents related to the impeachment charge. here is how you can give your thoughts. 202-748-8000 for democrats.

202-748-8001 for republicans. and 202-748-8002 for independents. if you want to post on social media, you can do so @cspanwj. and our facebook page, if you want to text your thoughts, do so at 202-748-8003. joining us throughout the morning to give information on what took place yesterday and what to expect today is john mcconnell. host 2: -- john mcardle. host 2: the senate convened at 1:00 p.m. yesterday and adjourned 12 hours later. they will establish the rules in the days and weeks going forward. here is how it will play out. the house managers and president's attorneys will have 24 hours spread out over three

days to make their cases for and against impeachment. senators will be able to ask their questions giving 16 hours to submit questions through the chief justice john roberts and he will be the one asking questions. senators will then decide whether they wanted to hear additional witnesses and documents in the impeachment trial of president trump. four hours to debate that. if they decide they want to move forward with this is an documents, there will be further deliberations on witnesses and documents they will hear and see. that is the resolution that passed last night on a partyline vote, 53-47 and it was by and large the same rules proposed by senator mitch mcconnell on monday though with a couple important changes as the washington post notes, changes that democrats did want.

only four hours of opening arguments for each side spread out over three days as opposed to two days. that means those arguments will take place and end perhaps about 9:00 p.m. as opposed to well past midnight. the other change was more technical, made it so the evidence compiled in the house impeachment investigation would be automatically entered into the record subject to objections by president trump's legal team before the senate had to approve that. the washington post took a look at why some of those changes were made and some of the pressure mitch mcconnell was under before he eventually brought those proposed rules before yesterday. here is what they had to say, raised susan collins had concerns privately about the --dence provision

who argued during a party lunch theday morning before impeachment trial was convened that the opening argument should be stretched out over three days if they were to mirror the clinton trial rules. that reporting from the washington post. democrats still unhappy with the procedures and rules established under a partyline vote. this is senator elizabeth warren about 1:52 a.m., the rules senator mcconnell and others ram through tonight are designed to protect president trump. the rules are rigged is what she had to say. this is tom udall saying under these rules, it will be difficult to get any this is an documents admitted into the record, keeping evidence of the record screams cover up. for a flavor of the republican scott of this is

tennessee saying it is funny schiffng to adam complain after leading a partisan hearing in the house where he denied counsel to the president, contrary witnesses and fabricated testimony in a rush process that bypassed rules and president. we will bring more reaction about what happened on the senate floor throughout our program and it all gets underway at 1:00 p.m. eastern. c-span 2 is where you can see that and if you are out and about and want to download on your phone or other device, you can do so. managerouse impeachment adam schiff at the start of the impeachment -- the proceedings making the case for the rules and a call for fairness.

[video clip] >> ask your salves how would you structure the trial if you did not know what your party was and he did not know what the party of the president was? would it make sense to have a trial first and decide on witnesses later? would that be fair to both sides? i have to think your answer would be no. let me be blunt. let me be very blunt. perhapsw, a great many, even most americans do not believe there will be a fair trial. they don't believe the senate will be impartial. they believe the result is precooked. the president will be acquitted, not because he is innocent, he is not. because the senators will vote by party and he has the votes. the votes to prevent the evidence from coming out, the votes to make sure the public never sees it.

the american people want a fair believehey want to their system of government is capable of rising to the occasion. they want to believe we can rise above party and do what is best for the country, but a great many americans do not believe that will happen. let's prove them wrong. let's prove them wrong. how? by convicting the president? no, not by conviction alone, but by convicting him if the house proves its case and only if the house proves its case, but by letting the house prove its case. host: that was yesterday and yesterday gave the opportunity not only for the house impeachment managers to make their case, the senators also heard from the white house counsel on the case initially made by the house.

[video clip] >> when you look at these articles of impeachment, they are not only ridiculous, they are dangerous to our republic and why? first of all, the notion that invoking your constitutional rights to protect the executive bynch that has been done just about every president since george washington, that that is obstruction. that is our patriotic duty, mr. schiff, particularly one confronted with a wholesale trampling of constitutional rights that i am unfamiliar with in this country. frankly, it is the kind of thing our state department would criticize if we see it in foreign countries. mr. schiff said have i got a deal for you. abandon all your constitutional rights.

andet about your lawyers come in and do exactly what i say. no thank you, no thank you. then he said he has the temerity to come into the senate and say we have no use for courts. it is outrageous. host: that is a small sampling of the arguments made for and against yesterday. we have set aside a special section of the website totally dedicated to impeachment matters. you can see that, watch it, and decide for yourself. willie and marilyn, you are first up on yesterday's -- willie in maryland, you are first up. caller: i think the democrats did a damn good job presenting their case. i am not sure whether they did not get what they wanted, but it

could be a blessing in disguise and we could see the beginning of the end for the republican party because the reason i say that is i know c-span in particularly will rerun this late-night escapade and when people see that, they will see opinion,nute -- my own this is not a democrat or republican, this is an american issue and what this president has done -- i don't care if it is richard nixon or andrew johnson or bill clinton, this is a serious matter of espionage. i am not sure if this is being set up this way. host: how do you make the case for espionage? caller: the man dealt with the russians in the elections. i don't think it will take a rocket scientist to figure that out. host: jim in new jersey.

caller: hello? host: you are on. say is what i have to we the people are the ones who ultimately will make the the senate does not come up with a fair trial, then what else do we have to do each and every one of those who voted not to have the fair trial that the people demand and that is what i have to say. host: when you are looking for a fair trial, what do you demand to make it a fair trial? caller: allow witnesses to be

heard. that is what a trial is all about. jim in new jersey giving his thoughts. jim from twitter giving his thoughts saying house managers only presenting opening arguments, how do you fill up 24 hours running your mouth. this may cause senators to resign. karen off of twitter saying i did not hear a defense by the president's team. i heard a lot of process arguments and the transcript lie and the blatant lie about republicans being shut out of house hearings. twitter is available if you want .o post thoughts if you want to text us, you can do that at 202-748-8003 and put your name, city, and state in the text. cleveland, ohio, we will hear from dan. good morning. caller: good morning.

how are you doing today? host: i am well, thanks. by saying ime start was a democrat for many, many years. belong to a union. went down, followed the lines, true to thes democratic party. things have changed is not the as peopleratic party are led to believe. the way they conducted themselves, it is ridiculous. host: what did you think about the way the house managers conducted themselves plus the president's team? caller: i will be honest with -- show.s all a shelf

butcrats have their team, the thing it boils down to is who is telling the truth? host: who do you think is telling the truth at this point? on the i have to rely republicans, to be honest with you. i would have loved to see these senators and congressmen. i remember when my stepson became a cop. far, before you go too when you say you rely on republicans, why do you think that? caller: there is no evidence against the president. host: let's go to donald in north carolina also on the line for republicans. caller: how are you doing today? host: fine, thank you, go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. at least you do good both sides of the story. we appreciate that. i watched it until i got bored to death about the same thing over and over and over again.

i am all for witnesses, but one-for-one. if democrats want john bolton, i think they ought to call the whistleblower that started it all. if they want mick mulvaney, i think they ought to call hunter biden. one,ey call another alexandra chua luba from the dnc that started this nonsense. host: if you want to see the whistleblower, give me a specific why considering all the witnesses you heard from in the house impeachment side? all starteduse this and i read a lot of news articles or watched them and all the news does not come from mainstream media no more and i watched a lot on video. host: what does the whistleblower provide that you

have not heard already? caller: i want to know how it started because there are articles going around john brennan is involved and that it was all a set up to start with team talked to the whistleblower and the letter from the whistleblower was written by a lawyer and we still have the evidence from the ig that kicked all of this off, just holding that. he won't even let the republicans have that. i think that will tell a big story. host: just a small sampling of tall -- calls we will tend to new -- continue to take up until 10:00. 202-748-8000 for democrats and 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002. folks: just want to help understand what happened over the course of that 12 hours and 32 minutes yesterday on the

senate floor and it was mostly taken up by a series of amendments to the rule we talked about that will govern the impeachment trial going forward. senator chuck schumer, the minority leader offering 11 amendments to try to change those rules. here is chuck schumer's tweet about his amendments. they were mostly to subpoena documents and witnesses from the white house. the department of defense and other individuals that senate and house democrats wanted to hear from. uc john bolton on that list -- you see john bolton on that list. all of those amendments were voted down on a mostly partyline vote because the 10th amendment -- susan collins

joined on the 10th amendment, it was a 52-48 vote. the hill with a story on what the amendment was about. it had to do with extending the time, motions expected to be taken today. currently and under the rules -- a potential motion to dismiss charges against president trump and the opposing side would have to respond by 11:00 a.m. the amendment by democrats look to extend that time and when he was arguing on the floor, adam schiff pointed out during the clinton impeachment trial, the other side had 41 hours to respond to amendments filed. democrats were looking to expand -- extend the time by 24 hours. it was voted down, but susan collins did cross the line to

vote with democrats. to give you a sense of the timing of all the amendments, three amendments were voted on by 7:30 p.m. eastern, that was when the senate took its dinner break and the pace started to pick up after dinner as it got later and later into the night. after dinner, eight amendments were voted on and they ended just before 1:00 a.m. the 10th amendment that involves susan collins, the debate for that one only lasted about three pointedas craig caplan out as he was watching it and he had been watching all the proceedings, spent all day tweeting and watching and talking about it. capitolfollow, c-span's hill producer, craig caplan. host: from east orange, new jersey, ronald. caller: good morning. thank god for c-span.

yesterday wasd the democrats laying a very republicans,nd the especially the president's team, -- lying inbelieve front of the chief justice. host: lying about what? republicanst the not being allowed into the skiff and observing all the testimony. park, newy from deer york, republican line. the openingtched statements and i am embarrassed to be republican and insulted as an american. we all know what a trial is supposed to look like. for every republican senator to vote to reject reasonable amendments to ensure a fair trial, there can be only one reason why they would all do

that, because they were commonsense proposals and i think it is fear of the president and if that is where we are now, then we are all, republicans, democrats, we are all in trouble and we need to sit and think about that. host: if this goes back to the clinton impeachment which saw witnesses later in the process, what is wrong with this -- that style in this process? caller: it was all agreed upon by both sides and then they commenced. why can't we all just have something we can all agree on? i think one of your callers hit the nail on the head, this is the end of the republican party if they don't get this straightened out. host: you don't think if they

don't -- if they revisit this process of witnesses later on, you don't think that is going to happen? caller: it is clear. every republican, there is not one willing to say this isn't right. host: both susan collins and mitt romney have suggested they might be interested in hearing more as the process goes on. this point, they are tabling every motion for reasonableness. i have no expectation they won't do that down the line. it is embarrassing and i am insulted. we all know what this is supposed to look like. host: tim in oklahoma, democrats line. caller: hello. this is tim and i would like to say the republicans. i am registered democrat, but have not evens come up with showing little snippets of what the house did

to the republicans by not having them -- letting them have witnesses. democrats of funny have done worse than what the senate has done to them. what are they griping about? host: when you heard democrats make the case that republicans question theto witnesses brought forth, you don't think that showed itself out yesterday? the republicans senate came in and everything and they made their case there wasn't anything going on. the democrats, the house has not proved anything except i feel this way and i feel that way. i don't care how they feel. the proof has come up.

how do you prove something that did not happen? oklahoma. is tim in the president of the united davos,in daovs -- switzerland. he talked about matters of impeachment. >> your team has been a little inconsistent -- president trump: it is a total hoax, a disgrace. they talked about their tremendous case and it is all done. they had no case, it is all a hoax. .chiff is a corrupt politician i leave that to the senate, the senate will have to answer that. i have great respect for the senate as a body and many of the individuals. greatest witchhunt, this started from the day i came down with the future first lady, the day we came down the escalator, this started.

they have been driven crazy. what has driven them crazy is all these record numbers unemployment, african-american, asian american, hispanic american, numbers nobody is even believing. they look at all of this and -- theymendous success have never seen anything like this and it has driven the democrats crazy. wegressman al green said have got to beat him by impeachment because we cannot beat him in election. i hope that is true. they cannot beat me in the election. i know what i will be running against one way or another. i think we will do well. has done in less than three years because a lot of these numbers were taken from two months ago, the end of two months ago, nobody has done the

numbers we have done. i will head back and i will be watching, but it will be up to the senate. host: that is available to you at c-span.org. palm springs, california, keith, hello. i think what is going on is trump is a new kid on the block. he wasn't involved in any of these deals with china that most democrats and republicans are what isoney from and going on right now is this is so none of them go to prison for creating greater prosperity for the people of china than the american people, which they are supposed to be doing. they are supposed to be serving the united states of america.

host: how did you come to that conclusion? caller: how did you come to that conclusion -- how did i come to that conclusion? read our constitution. they are supposed to be supporting the american people. host: how did you come to the conclusion the impeachment process was tied to some cover-up for china? caller: because that is the trick democrats use all the time, distraction. get people so far away from the sideshows. create that is what is going on right here. none of them will go to prison for treason. trump is not going to be impeached. he is doing nothing wrong, he is trying to save our country from becoming a third world -- our care more about china than the united states. host: we will hear from george

in ohio on yesterday's impeachment proceedings. caller: i am a democrat, but i am switching to republican and the last caller is right on. you don't even have to go to the china syndrome, what about the mexican? democrats are withholding money firm the border wall. host: how does that connect to impeachment yesterday and the proceedings? caller: that is a quid pro quo what they are doing. with theon't agree leaders of the democratic party, these house members, they don't get campaign money. let's talk about nadler. he is the guy who said they will have their minority. the speaker holds onto articles for a month and they had plenty of time, but they rushed the vote. how about shifty schiff? he is the guy that made his own

version of the telephone call before trump released it. these guys are treasonous and the fbi should arrest them. gainesville, virginia, democrats line. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for taking my call. i am a naturalized u.s. citizen. i came to this country about 20 years ago. before i came to the u.s., i had this belief the united states was a great five-star democracy. i think it is far from it. our government establishment is completely corrupt. the congress and the white house does not make the laws to benefit the american people people -- people. they are under control of big money. host: connect it back to the

impeachment trial yesterday. how do you relate that to yesterday's and pete -- proceedings? caller: the senate is supposed to be a bunch of jurors handling a case and a trial. a juror is supposed to be independent. they have openly said they do not want to impeach trump, including mcconnell. how is it possible that it is an independent trial? it is a broken process. any trial witnesses should be able -- be called. mcconnell and the republican party blocked witnesses. they do not want the truth to come out. they are protecting trump. host: the witnesses being held off to the beginning part with the option later on in the process that witnesses and

documents can be produced. we -- ifes, sir, but we do not have three or two republican senators to cross over. by the look of it, three of them like susan collins and two not going to stand by the conscience of the constitution, but they are going to stick by their party. complete shame. a chaotic, corrupt process. host: let's hear from kevin, independent line. caller: good morning. i want to say you had a caller from new york earlier that was supposedly a republican. if you want to know when a democrat is lying, all you have to do is watch them open their mouth. that lady was no more a republican than any other caller that calls in. iss whole impeachment thing an example of the democrats

creating another false narrative of a false crime that never occurred. they have made up the facts as they go along. they have not made up enough facts currently so they are asking the senate to create more facts so they can build their narrative further. it is the same as the russia hoax. it just is another ploy to undermine the election of this president and the will of 64 million people. host: what do you think of the performance of the white house team yesterday? caller: i think they are skating through as quickly as possible because they know it is a hoax and they are not really putting asa strong defense because trump said, it is a hoax. for the house impeachment managers, 24 hours for the white house team, that will play out in the days and possible weeks ahead.

if you want to follow along, you can do so at c-span.org. that is where you can find all that is collected not only as it is taking place, but as the days progress. along with other information is john mcardle. host 2: you asked a question about the president's lawyers, the president's impeachment defense team. i want to show viewers one notable moment early on when pat thellone made reference to 4 members of the united states senate looking to face president trump in the 2020 presidential election. bernie sanders, lisbeth warren, michael bennet, amy klobuchar are running for the democratic nomination. this is pat cipollone from 1:40 p.m. yesterday afternoon. [video clip] >> a partisan impeachment is .ike stealing an election

that is exactly what we have. we have, talk about the framer'' it is part ofe, impeachment they delivered to your doorstep in an election year. some of you are upset because you should be in iowa right now. instead, we are here and they are not ready to go. it is outrageous. it is outrageous. the american people won't stand for it. they are not here to steal one election, they are here to steal two elections. fast-forward to five hours later, about 7:30 p.m. last night, this is amy klobuchar responding to those comments. [video clip] >> i made clear from the beginning i have to do my constitutional duty. it felt like, i know you want to be somewhere else, is what he

was saying. i literally could not believe he did it only because i think this isn't the place to play those politics and we are all there to do our duty. we will sit and listen to the evidence and i can do two things at once. i am a mom and i will find one way or another to run for president. we are gaining momentum right now, but while i am here, my job is to listen to this evidence. klobucharnator amy yesterday evening at that stakeout position available for senators to come down to in the basement of the united states capital right where the subway goes to the different senate offices, where they converge for senators to go upstairs to the senate chamber. when you see that spot, that is where it is in the days to come. i want to note some of the other responses from some of the other

presidential candidates. this is michael bennet, the senator from colorado tweeting the american people want the facts, deserve the facts, a fair and thorough trial is only possible if we have access to all the evidence and witnesses'. from bernie sanders -- from bernie sanders' twitter page, voted to prevent witnesses from testifying into trump's impeachment trial. today was a bad day for our country and our constitution and the rule of law. pageoday in their front story takes a look at senators running for the presidency and where their campaigns are right now and what they are doing as their bosses are sitting in the senate chamber watching the senate impeachment trial. when it comes to bernie sander'' campaign, alexandria ocasio-cortez is hitting the campaign trail in iowa for sanders saturday and sunday and jane will be

campaigning in nevada. elizabeth warren will return to iowa saturday and sunday where halls, butst 4 town she has deployed surrogates to several states including all the early voting states. joaquin castro and hooley and castro will ben campaigning for warren. ayanna pressley will head to south carolina for senator warren on friday and warren's husband will be in new hampshire over the weekend. you are texting us your thoughts, anthony from virginia saying the house set up a strong timeline showing the president's guilt, republicans have not showed any evidence whatsoever. the republicans have done nothing but complain and raise their voice.

brian carl of arkansas saying democrats, mainstream media, and establishment democrats total focus is on removing donald trump. america's voters will realize and recognize this at election time. you can text your thoughts at 202-748-8003. make sure you include your name, city, and your state. maine, democrats line, what did you think of the events of yesterday? caller: i listened to them all and republicans have all the power and their lawyers do not have to make a case and they are not. the democratic managers are doing an amazing job using each amendment to lay out a lot of evidence and connect all the dots and they are doing such a great job that mitch mcconnell at one point said why don't you put all your amendments out without arguing them so i can .able all of

i think they had a sense maybe they were making their case. the view is a bit more complicated than people are presenting. offe has ranked choice vote -- runoff voting. -- if allins has to democratic challenger comes close, she will have to rely on people who put her second and third for the other runoffs. host: do you get a sense her seat is in jeopardy over this? caller: i have a sense her seat her votes because of on kavanaugh and the tax bill, but not just her votes, her izarre self-justification and am collecting signatures. we flipped the governor from two term republican to democratic governor and our electoral vote

where i live. we had a two term incumbent republican very tea party and we flipped it to one of the conservative democrats. susan collins is the only republican and she has only relied on -- most mainers are independent and she has relied on moderate and left-wing democrats and republic -- democrats to support her. she has tons of money coming in from out of state and in maine although it does not apply to federal elections, we have a very strong clean elections law. collecting out people areand identifying themselves as republicans are telling me how disappointed they are. not a lot, but some.

that will play into the whole vote here. host: susan collins is closely watched during this process, the republican from maine. our next caller is from texas, republican line. fred, hello. caller: hello. i just started scraping off my trump 2020 license plate and it has nothing to do with the trial. the trial is going to go to trump, but i am first a christian and i will choose -- change to being an independent. my problem with this situation is the truth is not coming out. if we are not going to be fair and run a real trial, a real trial, all the witnesses need to come forward and we need, as

americans, to hear the truth. host: what witnesses would you want to hear from that you did not hear from on the house side? caller: i would just like to hear all the evidence and then you can make a decision. host: is there a specific witness you would like to hear from that was not presented in the house impeachment process? caller: i would like to hear from the dod. i would like to hear it all. i just want the truth. host: robert in waldorf, maryland, about the impeachment proceedings yesterday. caller: i have heard a lot of callers talking about we need to operate this as a trial and i agree with that 100%. in a trial, you need to have a crime. we have no crime here. where is the crime in this so-called trial?

witness that is going to testify to a crime? where is that guy at? he is not anywhere to be found. if you have a trial with no crime, what witnesses are you going to -- how are they going to produce a crime? they had 6 months to investigate and they want to continue the investigation to find a crime. they made the charge, they indicted president trump for none of these crimes, so they want the senate to continue to investigate to find a crime. the only fact witnesses you had is mr. schiff himself and the whistleblower. host: nobody knows that he is the whistleblower. that name gets associated, but nobody knows. caller: is the question that should be asked of mr. schiff.

did you or any member of your -- followingtime the complaint? or does the president of the united states have the right to assert executive privilege question might any president in the united states has had that right. we have no crime, but we have a charge. how can we have a trial with no crime? tell me that, pedro. arizona, goodfrom morning. caller: good morning. mr. president, our commander-in-chief, i demand as a disabled american veteran that and bring your chief of staff. difference a second makes, and a minute, a moment, and our. a year ago we forget

at this time, we were in the midst of a government shutdown history.the largest in one of the democratic representatives brought in a bucket of chicken. might asrepublicans well sit there and pick up the founders and put it back where it belongs because they are chickens that have not even been plucked. the: why do you call senators who voted yesterday chickens? he hung up. we will go back to john mcardle, who has not hung up. host 2: i am with you all morning. some ofo show viewers the front pages americans are working -- waking up to.

the senate impeachment trial begins in earnest. -- the headline from the gadson times calling it a .artisan fight first day of impeachment trial. you can see the secondary headline, senators from ohio weighing the process taking a .ocus .harad brown and rob portman sate -- taking that same tact was the baltimore sun. ben cardin navigates unusual day during the senate trial with a focus on one of two senators. from the des moines register, here is what they are waking up to, haggling over rules, the about, andwe talked

the story focusing on that impeachment managers and trump's legal team will have three days to support their case . at 24 hours total, but it can be spread over three days. .his is the chicago tribune one more front page for our viewers from the tampa bay, times -- tampa bay times. and thoselvos expected to continue today. if you are out today, you can download our lists -- radio app. you can listen at c-span.org. saying icalifornia watched and listened to the impeachment trial all day long while doing chores.

americans have a chance to learn so much about our constitution by watching this unique american process. from julie in georgia saying after watching yesterday's dog and pony show, it was clear democrats were trying president trump on various amendments and left me wondering weather adam schiff was practicing his writing skills again. frank in north carolina saying i am independent, but was conservative for 36 years. i am for witnesses. i feel like i am watching hannity and fox news, no substance from the defense. a republican in new port richey, florida, we will hear from donna. caller: good morning. host: hi. caller: hi. thank you for having me on. i agree with your one caller, you need evidence in order to have a trial.

i agree with that and i watched watched with the republican saying no, no, they were not allowed to do anything. i am hearing it all over again with the senate. the same thing. i think it needs to start. it has been too much hearsay. we live in the united states of america. you don't get convicted of hearsay. that is where i am at with this. host: will you continue to watch today? caller: i have been watching the whole -- from the house to last -- it is the same thing. i will watch today. host: bobby in louisiana on our independent line. you are next up. caller: thank you for having me. been a republican

ever since i have been able to vote. however, at this point, i don't know which way to go. trial.oking at this i may never vote democrat again. we are looking at this trial and looking at who will be the independent candidate to run. i am looking at this trial and it really looks shameful. america probably looks like such fools. host: why do you call the process shameful? caller: because what crime has been committed? a crime has been committed, what is the crime? the victim, they say, is the president of another country who they claim has been pressured

investigating a criminal activity that may have taken place in this -- in his country. there president, who would be the key witness, has said there was no crime with him. say even eighth the president of the united even if the president of the united states sensed a crime had been committed by joe biden and his son or anybody, that a crime had been committed in another country that seem to be a gross crime, wouldn't the president of the united states, no matter if he is running for tosident, is he supposed stop being president in order to say let me look and see if this is a crime? that is so silly. host: let's hear from tony in

college park, maryland, democrats line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. host: go ahead. caller: i am not a republican, more so a democrat. from the president start until now it is nothing -- is nothing like a political gangster. do you understand? like political mafia. everything has been taken in strides. host: how does that relate to yesterday? caller: it relates to yesterday because you see from mcconnell to lindsey graham, a lot of people in the republicans do not want to see the fall of the president. if there is truth out there, it needs to be known. it needs to be heard. you cannot use the new president of ukraine who used to be a comedian who was very popular in his country as a sham.

if something had happened, they need to address it. let the people in this country know what the truth is. the truth needs to prevail. host: that is tony in college park, maryland. chief justice john roberts prez i did over yesterday's -- presided over yesterday's events. it was the chief justice john roberts who had an admonishment for both sides. [video clip] >> i think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the house managers and the president's counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body. one reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse. in the 19 over five swing trial,

swing trial, the presiding officer -- i don't think we need to aspire to that high a standard, but those addressing the senate should remember where they are. he used, vancerm miller offers a definition. john roberts taught us a historical term last night that sums up the entire trump's trial, petty fogger he -- petty foggery. twitter is available at c-span --@cspanwj. you can post on our facebook page and give us a text, 202-748-8003. let's go to our line for republicans, this is jane, wisconsin. caller: thank you for listening

to me. all night. i am 76 years old. i was raised as a first american. i came to america mainly because of freedom. quite a nice life when they got here, but they taught their children to be honest and listen with an open mind. i am kind of ashamed of what happened last night. i watched it until 1:00 in the morning. i watched to whole thing and it is like sitting in the bleachers only i was really close, close enough to watch both sides and how they talked and how they acted. don't thed to say why republicans allow the documents and the witnesses?

,f they have nothing to hide let's make this a fair trial, let's not make it a cover-up so that my grandkids, who are in their early 20's, will know how america really is, how america can be really honest with situations like this. in pennsylvania, independent line, hi. .aller: good morning, pedro your last caller exemplifies what is wrong with this country. i am up police officer, i have been in criminal trials. those people are talking about producing documents and witnesses. number one, the house impeached him on the evidence they had. they had a chance to get the documents and these witnesses through the court process. they did not do that, so they presented their case on the overwhelming evidence they had.

that is what you have to come into court with. you don't bring something in the criminal trial. you cannot introduce it as evidence if both sides did not get that evidence. they are talking about john bolton being a witness and coming in with evidence. what is the evidence? we don't know what he has to say. this is stupid because it is not a criminal trial. host: if you go back to the clinton impeachment, there were three witnesses produced during the senate proceedings. parts of the videotapes were introduced. caller: after the case was presented, which is two years of investigation. seven felonies accompanied. that -- a company that impeachment process. there are no criminal -- seven felonies accompanied that

impeachment process. they could have went on and called these witnesses through the courts. the courts would justify giving you a quick answer. it does not go on for years like the democrats are saying. for your people calling in, these democrats, they do not know how a criminal trial is convened. you have to come in with the evidence you have presented and it has to be evidence. the witnesses they called in the house hearings, these people alluded to secondhand information. that would have been thrown out of court immediately. host: we will hear from south carolina, democrats line, carla. go ahead. caller: hello. i am 65 years old and i will have to say i never thought i would be embarrassed with my .arty they are doing nothing more than

having -- it is almost like a debate. they are rehashing from the -- really no proof of a crime and i have to say, quite frankly, a lot of my democratic friends, people of color, hispanics are starting to get really down with our party and it is almost an embarrassment. i wanted to crawl under a rock yesterday hearing some of this stuff. they are getting concerned with their gun rights, things like that. int: let's hear from john turtle creek, pennsylvania, republican line. caller: i don't know if anybody got to see president trump in davos this morning, but he made a poignant comment it his questioning -- in his questioning that if john f.

kennedy was brought against charges like he is, he would have been removed from office the first day. if lyndon johnson was handled the same way they are handling president trump,removed from oft day. the other thing i would like to remind the democrat listeners is you are all into the impeachment. great, watch it. enjoy it. durham'suntil barr and report comes out. you're going to find out how bad your party is and how corrupt they are. host: john in turtle creek finishes off our first hour of listening to your calls about yesterday's events involving the impeachment process of president trump. we will continue to do that during the next two hours. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents.

learned the main focus of the debate yesterday, and interest from the press and the public of the rules governing how the senators sitting in their seat in the senate chamber, what rules they must abide by while they are watching as the jury of this impeachment trial. here are a few of the decorum guidelines. haveenators cannot unrelated reading material, phones, or electronic devices. pages have to relay their messages to the senators outside of the chamber. they do have access to most of the chamber, except for the well . that is in front of where the counsel for both sides sit. duringcess is restricted the trial. senators have to rise when the chief justice arrives and departs. they will refer to the chief justice as mr. chief justice. their entrance and exits are restricted to the cloak rooms.

they have to be present and remain in their seats and remain there for most of the time during their trial will start yesterday we saw several members get up and walk around during the trial. they have to refrain from speaking. they have to vote from their seats. when they have a sedges for the chief justice, pages have to relay those messages through the staff at the dais and the parliamentarian. there are lesser-known guidelines. "business insider" focusing on one, what senators are allowed to drink on the senate floor. under the rules, senators have to abide by the long-standing senate rules prohibiting what drinks they may have on the floor. only water and milk are provided. water is served by senators to pages and they have the option of still water or sparkling water. milk is allowed by president going back to 1966. anate rules do not prohibit

senator from sipping milk. rules do not specify if nondairy milk is permitted. when it comes to food and drink on the senate floor, one more senate tradition that got a lot is thention candy desk. here's the headline from the morning call out of pennsylvania. pat toomey's senate candy desk hangryevent lawmakers. focusing on that desk in the senate stacked full of candy stocked by senator pat toomey. he has been handling that duty since 2015, but the practice dates back to 1965 when george murphy of california, a republican with a strong sweet tooth, began keeping the treat stash in his desk that he shared with colleagues. other republican colleagues took up the mental after murphy was

defeated, forging the tradition baghe senate filling the with candy could run afoul of bets to lawmakers, but could made widely available. pat toomey is from pennsylvania and plenty of candy companies are in pennsylvania. his spokesperson said the current lineup includes hershey's bars with almonds, rolos, palmer peanut butter cups, and peanut chews manufactured by just born. that is the candy desk. if you want a picture of the candy desk, here is a picture from the u.s. senate history senatehistory.e @ that picture may be from a few years ago. if you want to see where it is located on the senate floor, this is from the architect of

the capital's office. you can see the desk marked in yellow on the republican side of the senate floor. just some of the traditions am id a procedure full of traditions as the trial moves forward. democrats did not take the time to collect it. w makes an observation to electronics on the floor saying there is a photo of senators with smart watches. the maze will have phones. jeff from chicago, illinois saying the burden of proof is less in impeachment hearings. bob in texas, why are senators allowed to vote to convict a president who is their competitor? isn't that a conflict of interest? .202) 748-8003 .ou can tweet us at @cspanwj

if you want to call us, (202) 748-8000 for republicans. (202) 748-8001 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. dealtday's proceedings with amendments to ask for documents from the state department making the case to the house impeachment managers. val demings from florida. [video clip] as we know litigation would take an extremely long time. likely years, not weeks or months. this the misconduct of president requires immediate attention. the misconduct of this president requires immediate attention. if this body is truly committed to a fair trial, it cannot allow the president play a game of whataway and dictate evidence the senators can and on his guilt or

innocence. this body cannot permit him to hide all the evidence while disingenuously insisting on lawsuits he doesn't actually think we can file. once that he knows won't be resolved until after the election. he is trying to cheat to win. instead, to honor your oath to , we urgeial justice each senator to support a subpoena to the state department . that subpoena should be issued the at the beginning of trial, rather than at the end. so these documents can be reviewed, and their importance hed by the parties, the senate, and the american people. demings ofwas val

florida. she was a law enforcement officer in orlando, making the case for documents from the state department. the president's personal attorney had a chance to respond to this call for documents from the state. [video clip] law. one is above the here is the law. as every member of congress knows, undoubtedly aware, separate from even state privileges is the presidential communication executive privilege, communications for performance of a president's responsibility. the presidential communication privilege has constitutional origins. courts have recognized a great interest in preserving the confidentiality. such confidentiality is needed to protect the effectiveness of the executive decision-making process. in cases that was decided in the district of columbia court of appeals.

the supreme court found such privilege necessary to guarantee the candor of presidential advisers and to provide a president and those who assist him with freedom to explore alternatives in the process of ultimately shaping policies making decisions and to do in a way many would be unwilling to express except in private. for these reasons presidential conversations are presumptively privileged. host: we showed you the tweet earlier about those senators and having smart watches during the process. i'm here to update -- here to update us on that, back to john mcardle. that got a lot of attention. talking about the the quorum rules that ban electronic devices on the senate floor. here's a story from roll call. seven senators had them strapped to their wrists in the chamber at the start of the trial tuesday.

mike lee of utah, john soon of south dakota, jerry moran, james lankford, john cornyn, and tim scott. all of them wearing them on the floor. also spotted with a smart watch was an aide to mitch mcconnell. they say so too did democratic senator patty murray of washington have the smartwatch. virginia democratic senator mark warner owns an apple watch, but roll call noted it cannot be confirmed if he had it on the floor. the supreme court come the standardbearer of banning electronics from the court room, does not allow apple watches in the court room, among features at the latest apple watch they write, the cellular capabilities, which newer wearers can use by leaving their cell phones behind. they can call, text, and surf the internet. we will see if the apple watches remain on the wrists of those senators when they reconvene

today, especially after as much attention as they got yesterday. host: 1:00 watch it on c-span2. independent line, this is garrett. caller: good morning. i would basically like to say that i am somewhat disappointed in the proceedings in the impeachment trial. it closely resembles high school football rivals. democrats and republicans just push back in any matter in congress. i don't know, if anything good comes from this impeachment trial, i simply hope that maybe it will be the end of parley potter -- of party politics, because they clearly do not work. host: the constant back and forth pushing against each other is what bothers you the most about yesterday? caller: it is not just yesterday. any time i watched c-span congress it seems to be the theme. yes, sir. that is what bothered me.

host: did you learn anything from the point and counterpoints yesterday? law professor. i just your average joe working american. i can't give you an educated what i learned from the preceding yesterday. it was somewhat over my head. i can see that there is no progress being made on anything. line fromcrats pennsylvania. we will hear from lisa. good morning. caller: good morning, pedro. i'm proud to say that i am a privileged teacher in a pennsylvania high school. i just wanted to speak about a couple of things i'm hearing my fellow americans discuss today, the side effects of partisanship. i did watch the impeachment proceedings last night, and i was disappointed to see ted cruz speak to reporters after he left

senate chambers. in one breath saying that he is disappointed in the democrats for exhibiting partisanship, and in the next breath say he is proud of republicans for being united against the impeachment hearings, against the impeachment process. that is ludicrous to me. i think the rhetoric that our politicians are using, they are being masterful at trying to confuse americans about what the real issues are, and i find it amazing that people are not speaking to the fact that what our president did with ukraine was not official government business. it was an act of personal partisanship when he demand a nation investigate a political foe and threaten to withhold funds if they do not comply. this was not in the interest of protecting americans, this was in the interest of pursuing a beitical foe and trying to successful and meddle in our

elections. the fact that republicans are being so staunch against the idea of admitting evidence speaks of a kangaroo court. i'm not sure how the chief justice can listen to this. an air ofgot to be legitimacy in the courtroom. we have to have witnesses that are important to the evidence at hand. they're going to declare the president innocent without hearing any witnesses that are relevant -- host: the topic of witnesses could come back into the situation when everyone hears from the house and the questions are asked from the senators themselves. caller: i thought the managers were compelling. the live testimony from fiona hill and sondland. i think he did a nice job of presenting to the senate why mick mulvaney needs to be present and needs to be a witness. host: that is lisa joining us

from pennsylvania on the phone talking about the events of yesterday. again, you can make your contributions this hour by phone , by social media, you can text us, too. we are back to john mcardle. the president making his discussion, with twitter, several retweets involving issues about the trial. this is his first specific comment, his own tweet focusing on this story from politico calling it a big story and that he hopes the fake news coverage, the politico story covered it p.m.night at about 7:45 this is the story. house intelligence committee chairman adam schiff appears to have mischaracterized a text message exchange between two players in the ukraine saga. a possible error they write that

the gop will likely criticize as another example of the democrats' rush to impeach the president. the issue erodes when adam schiff sent a letter to jerry nadler last week summarizing a trove of evidence from lev associate of rudy giuliani. in one section of the letter adam schiff claimed that lev parnas continues to try -- continue to try to arrange a meeting with president zelenskiy. trying to tell giuliani trying to get as mr. z. the rest of the letter was redacted, but in an unredacted version of the exchange, several days later lev parnas sent rudy giuliani notes from an interview burisma,founder of followed by text message to giuliani that states mr. z answers my brother, suggesting lev parnas was referring to not zelenskiy.

it does not identify who is doing the asking or the questioning. the questions center on the hiring practices of burisma. the apparent mischaracterization does not undercut democrats' argument that trump withheld critical aid to ukraine to pressure zelenskiy into opening investigations into the bidens. the story is available for all to see. the president is driving traffic to that story, the politico at 7:45 p.m.ight if viewers want to take a look. host: new york, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. you know, as citizens we owe it to ourselves to listen in these proceedings. outknow, there are books there, information out there that you can get for yourself. books, profiles in

corruption and secret empires. also if you listen to fox news in the evening you will find a lot of information. host: let's stick to the impeachment proceedings yesterday. what did you learn from them and what did you gain from them? caller: well, what i heard is that the democratic floor managers, their testimony is lying,exaggeration, snowal comments, senator got before the american people and said this withheld aid resulted in ukrainian casualties. no such thing. we have been, president trump been providing lethal aid, which president obama did not have the courage to do, since

his election. there is a flow of a that has been going to ukraine during his presidency. the one we are talking about is just one of several packages approved by the congress and have been dispensed. host: let's hear from ray in greensboro, north carolina, independent line. me.er: thanks for having i just wanted to say a couple of things. i was watching the impeachment hearings, and i hear callers calling in about how there were no crimes. thateps playing in my head we really, really need to educate the populace. i don't think they understand the difference between high crimes and misdemeanors and a high felonies, or crime is high office. could i call up the president of

him i'm goingll to withhold congressional getoved funds in order to him to announce an investigation into my opponent so that i can win the next election? no, i can't. this is why the congress is taking up this case. neverbut the funds existed in the first phone call. the topic of funds never existed in the first phone call. trump's phone call. bidens.d about the this information from vladimir putin, right? host: you went to the topic of funds, so i am pointing out what you said. caller: anyway, it is like a huge cognitive dissidents. it is really weird. for example, we are focusing on hunter biden, but not focusing

on ivanka trump, who is getting taxpayer money for, what does she do in the white house? we are focusing on people in the democrats saying they are doing stuff with china. you question them how they came to that conclusion and they have no idea how to articulate that. host: i'm trying to figure out how this appeals to yesterday. caller: i'm trying to show you how people are not understanding the difference between a real defense and what the republicans are throwing at them. they're not even trying because they know they have nothing to go on. host: carol in virginia beach. find it very confusing that president trump's attorney is currently in prison for lying to congress, for taking an oath

and lying to congress when mitch and a lot of the republicans prior to the trial beginning already announced that evenwere not going to to anythingisten that has to do derogatory with trump. so then they all took an oath, an oath, saying they would be impartial. survive theiry senatorial seats by lying where every day people will go to prison for that? yet, they are allowed to stay in

congress, admit that they took that they be fair and were lying? i find it very upsetting. line,texas, republican david, good morning. caller: good morning. oh my gosh, i have so many different ideas from listening. i appreciate you pointing out to the fellow that the funds were not discussed in that phone call . also the topic of a ivanka trump making money off governments. she and jared kushner, neither get a salary, the same as the president who foregoes a salary. this is how the information gets out there and gets it wrong, wrong, wrong all over the place. it is so easy was that i have to mention one thing about the hunter biden thing. one of my sons years ago. stopped at a traffic stop and he told the cops to look in his truck, no problem.

drugfound a pipe and got a possession. he ended up losing his job as a part-time christmas employee at a sporting goods store just because he had been accused. hunter biden is thrown out of the navy reserve. he was only in for one month. it took two waivers for him to get in. he was too old and he had a drug possession. one month later he tested positive and was thrown out. not long after he was selected by the burisma board. somewhere between $50,000 and $83,000 a month. for years. host: so, with all of that said, how is it relevant to what happened yesterday? caller: it is relevant in the context that there is no way that any company would hire someone with a record like that under any circumstance. my son could not even get a

loading dock job for something that was far more minuscule and hadn't even been proven. thank you for indulging me that. the you compare to what republicans are doing versus what the democrats are doing, the democrats have created a faux impeachment. toutede two very highly constitutional scholars, jonathan turley and alan dershowitz, who have been called upon by the republicans. agreement.en 100% in they don't necessarily even like trump. the point is there is no impeachable offenses. host: alan dershowitz is part of the trumpet defense team. the president's defense team. jonathan turley testified earlier on the house impeachment side. if you want to see testimony

from jonathan turley or anyone else who testified during the house impeachment side, go to c-span.org. setting aside a special section of the website for everything related to impeachment. if you want to see that for yourself. steve from florida, next. caller: thanks for taking my call. ghost: go ahead. caller: i've been watching since the beginning of the impeachment proceedings. everythingat after is said and done there is not a whole lot of anything there. the democrats know this, so they are going to try to do everything they can. they can't take over the -- they're going to see if they can't take over the proceedings in the senate with their moves back and forth. ght. comes to nau it is a horse and pony show. nancy pelosi, and all of the other democrats, that are so

outraged at how the republicans cannot be, are so impartial -- host: when you talk about what is presented by the house side, what leads you to the conclusion there is nothing there? caller: it is all conjecture, he said, she said. they have no actual witnesses that have seen anything. when they called them during the proceedings, have any of you have any personal knowledge of this? nobody could say anything, because nobody had any personal knowledge. it is all he said, or somebody told me that they said, it is a bunch of conjecture. tot: you think that leads the case that the democrats are making in the senate, that more witnesses have to be produced? caller: i think the democrats had their shot at witnesses. if they had all of these great witnesses, why didn't they bring them forward earlier?

why did they wait a month when this was so critical to the country to get this done, to get the president out of there. he and putin are planning every night to do bad things to us, we need to get him out of there. then they decided, we need to go on vacation first. that makes no sense. it shows how crazy this is. i don't understand it at all. host: steve in florida calling on our line for independents. one of the names that came up that the house managers would like to see is john bolton, making the case yesterday for his appearance before the senate. the house impeachment manager, jerry nadler. [video clip] >> ambassador bolton has made it clear that he is ready, willing, and able to testify everything he has witnessed. president trump does not want you to hear from ambassador bolton. the reason has nothing to do with executive privilege or other nonsense. the reason has nothing to do with national security. if the president cared about national security he would not

have blocked military assistance to a vulnerable, strategic ally in the attempt to secure a personal political favor for himself. no, the president does not want you to hear from ambassador bolton, because the president does not want the american people to hear firsthand testimony about the misconduct at the heart of this trial. the question is whether the senate would be complicit in the president's crimes by covering them up. any senator who votes against investor bolton's testimony, or any relevant testimony, shows he or she wants to be a part of the cover-up. what other possible reason is they are to prevent a relevant witness from testifying? unfortunately, so far i have seen every republican senator has shown that they want to be a part of the cover-up by voting against every document and witness proposed. host: again, that was from yesterday. you can go to c-span.org if you

want to see one of the proceedings. one of the follow-ups from that call from an investor bolton to appear came from the white house counsel directly refuting the claims, or at least the desire, by jerry nadler. [video clip] >> they don't tell you that they did not bother to call mr. bolton themselves. they did not subpoena him. letter.er wrote them a he said very clearly if the house chooses not to pursue through subpoena the testimony of dr. kupperman and ambassador .olton, let the record be clear that is the house's decision. they did not pursue ambassador bolton, and they withdrew the kupperman. mr. so, for them to come here now and demand that before we even

that they askment you to do something that they refused to do for themselves come then accuse you of a cover-up when you don't do it, it is ridiculous. host: let's hear from jerome in new york, democrats line. caller: good morning. i am very disappointed this morning in c-span. let me tell you why. this is historic, what happened yesterday. think that you, pedro and john, would be on top of your game today. for example, three times yesterday the president's council lied in front of the chief justice. you guys this morning would not debunk it to inform and edify the world that is watching this. let me give you three examples. the first one, that the

republicans are not allowed into the initial hearings. not true. if you were on the committee you were allowed. if you are not on the committee, you are not. the second, the president was not allowed in judicial hearings. not true. the third one, that the president is not being offered his right to a counsel and defense and whatnot. not true. the sixth amendment says in criminal proceedings you are allowed to have counsel to defend yourself. read the constitution, clearly the house and the senate handle all of the rules. the president is supposed to comply. once he refuses, he is in violation of the constitution. i think c-span should educate people more than they are doing now. especially when these things come up morning after morning, and you have republicans -- host: portions of what you mention have been brought up

this morning. they have been discussed, even to the points you're making. again, we had 12 hours of tape to go through. it is no excuse, i'm just telling you that i understand your point, but portions of what you brought up have been discussed. caller: there are times when the objective truth is clear, and you guys sitting in that chair know it. i believe when those times come up, this is when you need to text to inform people. this is the truth, this is not full stop we need this in the country right now. pride ourselves in objective presentation of information. we pride ourselves that we allow people to draw conclusions or themselves primarily through showing them information and providing an unblinking eye in doing show when it comes to

proceedings like yesterday, but point taken. thank you for the call. host: about halfway through the program today, i want to give you her situational awareness where we were at the end of the night last night, or early this morning, and where we will be at 1:00 p.m. when the senate sits again at the court of impeachment. yesterday, over 12 hours and 32 minutes, convening at one: 18 a.m. yesterday afternoon, and not finishing until 1:50 a.m. early this morning when they were finished, the senators established the rules that will govern the impeachment trial moving forward. i want to review those for our viewers. here's what the rules state. house managers and president trump's attorneys will have 24 hours over the course of three days each to make their cases for and against impeachment. senators will be allowed to ask of theuestions

impeachment managers and president trump's attorneys. they will have 16 hours total to ask questions. the questions will be asked erratically by the -- will not be asked verbally. they will have to submit their questions in written form to chief justice roberts. after that senators will decide if they want to hear additional witnesses and to view additional documents. there will be four hours of debate on that question. if they decide to move forward, there is a second set of deliberations on which witnesses and documents will be heard from and seen. and large package, by the rules package proposed by senator mcconnell and released back on monday with just a couple of important changes. the presentation of the changes originally scheduled to take more over two days, a much condensed timeframe that would have had arguments going past midnight and past 1:00 a.m.

now they will take place over three days. the arguments over the next perhaps six days, if each side takes its 24 hours, could end around 9:00 p.m. that the senate sits in the court of impeachment. it was passed along a partyline vote, 53-47. democrats tried to amend those rules several times, 11 different amendments were offered. all of them eventually defeated. i want to give you a sense of the response from some of the members of congress, and the impeachment managers, after yesterday's proceedings. schiff, who is leading the impeachment managers. his tweet late yesterday into the evening, senators get 16 hours to ask their questions. what it they like to ask about documents? if mcconnell has his way they won't see any documents before their questions. even if documents are allowed later they can't ask a single

question about them. americans deserve a fair trial. thennell harkening back to clinton impeachment trial saying the way the senate decides to handle mid-trial questions, such as witnesses, could have institutional consequences that go beyond this trial and presidency. we are not going to rush into these questions without hearing the opening arguments. he went on to tweet there is good reason why all 100 senators agreed to decades ago that senators should not cross these bridges before we came to them. we will not let the architect of the unfair house process to convince the senate to rewrite all rules for president trump. mr. mcconnell tweeting some of the arguments he has been making again over the past several weeks. host: from bob in illinois. republican line. caller: i would like to ask a question. is this a new way for the to undermineact

our constitution? is this a new communist way of doing things in this country? because nobody wants to work with nobody. the first day he got in, that is all i heard on the tv and from everybody. let's get rid of him. they don't want to work with the president, then they should quit. you aren't going to get hired by company, i don't want to work, but i want to get paid. host: how does that relate to yesterday? caller: i got tired of listening and turned off the tv. i'm tired of what is going on for the past year. it's ridiculous. host: what forced you to turn the tv off? caller: i got tired of the garbage between the news and the politicians. all they want to do is get rid --the guy because the because he is not a lawyer or a politician. he is a businessman. maxine is michigan, up next. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. i am a registered independent, but i am going to change my registration to total dis gust. i've never seen anything as terrible as this impeachment. we are no longer americans, we are now democrats or republicans. you have to get on your side or shut up. this is a fiasco. this is the death of america. it really is. 63 million people voted a person into office. and these democrats, with their hijinks, think they can take down this president. this is outrageous. i can't even explain to you how disgusted i am. i hope i never have to listen to adam schiff with those peter lori eyes again. i hope you have a good day, but

this is terrible. host: california, democrats line, we will hear from dede. caller: i have to shout out to the woman who was just on the air. it is so far from the truth about the democrats trying to take down president trump. president trump has been committing crime since the first day he walked into office before our eyes. ien though i am a democrat voted against democratic candidates in the past. i have voted for whom i think is the best candidate for the job. is, in myhment trial opinion, absolutely ridiculous in the sense that the republicans have, and mitch mcconnell has contradicted himself over and over. first, he's saying let's hear what people have to say first will set let's not put the cart before the horse, etc., etc.

before the trial started he started saying i am going to be consulting with the white house's attorneys. basically i'm going to be in lockstep with the president and attorneys. basically saying i'm going to let the president be acquitted. that is what he is striving for. the people who watch fox news, god bless them, but the information on fox news -- i watched it. it is unbelievably false and slanted. i don't get my news from one source. every single day i am updated on what is going on in our nation. host: going back to the clinton impeachment, does it matter that witnesses were not decided in the onset of that proceeding? caller: right now, i don't give a darn about the clinton impeachment. host: but the process by senator mcconnell patterns off the clinton impeachment. i'm just asking because

witnesses eventually ended up in that one. caller: but he has already said that he is not going to allow witnesses. he said that from the beginning. what it is going to take is for four republicans to vote to allow witnesses. host: and you don't think that is going to happen? caller: you know, right now it doesn't look like it. reneged onns even her we should allow witnesses. she has backpedaled. i don't know what is going on. why the senate has decided they are going to, no matter what the cost is -- and right now what really concerns me, for the sake of our nation, not just andpendents, republicans, democrats, but the nation, is our democracy is at stake. i don't think people realize how dangerous what is going on in

our government right now. host: let's hear from joseph in pennsylvania. republican line. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for taking my call. you are doing a very good job. , talked aboutr democracy is in great danger. i don't think so. democrats,is the because i watched the whole trial, even in the middle of the -- you can't your cake and have it. in the house you played by your rules. senate, you to the try to pressure even before the start you should start calling witnesses, that is what you are supposed to do. if you watch the whole

impeachment, it is clear the country is in divide right now. is patterning this impeachment on a phone call to aid.ne about the aide was released. why are we impeaching the president? they have been trying to impeach the president from the beginning. if you have the majority in the put out theschiff rules. now you come to the senate and you want mitch mcconnell to give you the same rules. why the republicans have majority in the house? it is something i can't believe. host: finish your thought. themr: yesterday i saw trying to not just take down the president, because they know will eventually this is not going to be the case, they just

want to inflame the left next election. host: one of the issues that came up yesterday aside from the topic of witnesses was that of documents. the ability to subpoena documents from the president. it was the house impeachment manager making that case. [video clip] >> with the backing of the subpoena authorized by the chief justice of the united states, you can in president trump's obstruction. if the senate fails to take that step, won't even ask for this evidence, this trial and your verdict will be questioned. congress and the american people deserve the full truth. there is no plausible reason why anyone would not want to hear all of the available evidence about the president's conduct. it is up to this body to make sure that happens. it is up to you to decide whether the senate will affirm its sole power in constitutional

whethertry impeachment and when it will get the evidence that it needs to render a fair verdict. thet surrender to president's stonewalling. it will allow the president to be above the law and deprive the american people of truth in the process. a fair trial is essential in every way. important for the president, who hopes to be exonerated, not merely acquitted by a trial seen as unfair. important for the senate, whose continue tos to protect and defend the constitution of the united states, which has preserved our american liberty for centuries. thefinally, important for american people, who expect a quest for truth, fairness, and justice. host: from yesterday.

all of that is available when you go to c-span.org. a lot of hours to shift through, but it is available on the website. one of the voices pushing back against the claims and desires as the deputy counsel for the president. he spoke out against the amendment to subpoena white house-relevant documents related to ukraine. [video clip] >> the one point that i will close on, i heard manager adam schiff say several times we have to have a fair process. at one point he said if you allow only one side to present evidence the outcome will be predetermined. the outcome will be predetermined. that is what happened in the house. let's recall the process in the house was one-sided. they locked the president and his lawyers out. there was no due process for the president. they started with secret hearings in the basement.

the president could not be could not present evidence, he could not cross-examine witnesses. there was a second round in public where they again locked the president out. we heard the president had the opportunity to participate. in the third round of hearings they held before the judiciary committee, after one hearing on december 4 speaker pelosi, on the morning of december 5, went out and announced the conclusion of the judiciary proceedings. she was directing chairman nadler to draft articles of impeachment. that was before the day they set for the president to tell them what rights he wanted to have and to exercise in their proceedings. it was all predetermined. the outcome had been predetermined come in the judiciary committee had already decided it was not going to have any hearings. there was no process for the president. he was not allowed to

participate. when chairman adam schiff said if you only allow one side to present evidence that predetermines the outcome, that is what they did in the house because they had a predetermined outcome. it was all one-sided. for him to lecture this body on what a fair process would be, gall.some a fair process would be when you come and be ready to present your case, not ask for more discovery. the president is ready to proceed. the house manager should be ready to proceed. this amendment should be rejected. host: democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. had a meeting. some people don't understand the legal terms, rambling on with some of the congress. so we had to break it down in

layman's terms. if you can help us understand if we came up with the right conclusion. has the right to investigate anyone because he is the president. what he don't have the right to do is ask a country or president to just announce if they are investigating someone. because hee bribery, used the money that was supposed to go to that country against them if you don't announce this this is what is going to happen. when it came down to is someone was listening on that phone call and became concerned. i am sure it is many phone calls that should have brought concern, but no one has brought it out except for the brave whistleblower. with the whistleblower coming be, of course it is going to secondhand information, tell this person and that person. where the truth comes out is

allowing those fact witnesses, for so long watching the house hearings you kept hearing secondhand information, they heard it from this, they heard it from that. the ones that they want to hear it from are not allowed to speak. why? the president with his power has said i don't want you to speak because i know i've done something wrong. he made a mistake -- host: so you're saying stock witnesses should be a part of the senate process? caller: yes, they should be. especially if they were withheld during the house side. they wanted to put them in court because they know the court will take a long time. that is why the president did not go into burisma again. going through the legal courts would make it drag out. host: which witnesses should appear? caller: we should hear from mick trump didhe said yes, it and there's nothing wrong

with it. if you believe that, tell us exactly what you heard. i don't want to hear from bolton because i don't trust him, but i do want to hear from mick mulvaney and i do want to hear from carney. they call him a croak, but he was in the white house taking pictures with everyone. that is like an informant. host: are you open to the idea that if that happens republicans should be able to call witnesses, too? caller: if they want to call hunter biden and joe biden, call them. joe biden is now the president, and we don't want him to be president. i am a democrat. i don't want old white men anymore in office. host: from tampa, florida, the topic of witnesses came up several times yesterday during the course of the many, many hours, which you can see on c-span. host: i just want to come back to that clip you just played of patrick philbin, his article on

the that his argument on the floor yesterday about house democrats running over the president's rights in the impeachment investigation process. the complaints that not only patrick philbin, but the rest of president trump's defense team had about the process that the house went through. actull it of fact -- politif focused on one of the statements one of the president's lawyers made on the floor. the comment that not even chairman adam schiff's colleagues were allowed into the sensitive compartmentalized information facility where classified intelligence can be discussed without eavesdropping. that is where some other dispositions were held, all the dispositions were held, before the actual hearings took place. itifact focusing on that

because 47 republican senators were able to take place in what happened behind closed doors. republican members of the intelligence committee, oversight and government reform committee and foreign fours committee were able to have scifss to that during the process. ruling that is flatly false in their fact check. focusing on less of the arguments that took place and more of the color on the house floor, this reporting yesterday on the senators watching the hearings. this is "the washington post," noting that after 5:30 p.m. the republican of idaho could be seen motionless, eyes closed, and head slumping against his right hand. lawmaker seenst by "washington post" reporters

to have fallen asleep for hours after the trial began. his home state newspaper "the idaho statesman" picked up on the story, noting that this news lasted 15 minutes on the floor. said that there is no media video of him napping. they should be the point that i should note that the cameras monitoring the floor during the impeachment process are not controlled by c-span. they are the senate's cameras, although c-span did ask to have our own cameras. the idaho statesman pointing out there is a sketch of him napping on the house floor courtesy of the new york times. they hired a sketch artist as one of those monitoring the senate floor during the impeachment trial. rischis his sketch of jim napping on the senate floor. the new york times having the sketch available on their website for their subscribers. we will look for more of those

courthouse-style sketches throughout this impeachment trial process. host: lisa, iowa, independent line. caller: i have so much to say. obviously, this is about our country. this is about what is good to us. there are kids watching this go on. this man has done nothing but mislead and lie to our country from day one. we did not go after him when he was coming out the escalator like he claimed, but once russia was involved -- come on, russia was involved -- the ukrainian thing only benefits russia. he is playing into rush's hand. host: let's go back to yesterday. what were your impressions? caller: two wrongs don't make a right. let's say the house was wrong for not letting him do his thing, or tell us more lies is what it basically would be. we didn't let him do it.

that doesn't make it right not to enter any evidence of his wrongdoing now. obviously the man lies. everyone in america knows he is lying. what in the world makes anyone think he is going to be honest about anything he does in congress? he has been lying to us the whole time. host: kentucky, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to say i disagree with the democrat callers. they're trying to say he committed a crime. he has not committed any crimes or done anything wrong. sayomments is i want to president trump needs to fire nancy pelosi and chuck schumer. he has the right to do it, because they are getting ready to pull one of the biggest scams that america has ever seen. host: the president doesn't have the right to fire those two. caller: he doesn't?

host: they are elected to congress and selected by their parties. caller: the democrats are getting ready to pull one of the biggest scams. they want to hand our country over to the united nations, which should be considered a crime against the constitution. line.indiana, democrats caller: oh, lord. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: yes. because thean, -- i won't call them republicans, i will call them -- they come up and say what they said last night. then when adam schiff rebuttaled collins -- i can't think of his name --

host: i will put you on hold and see if we can get back to you when you get your thoughts together. bill from pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: good morning, how are you? host: fine, thanks. caller: don't cut me off. this is very important. i have been 65 years in america. my cousin is a politician from greece. the whole idea is this. donald trump has not done nothing wrong, ok? i've been with donald trump from day one. i almost got killed 10 times because i wear his this is ridiculous. the american people have to wise up and think for themselves. host: what did you think of proceedings? caller: icaller: did not listen to much because i am so

disgusted. this man has sworn to make america beautiful. i know him. he is a great man. the guy is working every day. a politician and he is not a lawyer. see thiswake up and beautiful man that wants to do something for the country. that is bill from reading, pennsylvania on the republican line. he finishes off our second hour of a three hour program dedicated to your calls about yesterday's impeachment hearings. if you want to call us and give us your thoughts, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, for republicans (202) 748-8001. if you want to text as you can do so at (202) 748-8002.

you can follow along with the impeachment hearings on our website. a senate report are here to talk about this day that we are expecting of the impeachment proceedings. good morning. can you give us a sense of what happens today? >> today happens after a grueling 13 hour debate on the senate floor, 11 different amendments and there was a vote on a resolution setting up the days ahead. today is the first day of opening arguments in the impeachment trial. there have been procedural motions that happened yesterday and last week. today we will hear from the house impeachment managers, the --ocrats and speaker the democrats chosen to prosecute the case on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of congress. expecting to see a lot of what we saw yesterday on the floor in the way that trump

administration officials worked to withhold ukrainian security aid as they were trying to get an announcement of an investigation against hunter biden. we expect to see a lot of what they were arguing in that trial brief over the weekend that was filed over martin luther king weekend. host: do you have a sense of the process? will this be one impeachment manager after the other or do you get a sense of how they will go about it? trial, thehe 1999 clinton trial is the only that we haveedent in the history of american government, we should expect to see a number of managers take the stage for an hour or two at a time and talk about specific parts of house democrats arguments. like the omb role or the state department or department of defense role. trying to break down the argument into chapters. that should go on for as long as eight or nine hours into tonight. have 24nagers only

hours but it is three days spread out to convey their case to the senate and the american people. host: to that end, it was reported that several republican senators were responsible for those changes. what does that suggest about where republican senators are in this process? especially if witnesses will be called in darkness is -- witnesses will be called and documents will be submitted? >> the resolution from mitch mcconnell would limit opening arguments to 24 hours, will 24 hours for democrats and 24 hours for the president's council. that was supposed to be two days per side and now they have three days because some senate republicans and senate democrats were concerned that pulling the proceedings into late at night would make it more difficult to convey the case to the american people, the idea of having these lengthy floor discussions at around midnight or 1:00 in the

morning was not in the cards. now we expect to see shorter days. we can expect senate republicans at this point -- no one has said they are ready to convict donald trump on any of the articles of impeachment passed by the house. some have been breaking with majority leader mcconnell and president trump on procedural motions like things like a motion to dismiss and whether to eventually consider witnesses. republicans have made it clear the resolution they passed last --ht ponce the question punts the question on witnesses. host: you have four republican senators it would take to make widespread changes. who are the four everyone is watching and where are they in making this decision? have been watching susan collins of maine. ,isa murkowski from alaska

alexander from tennessee is a self-described institutionalist. he has been around for a long time and is retiring soon and not seeking reelection. , he is a frequent critic of the present and arguably a senate republicans most vocal critic of president trump within the senate conference. expect to watch those folks who have made it clear they are open to witnesses but have suggested -- made it clear they are not ready to commit to that just yet. what did you gather from senders you talk to, what was the pressure or the impact of yesterday? ach: a very solemn occasion. there was some frustration about how long it was going on. openlysenators go following -- guffawing on the senate floor because of the language. they were not interested in

talking to the media after such a long day. they will come back at 1:00 for a shorter day. this is a very different experience from most senators who are accustomed to taking private meetings and a vote here or there. they are not accustomed to sitting on the floor for so long in near silence. ant: could you give impression of what you are allowed as far as access to this process? zach: in the mornings it is the normal state of affairs, we can walk up to senators. i saw senators already and i will catch them after we start talking here. -- stop talking here. while this is in session there are a lot of restrictions, more than were in place for president clinton's impeachment trial and the state of the union. onorters are kept in pens three separate locations on the first and second floors where senators are coming in and out.

it makes it difficult to talk to be senators and get their impressions and thoughts of this trial. about how they feel about the arguments. i have seen and i have had security officers stop reporters mid question and say you cannot conduct an interview here you even have to go over here. it is a very concerning development. you: one of the stories published yesterday was the chief justice john roberts, how he is balancing what goes on in the afternoon with his day job at the supreme court. can you give us the story? zach: chief justice roberts and the eight other associate judges arguments on cases on arbitration and criminal sentencing law. within an hour chief justice roberts was back at work on the senate side and was presiding over this trial. he worked more than 12 or 14 hours yesterday as a lot of us did. he is back in the supreme court this morning on an important

case on separation of church and state. he will have to be back in the chair in the senate around 1:00. it is a very grueling schedule but something he has prepared for and his former boss chief justice william one quest -- william rehnquist had to go through when he presided over the clinton trial. roberts will certainly have a full day ahead of him and this week senators tend to have the morning off and will come back to work in the afternoon. host: were you surprised by the chief justice's admonishment of house impeachment managers and the white house team? host: i was. -- guest: i was. chief justice roberts is keen on being an evenhanded arbiter of the court system and american government. his comment was par for the course. he said i'm going to admonish the house impeachment managers

and the president's counsel in equal terms i think is the term he used, do not forget you are in a place where it is frowned upon to engage in ad hominem attacks. he encouraged civil discourse. we will see to what extent roberts will play a role in this. right now it is mostly a pro forma role. he will manage the timeclock and recognize senators and mostly let the senate do what it needs to do to get to an ultimate acquittal or conviction. host: you can find the story on the national journal website. joining us to talk about today's proceedings and the other matters of the impeachment process. we will continue on with our calls in this final hour before we put finish our program. tom in new york on the independent line. thank you for waiting. sayer: i would like to thank god for you guys. you guys are the only one that lets everyone make their own decision.

what i have to say about this impeachment is what i hope happens today, it probably won't, is they throw it right out of there. the case makes no sense. first of all, this impeachment should have never got this far. the dams screwed the system from the beginning. it is supposed to be on refutable evidence, so nobody can say it didn't happen. that means the investigation must be done and over with before they are impeached so they have all the facts. they are making a mockery out of the american system. partisanship, and was not bipartisan, that is the american way, and without completing the investigation it is not the senate's job to do it for them. host: joan is next from

rockford, illinois. republican line. caller: how are you today, pedro? host: fine. caller: my first comment is on executive privilege. executive privilege is a very important thing to the president. to interactbe able with their different agencies and then with their cabinet. fishinghave a expedition going on by the other instance if a guy gets fired he could go and use the president's words against him. these things are very important because they have to be able to have conversations and find out about different leaders if they are corrupt and vice versa. president should not be put in a position where his words are used against him. just like a lawyer would be to a

client. that is my first thing. i think that the democrats are going on a fishing expedition trying to get power over the executive. host: and your second point? passed there was a bill -- they have a legal right to hold aid from ukraine because of the corrupt government. i don't know if it was passed in may or july -- but there was there thattee out had the ukraine president create a committee to watch for corruption in the government -- that was created by the president and his men. to patricia in iowa on the independent line. caller: good morning, pedro.

i want to say that i thought that the house managers made a good argument yesterday but what i wanted to say is how much we take our democratic republic for granted. this is not a republican or democratic thing, this is an american thing. to,whole thing boils down do we want foreign governments interfering in our elections? nowrussians did it, and trump once the ukrainians to do it. it is as simple as that. host: what was the strongest case made by house managers? was alli think that it the evidence given to the people by the people who took questions

under oath -- and ambassador sutherland said it was a quid pro quo, the president said it was not when he talked to sutherland, but that is what the president said. since he lies all the time take that for what it is worth. host: we will hear from michelle in los angeles, california on the democrats line. caller: i wanted to respond to one of the other callers, i think it was a person from pennsylvania and they said the democrats should have taken their subpoenas to the court and that it would have been simple and resolved quickly. i want to refer to something mitch mcconnell said yesterday. i will paraphrase. he said the senate subpoenaed ifnesses and that would --

the senate subpoenaed witnesses that would lead to a contracted fight in the courts about executive power that could go on for an indeterminate time. i think that is one of the reasons why congress relied on the testimony it could get without going through the courts. usednk trump could have delaying tactics for years and in the meantime the 2020 election would come and as some of the evidence from the impeachment hearing showed he would use that to coerce other governments to interfere in our election. just one other comment if i could. callers whoe of the said that trump coerced zelenskiy in the call and you asked him -- i want to remind everybody that there was $280

million in aid that trump withheld and there was a timeline yesterday that showed -- one of the managers had a timeline where she showed her that trump called zelenskiy and asked for the favor, then he withheld funds all of august, and in september there was a whole back and forth between the office of budget and the department of defense to try to get the funds released. those emails said it came from the president that they were not going to release it. then the whistleblower came forward and then trump released the funds. host: that is michelle in california. here is mitch mcconnell yesterday. this was before the formal start of the proceedings. talking about the desire of house impeachment managers to call witnesses.

mcconnell: these are potential witnesses that the house members declined to hear from, from the house itself declined to pursue through the legal system during its own inquiry. the house is not placing any to runes, they were free whatever investigation they wanted to run. if they wanted witnesses who would trigger legal battles over presidential privilege they could have had those fights. the chairman of the house judiciary committee decided not to. they decided the inquiry was finished and move right ahead. the house chose not to pursue they wouldtnesses, now like the senate to pre-commit to pursuing ourselves. weeks,ve been saying for

nobody, nobody will dictate senate procedure except for united states senators. a you know already -- against outside influences with respect to the proper timing of these mid-trial questions. from our independent line in south carolina, tom. caller: the word that comes to mind when i listen to what is going on and i listens to that nine hours yesterday is shameful. monday, forecause the first time i marched in the martin luther king parade, and as many of the senators did -- and then they marched -- in honor of a wonderful man -- then they marched into the senate and disgraced the senate. there is an alice in wonderland

sort of sense about this thing. first the verdict than the trial. -- except for john f. kennedy and jimmy carter once i voted the republican ticket straight for the last long time. i am 80 years old. i don't think if they continue the way they are i will ever vote for another republican. i would like to get the facts out, i think the american public is entitled to the facts and the facts start with witness testimony who were there. -- they says about lawyers are liars and i guess we found the biggest one yesterday. host: that is tom in south carolina. you heard mitch mcconnell on the topic of witnesses before the start of proceedings. senate minority leader chuck

schumer had his say. : senatorsuck schumer have called our request for witnesses and documents political, if seeking the truth is political than the republican party in trouble. the white house has said the articles of impeachment are if theand wrong, president believes his impeachment is so brazen and wrong why won't he show us why? why is the president so insistent that no one come forward, that no documents be released. if the president's case is so weak that none of the presidents men can defend him under oath shame on him. and those who allow it to happen. what is the president hiding? what are our republican colleagues hiding? wanted the truth they

would say go ahead and get witnesses and get documents. at no point over the last few months have i heard a single solitary argument on the merits andwhy witnesses documents should not be part of the trial. no republicans explained why less evidence is better than more evidence. leader mcconnell is poised to ask the senate to begin the first impeachment trial of a president in history without witnesses that rushes through arguments as quickly as possible , that in ways shameless and subtle will conceal the truth from the american people. host: that was chuck schumer from yesterday, all of that available at c-span.org. here is john mcardle. comes to witnesses under the rules adopted yesterday on a party line vote in the senate that will govern the impeachment trial there will be a vote on whether to have witnesses. that vote will not take place

until after the house impeachment managers make their argument over the course of 24 hours and three days and then the president's make their arguments. the 16 hours set aside for senators to ask questions of the impeachment managers and lawyers, after that the senate will have a chance to decide whether they want to hear more witnesses or subpoena more documents. this story from the washington examiner out today. senator susan collins of maine said yesterday it is likely she will support a motion to subpoena witnesses at the appropriate point in the hearings. she told the washington examiner she is working with a small group of republicans on a plan to call witnesses but it is unclear whether four republican lawmakers would back the move. that is the number needed to provide democrats with the 51 votes they would need to call witnesses. they wanthave said

white house chief of staff mick mulvaney to testify as well as former national security advisor john bolton. they want robert blair, assistant to the president and senior advisor to mulvaney. the associate director of national security at the office of management and budget. four are the witnesses they have been talking about. a lot of tweets and discussion about this idea of witnesses. ins is congressman ed markey his tweet from last night, saying a trial without documents and witnesses is not a trial at all, it is a cover-up. he said the u.s. senate is now considering -- on trial as much as donald is on trial. said the faith that americans have in the senate is at stake. republican from tennessee

saying, if you want to encourage more bad behavior from house democrats go ahead and vote for witnesses. one more tweet from the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi. a video tweet focusing on the documents and witnesses that democrats have brought forward through their efforts during the impeachment investigation, this is about one minute long. ♪

♪ this is jim in fort lauderdale, florida on the republican line. caller: former democrat. questions,a couple did everyone forget about the judge? what they did to that judge. the lies, the lies. host: what judge? caller: kavanaugh.

i think they call it scorched-earth. host: we are talking about yesterday's impeachment on -- caller:, any time are they going to get away with this? -- how many times are they going to get away for this? nancy pelosi you just had on the video. this? paying for she told us she would never do an impeachment but here we are. we are being lied to. i went to bed very depressed about watching this. i woke up and i am watching it and i don't usually go to c-span but i did this morning to voice my opinion. everyone is feeling the same way. they are disgraced. this is an active disgrace for america. is rocking and rolling.

the media never corrects what the statement was. the media are co-conspirators. on theoday's proceedings impeachment process, 1:00 this afternoon eastern standard time you can see that on c-span two, c-span.org, listen to the c-span radio app. mobile, alabama the democrats line. cassandra. caller: good morning, pedro. i would like to make a statement about our senate. between thece clinton and the trump .mpeachments and even nixon the clinton impeachment sent ream's of documents that were requested by the impeachment theittee, so at least questions were based on actual testimony prior to getting to the senate. also the nixon grounds for impeachment were based on

stealing information from the democratic national committee papers. this president did even worse by going through proxies to have a foreign government interfere with our own elections not once, not twice, but three times. russia if you're listening, china ought to look into the bidens, and now ukraine. those ukrainians are actively fighting russia. our troops don't have to get involved in another war in .urope host: from indianapolis, indiana. democrats line, good morning. thank you for letting us speak our mind. have beennted to -- i listening to the calls.

to say thatwanting macconnell has said that the house declined witnesses, that is not true. they did not decline witnesses. the president told all of his cabinet members, everyone not to honor their subpoenas and not to testify. fiona, i think that was her she testified even though she was told not to. seemed like that it everyone started coming forward. that is when you got testimony. numerous requested sent a document, they subpoenas over and the president said no that they are not getting information and they are not letting anyone testified.

they were obstructed. ofnot for the freedom information act and other information out there they would not have any information. the republicans also made the case that if the house democrats really wanted those they could've went to court over them. have, butey could that would have taken a long time. they are still fighting to get his taxes. georgia in hear from san jose, california. independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. which goesatement before all of this started. i think that if you were to poll the american people they would say that none of them are so naive that they don't think that influence peddling goes on in our government daily.

i wonder if anybody in the house or the senate were vetted to the degree that any president has been vetted in an impeachment trial how squeaky clean they might come out. during the obama administration that nancy pelosi -- it was implied she was indicted in insider trading however nothing ever became of that. host: how does that specifically relate to yesterday? theer: it has to do with fact that this whole impeachment trial is ridiculous because nobody stands squeaky clean in either the house or the senate. i don't think that any american is naive to that. saying house democrats don't have a case against the president when it comes to the articles of impeachment they have put forth? caller: yes. i am saying they could be in the same position if they were president at any time. none of them are squeaky clean.

int: let's hear from sharon north dakota. i am very upset because this is all a ball of wax. if they would stop and realize what trump has done. look at the economy and what he has done for our country as far as the wall. he could do more if they leave him alone. how does that apply to lee yesterday -- apply to yesterday? ander: i have been watching i don't agree at all. if they wanted than impeachment trial they should've had this taken care of before they went to this. i know it is me on there. if you wouldn't mind while you are waiting turned on your

televisions and that will keep the feedback from happening. servicefrom our texting from massachusetts. a concern that while democrats lay out the evidence for abuse of democrats lawyer -- nick in arizona says the left has made every attempt to remove the president since inauguration and the country has been ripped apart, divided into two camps. people have already decided to remove -- big trouble ahead no matter what. this is another reviewer from california. i think the house managers were put to shame and placed on uneven and partisan handling in the house and the president will not get do justice -- making them look like spoiled brats -- this is stephanie from michigan saying i watch the proceedings and the facts presented by

democrats were factual and impressive and convinced me republicans are not willing to face the truth. very disappointed in this vote on the amendments. stephanie adding to the text this morning. you can text us at (202) .48-8002 -- (202) 748-8003 monti is next on the independent line. was what theint person you had talking -- it is almost embarrassing the constitutional ignorance of most americans. andcourage you to go back reread the constitution and read the federalist papers and thomas payne. where did the pursestrings of the republic fly? with the congress. this aid was blocked. then't the president have power to declassify any document at any time? host: yes.

caller: if giuliani found something the president could declassify this and show it to the public and show that biden is corrupt. his is the same type of tactic, when obama was in office trump said he had investigators in hawaii who found amazing things. host: when it comes to the constitution and high crimes and misdemeanors, give me specifics on what the president did to violate that? caller: the president abused his office. he abused his power and not only that he abused his -- the separation of powers clearly delineates where the power of impeachment lies. host: how did the president abused his power? according to the constitution? caller: he blocked funds that were allocated by congress. there are channels and avenues to go through to investigate if there is corruption. he does not take a backhanded route with a person acting as

his personal attorney. there are institutions in place for this type of thing. host: how does that violate the constitution? isler: the constitution empowered to spend money. it is not the president's power to spend money. that is not where the pursestrings of the republic live. this is voted on by republicans. host: dorothy is next in baltimore, maryland. democrats line. caller: we are going to talk about impeachment. you are asking the guy what did he do, he bribed, for personal gain with our tax dollars. that is what he did. host: how did the bribery happen? not getting this money unless you do an investigation. he did not use the word corruption. i have it hear anyone talk about corruption. if ukraine had corruption it could not have just been biden

on the board. it is not illegal for anyone to serve on a board. we did not have anything to do with the company. it is not illegal to serve on a board. if biden actually did something wrong we had a republican senate and a republican congress, they had the majority. they all knew about this because they all approve of what biden saying what he said. republicans would have been up in arms in the investigation. there wasn't one because there was nothing done. we have the president asking another country -- i have not seen the word corruption about a favor, not for us --

that has nothing to do with the u.s. senate. int: let's go to connie illinois on the republican line. caller: good morning. trump did nothing wrong with holding the money. -- hehout the money withheld the money. then he gave them the money. have all in the house kinds of people testifying one after the other. and everyone of them when asked what trump has done that is impeachable they have all said nothing. they said that trump did more for ukraine then president obama did. as far as bill clinton, compared , clintonump stuff here had five or six impeachable

things against him. trump has zero against him. this is ridiculous. host: we have about 20 minutes left until the end of this program. you can make comments on yesterday's impeachment proceedings. we will go back to john mcardle. 20 minutes left means there are three hours and 20 minutes until the senate impeachment trial is set to get underway today. c-span watch that on two. gavel-to-gavel when it happens. we want to explain where we are right now. 9:00 a.m. -- today at the timeline as laid out by that trial, rules and regulations

that was voted on yesterday, allows pretrial motions to be submitted this morning. they should be submitted by 9:00 a.m., meaning they should be with the senate already. the other side where the motions are submitted by impeachment managers or president trump's lawyers, the other side will have two hours to respond to the pretrial motion that could include a motion to dismiss. we will find out what the motions are when the senate convenes at 1:00 p.m. today. the debate on the one amendment that brought over one republican more was to allow time for response for pretrial motions. it was susan collins who joined democrats in asking for more time. that amendment eventually voted down on a 52 to 48 vote margin. democrats noted in their argument yesterday that during the clinton impeachment

trial the response to pretrial motions, the other side -- the president xi was given 40 hours to respond to pretrial motions. that is what happened last night this gets underway today at 1:00 p.m.. after pretrial motions are taken care of the house impeachment managers will begin their arguments. those arguments will take place over the next three days today. the arguments could go until friday and the president's lawyers would be allowed to make their arguments over 24 hours over three days. the senate not in session on sunday so that means this could happen late friday or monday, tuesday, wednesday for the president team to make their case. there is the 16 hour period for senators to submit their questions for the chief justice and then there is a vote on whether witnesses will be called.

this couldn't stand -- this could extend the impeachment trial by several weeks or longer. giving a comparison to previous impeachment trials, witnesses were called in the previous two impeachment trials. here is the length of those impeachment trials, going back to the andrew johnson impeachment trial that started , 83 days for that impeachment trial. witnesses were called starting -- theary 7 and ended up total being 37 days. we don't know how long this one will last but the key moment to know if it will be along impeachment trial comes when the vote takes place on whether impeachment witnesses will be called. when it comes to the case that will be argued by the president's impeachment team, alan dershowitz is one of the lawyers on the president's defense team. he had a series of tweets

yesterday after it was pointed out in the press some inconsistencies between his hisent position between previous position and his current position when it came to clinton impeachment trial. here is what he had to say in that series of tweets, to the extent that they are inconsistencies between my current position and what i said today 22 years ago. during the clinton impeachment issue is not whether a technical crime was required because he was charged with perjury. i relied on the consensus that a crime was not required. in the trump impeachment that is the critical issue because it abuse of power and obstruction of congress are not crimes or criminal like behavior. i have now thoroughly researched the issue and concluded that although a technical crime may not be required criminal like behavior a kin to treason and bribery is required. he ended the series of tweets by saying to the extent that my

1998 interview statement asked -- suggested the opposite i've attracted, scholars learn to adapt and change old views. we have been monitoring the president posta defense team and the impeachment managers, it all begins today at 1:00 p.m. on the senate floor. in stockbridge, georgia you are up next. i have just had -- i watched of the senate and the guilt ordebate innocence of the president. having dealt with ukraine myself and seen the difference in lack of corruption there now compared to after -- you might want to do , not verbatim but more or less i do see the difference in that. i don't think it's against the law.

i believe that congress requires the president to assure that the funds distributed are being distributed legally and to a non-corrupt government. the democrats make sure they did that. i would prefer that they worry about serving this country such as i have and my family has since this country has been founded since one of my ancestors signed the declaration of independence and the couple were president -- quit wasting my taxpayer money -- i have served on juries. -- there areon three equal parts of government. let's hear from olivia in birmingham, alabama. this is not about democrats, it is not about republicans, it is not about joe

biden or his son hunter biden. .t is about donald trump the president of the united states. , -- so wehis power can have them interfere in an election and trying to -- this is about obstruction that president donald j. trump -- don't wantlet to -- witnesses in the house of congress. it is so sad that we have people calling in -- it just saddens my heart that we are democrats and republicans and everybody has their opponents. he did do it. he obstructed justice and he abused his power.

i don't understand these people. did you take civics and government when you were in school? did you pay attention to what was going on? host: on the topic of witnesses, while in davo's the president was addressing reporters and ask about the idea of witnesses and his concerns. here is the president. gotten along with john bolton. he did not get along with a lot of other people. he knows my thoughts on certain people and other governments and we are talking about massive trade deals and war and peace and all these different things we talk about. that is a very important national security problem, mick mulvaney is around here someplace. he has expressed himself very well when he did a chris wallace interview. that was a very powerful

interview. that was long and tough, chris is a tough interviewer. i would -- i would like to have mike pompeo testify. that is a national security problem. i would love to have mike pompeo but it is a national security problem. i would love to have rick perry. rick perry has asked to testify. rick perry would love to testify. we are dealing with national security. we are dealing with one other thing. our country has been tied up with this hoax since i came down the escalator. i have been fighting it from the day i have been elected. i would say long before -- long before i came down the escalator. some people have said that which is hard to believe. it is hard to believe. personally ir --

would rather go the long route. it is horrible for our country. our country has to get back to business. adam schiff misquotes a statement. he had no idea i was going to release the transcript. he never thought i would do that. he had no idea i was going to do that. these are corrupted people some of them. some of them are playing the political game. if you look about the bowl numbers, my poll numbers are the highest they have ever been. if you look at the funding and the money raised by the republican party set a record, nobody has ever done this before. it is because of the impeachment hoax. a memorandum of a isephone conversation which

not a transcript, still available from the white house. that conversation between the president and the ukrainian president at the center of the debate including today when it comes to the impeachment trial of the president. in pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. 80's but in my 70's i worked in real estate. i have been here for a long time. is thing we don't talk about what is a year, two years, three of thislmost four years constant inspection, investigation, waste of billions soour dollars when we have many other things threatening us. this is a man maybe i did not

approve of before but i stand with him very wrongly. my family were democrats but with trump -- we needed a leader. we needed somebody who wanted to get something done. host: why is this not worth investigating? is spending they stick gdp read tv dealing -- it's been investigated. they did not get their crooked woman as president. what has happened? we are being watched by less of the world seeing this and what is going to happen in the future , i have been here a long time. what is going to stop other congresses from just having someone they don't want as president the honor and the

whole respect of this country goes with our president. host: and is in kentucky on the independent line. caller: i would like to make a comment on adam schiff, he has consistently said that trump does not care about corruption and has never mentioned it therefore he was withholding funds for political gain. he fails to mention that on catherine during cross testimony behind closed doors she specifically stated in concerns trump raised directly with poroshenko about selling them javelins. that is another case of adam schiff deliberately misleading country. host: on the democrats line.

caller: i have been listening to all the callers and i noticed a big difference in the callers. noticed is twoe colors back we spoke about the actual evidence and things presented in the case yesterday by the house managers. notice what the actual republican or the actual president's lawyers spoke about and we notice the same storyline and the same thing they are saying is what the actual callers for the president that are supporting the president, they are saying the same thing. the callers that have the best case on the calls are speaking actually the correct thing. the president did violate the law. he did actually commit bribery.

they can impeach him for bribery and extortion. host: why do you think they didn't go that route. caller: because they wanted to go on the two cases that abusing his power is the most important thing a president can do for political gain. that and the route of the actual impeachment -- people are calling and saying they could've gotten the witnesses and the evidence, they can't get the evidence in the impeachment inquiry. all the callers that are supporting trump are still speaking of they should have got this, that was the trial there. they don't have the knowledge and the constitutional knowledge -- this is happening in the senate and they are supposed to take that trial and just like lindsey graham stated witnesses when he was with clinton,

witnesses should be seen and heard from by the american people. >> teresa in north carolina. republican line. to pray that god will open the eyes of the democrats. president trump has done nothing good from what i can see. employment is down. what do you think of the case democratic house managers are making? what is wrong with it specifically? caller: i think it is a circus. schiff said they had new evidence. i watched after the trial was over and i come to find out there is no new evidence. teresa and sanford, north carolina joining us. here is john mcardle. host: before our program ends a little more color from inside

the senate chamber yesterday as the impeachment trial was underway. we mentioned that the new york times has hired a courtroom sketch artist to give the different views from inside the chamber because the cameras that you have been watching during these proceedings are controlled by the senate. they are not c-span's cameras, they ask for our cameras to be included in the coverage to allow in the chamber, they have not being -- all the images that you are seeing on your tv are from cameras controlled by the senate. taking a look at the galleries as well, talking a little bit yesterday about who was in the galleries yesterday alongside members of the public and the press. activist actress and alyssa milano seated in one of the front rows in the gallery

behind where the republican senators are seated on the floor. noting that she wore black and had her hair pulled into a tight bun. former arizona senator jeff flake spent time watching the proceedings from the gallery behind his one-time republican colleagues. he sat in that section behind the republicans and house republican firebrand louis coburn of texas, set along the wall where staffers usually sit. some of those who made it into the galleries yesterday -- one other sketch from the new york times scope courtroom sketch republicanis of two senators, richard burr of north carolina and kelly loeffler of georgia. kelly loeffler is the newest senator in the chamber, taking over from johnny isakson of georgia who resigned on december 31. socksd burr not wearing

with issues. he seemed to like that courtroom drawing so much that he changed his profile picture on his twitter page today. this is his new profile picture, that courtroom drawing of him in the chamber without socks on. host: let's go to our independent line. sharon, hello. caller: i just want to make two points. you played a clip of mitch mcconnell saying that the house democrats had no need to rush through their hearings as quickly as they did, i think adam schiff laid out why it was important to do that with the upcoming election and that trump will continue to solicit help from our governments which is what is at rick's care. --second point is i think that illustrates why it is important to have term

limits. if they are too old to stay awake during a senate trial this important or take it seriously enough they don't need to be there. he made reference yesterday to the idea that the articles were held for 33 days. then the argument was made for timeliness issues on the democratic side. how do you think those square with each other? caller: i think it was important to hold back the articles because nancy pelosi was trying to get a little leverage in this trial which apparently does not seem like it is working too well. i think that was important. if i were her i would've held it back until after the state of the union address. i think trump will use that as a rally and take a victory lap as not being convicted in this we pretty much know the outcome of this. that is how i feel about it. . she tried to do what she could

do to get some leverage to mitch to release the documents. it did not seem to pan out. from ohio on the democrats line. this has got to be the most interesting thing i have watched. he it not in for mr. dean, would not have resigned. unfortunately, president trump has no morals and no shame. he does not care if he has impeached. out ofot the heck washington so he did not have that on his record. host: how does that apply to yesterday specifically? sham that me, it's a nobody is really