will see how much longer they intend to go. at the end of this boat they are about halfway through now do they decide to calls a day, do they have an up-and-down vote on the proposal one might think that the bold and subpoena amendment is the penultimate from the democrats' standpoint, really kind of bring the heat here. he is viewed as witness number one, and i think it is important to note, the idea of compelling him to attend and getting the senate sergeant-at-arms mike singer to enforce that subpoena appeared at the end of this vote, which should wrap up in about a minute and a half, i would say, we should probably lo the floor, see if there is any update from mcconnell and schumer on the lay of the land, and maybe they call it a night, maybe they actually have a vote to wrap things up tonight, shannon. >> shannon: there has been so much speculation about what role the chief justice would play in this. keep in mind, his arguments at

the supreme court that began at 10:00 a.m. eastern. he is going to have to -- we don't know how long this is going to go. >> and one word for you. patty fogging. that was the word used by chief justice john roberts, talking about something that happened in the senate more than 100 years ago, saying that is the type of language that you cannot use in these circumstances. as you say, that is the first time he has asserted himself. that's pretty dramatic, and people will remember this episode even though it happened in the dead of night, probably for years to come, shannon. >> shannon: i think we are saved and no no one will be using the word "pettifogging" -- other than you -- to its plain what it is. from 1905. to speak about is what john roberts talked about, yes. >> shannon: he told him to be nice here. much like the supreme court, which is used to presiding, a place he is very much somebody who believes in the institutions and what to protect the

integrity of these institutions comedy think about the fact he is now following in the footsteps of a man he clerked for, the late chief justice rehnquist. we've been told he would follow pretty much that model, try to stay out of things, only inserting himself where he felt absolutely necessary, but he has always been somebody protective of the institutions themselves. now looking like in the cited he is trying to keep this thing -- >> shannon, going back to the 1999 trial, they talked about justice rehnquist, who presided with president clinton's tribunal, he barely asserted himself. a lot of people said it was notable what he didn't do, here we are on the first day, and roberts has already asserted himself, probably by need, more than justice rehnquist did. i think that is significant. sitter just how salacious some of the information and some of the material was in the clinton case, and we never had a moment quite like that during any of the debate. never even got close to that. and here come we've had this electric moment on the senate floor, between nadler and

cipollone. let's go back to the floor right now, listen to john roberts. >> the nays are 47. the amendment is tabled. speak of the democratic is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. i sent an amendment to the desk to provide for a vote of the senate on any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents after the question period. and i await its reading. >> the objection of the weaving of the reading. >> object. >> i withdraw my waiver request of waiver. >> does any senator have an objection to the weaving of the reading? >> yes. >> the clerk will read the amendment. >> senator from new york,

mr. schumer proposes an amendment. strike four hours and insert two hours. on page three, line ten, strike the question of and all that follows the rules on line 12. on page three, line 14, insert any such motion after "decide." on page three, line 15, strike "weather" and all that follows through documents on line 17. on page three line 18, strike that question and insert any such motion. on page three, lines 23 and 24, strike "end of the senate shall decide after deposition which witnesses shall testify," and insert "and then shall testify in the senate." >> the amendment is arguable by

the parties for two hours equally divided. store manager schiff, are you a proponent or opponent? >> mr. cipollone, proponent or opponent? mr. schiff, you may proceed and reserve time for rebuttal. >> senators, this amendment makes two important changes to the mcconnell resolution. the first is the mcconnell resolution does not actually provide for an immediate vote, even later, on the witness is that have requested. mcconnell resolution says that at some point, after essentially the trial is over, after you've had the arguments of both sides, the 16 hours of questioning, then there will be a debate as to whether to have a vote and a

debate on a particular witness. there is no even guarantee you are going to get a chance to vote on specific witnesses. all the resolution provides as you are going to get an opportunity to vote to have a debate on whether to ultimately have a vote on a particular witness. this would strip that middle layer. it would strip the debate on whether to have a debate on a particular witness. if my counsel, my colleagues for the presidents team, are making the point, well, you're going to get the opportunity later, the reality is come under the mcconnell resolution, we may never get to have a debate about a particular witness. you've heard the discussion of four witnesses tonight. there may be others that come to the attention of this body, if we're able to get documents, that we should also call. but will you ever get to hear a debate about why a particular witness is necessary?

well, you may only get a debate over the debate. this amendment would remove that debate over debate regarding a particular witness. the other thing that this resolution would provide is that you should hear from these witnesses directly. the mcconnell resolution says they will be deposed, and that's it. it doesn't say you are ever actually going to ever hear these witnesses for yourself. which means that you, as the triers of fact, may not get to see and witness the credibility of these witnesses. you may only get to see a deposition, or a deposition transcript, or maybe a video of a deposition, i don't know. but if there is any contesting of facts, what would you like to hear from the witnesses yourself? and very directly. now, the reason why it was done this way in the clinton case, why there were depositions, and again, in the clinton case, all of these people had been

interviewed and deposed or testified before. but the reason why it was done that way in clinton is because of the salacious nature of the testimony. nobody wanted witnesses on the senate floor talking about sex. as i said earlier, i can assure you, that will not be the issue here. so to whatever degree there was a reluctance in the clinton case to have live testimony because of its salacious character, that is not an issue here. there is not a reason here to not hear from those witnesses for yourself. so this resolution makes those two important changes, and i would urge your support of it. >> i yield. >> mr. cipollone? >> thank you, mr. chief justice.

>> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, good morning. i will be very brief on this. we strongly oppose the amendment. we support the resolution as written. we believe that the resolution as to the two areas that manager schiff discussed, the rep resolution or properly considers those questions and strikes the appropriate balance in the senate's discretion as the sole trier of impeachments. the rules in place here in the resolution are similar to the clinton proceeding in that regard, in the sense that this body has the discretion as to whether to hear from the witness live, if there are witnesses at some point, or not. but more fundamentally, there is

a preliminary question that has to be overcome, which is, they will have two hours -- four hours total, two hours for them -- to try to convince you, after the parties have made their presentation, which they will have 24 hours to do, as to whether or not the preliminary question of whether it shall be in order to consider and debate any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents. that was precisely the clinton rules. actually, stronger than the clinton rules, i'm sorry. and those rules, as i've indicated before, passed 100-0. we think that the resolution strikes the appropriate balance. and we urge that the amendment be rejected. i yield my time. >> thank you, counsel.

mr. schiff, you have 57 minutes. >> don't worry, i won't use it. i would say only come if there is any veneer left -- any veneer left to camouflage where the president's council is really coming from, the veneer is completely gone now. after saying we are going to have the opportunity to have a vote on these witnesses later, now they are saying no. no, no, you're going to have a vote on whether to debate having a vote on the witnesses. the camouflage was pretty thin to begin with. but it's completely gone now. what they really want, they want to get to that debate, that judge eric debate about whether having a debate on witnesses, and have you vote it down so you never actually half to vote to refuse these witnesses, although you have had to do that tonight. i don't see what that purpose serves, except, i suppose, to

put one more layer in the way of accountability. but the veneer is gone. all this promise about you're going to get that opportunity, it's just a question of when -- no, no, no. the goal is for you to never get a chance to take that vote, and what is more, the vote on this resolution is a vote that says you don't want to hear from these witnesses yourself. you don't want to evaluate the credibility of these witnesses yourself. maybe, just may be, let them be deposed, but you don't want to hear them yourself. you don't want to see these witnesses come in and put up their hand and take an oath. now, i don't know what the rules of these depositions are going to be. maybe the public isn't going to ever get to see what happens in those depositions. we released all of the deposition -- transcripts from our depositions, those secret

hundred person depositions, but we have no idea what rule they will adopt for these depositio depositions. maybe the public will see them. maybe they won't. may be able get to see them -- i assume you will get to see them. but at the end of the day, this is also a vote that you were going to have to cast that says no, i don't want to hear them for myself. no, i don't want to evaluate their credibility for myself. this is, after all, only a vote, only a case, only a trial about the impeachment of the president of the united states. you have a bank robbery trial, you have a trial over somebody stealing a piece of mail? you get live witnesses. but impeach the president of united states? no, we don't need to see their credibility. is that really where we are here tonight? is that with the american people expect of a fair trial? i don't think it is. i yield back.

>> mr. chief justice desk >> the majority leader is recognized. of the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. alexander. >> i. >> miss baldwin? mr. barrasso. spirit ricks plain what is happening now, again, yet another amendment they are voting on whether -- this one was about making modifications to the rules package that the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has put together about when you will vote on witnesses, how that will be a debated, whether that will be live, whether you will hear them deposed, i anticipate a party line vote, but you have been the master of all predictions tonight, so tell us what comes next. >> they do seem to be wearing down a little bit here. after that feisty debate over john bolton in the admonishment of the councils by chief justice

john roberts. this is going back to one of those technical amendments. i was one of the shortest debates we've had on any of the year i think nine amendments we've had so far, check my notes, losing track here. should take 5 minutes, so we should have the results soon. we are getting the sense a lot of senators are getting restless. a lot more walking around the chamber, going to the cloakroom. technically, they are not supposed to do that, and maybe that is what spurred everyone on, we had this big amendment of john bolton that was so important because the democrats kind of see him as witness eight number one. it shocked everybody out of their seats here, and that is why you had those exchanges and the chief justice going in and asserting himself. i should note, with john roberts, the precedent he was citing was a senate impeachment trial in 1905, a federal judge by the name of charles swain, and one of the senators objected to one of

the impeachment manager is in that case, using the word "pettifogging," and if you listen to john roberts and his admonishment of the council, he cited that precedent, and that is why "pettifogging" obey the word of the day on the word we all remember from the senate trial when it is all said done, shannon. >> shannon: okay. chad, standby, we will try to come back to you soon as the debate and vote is wrapping up in the vote session. they go through roll call one by one, doesn't take a really long time. in the meantime, want to bring in fox news contributor richard fowler and general caldwell. welcome to you both. >> good to see you shannon. >> shannon: i want to read something from congresswoman maxine waters. if midnight mitch and trump think all of us are going to be asleep during the trial, they have another thought coming because i and others will stay up all night long to hear the democratic team lay out the charges against this criminal enterprise in the white house. gianno, we are now in the middle of the night, i'm not sure how many americans are watching, but

we are here, and we will fill them in regardless of what happens tonight or tomorrow morning, but congresswoman waters is saying, listen, they're trying to bury this thing in the middle of the night. it doesn't matter, it won't work. >> a criminal enterprise she is pointing to come i would point to her side of the aisle. we don't how many people are watching, but this impeachment trial and process has the democrats will use any vehicle, missile, bullet, slingshot, whatever humanly possible to win an election without regard to facts or reason. they said the president was an imminent threat to our democracy, than it took a month. of the senate complained about the process, requested additional evidence. it appeared the democrats don't believe what they say, or they say whatever fits their narrative to that moment. based on what i've heard and read this entire process, i don't believe president trump did anything impeachable. however, though, as an american, i would like to see some

witnesses called. i'm in favor of what senator ted cruz said, which we do one for one. i would be interested in hearing from the whistle-blower. i would be interested in hearing from hunter biden income and 71% of republicans also have said that they would be interested in hearing from witnesses. we need to make sure this process is fair, and certainly aboveboard, and want to make sure the people get a chance to hear from everyone, to make sure that everyone has been fully vindicated. >> shannon: i'm sure democratic senators are not going to vote for a hearing from the whistle-blower. may be hunter biden. there is talk tonight they are considering doing that as a trade for john bolton, who said if the senate subpoenas him, he will testify. in the meantime come out to play sound bite a bit earlier tonight with pat cipollone, the white house counsel. here's what he said. >> they want to remove president trump from the ballot. they are asking the senate to attack one of the most sacred

rights we have as americans. a right to choose our president. in an election year. it's never been done before. >> shannon: richard, the president's defense team says this isn't just about 2016, which the left is very upset president trump was able to win back, it's about making sure he can't win 2020. how much of this is about the election are just getting rid of this president after he was duly elected? >> this is about a call on july 25th where the president to get ad states, according to the government accountability office, a bipartisan office, found that the president violated the law by withholdingy allocated funds. i'm willing to hear from hunter biden, i agree with gianno on that, even though he is not a material witness of the july 25th call, i think the republicans want to hear from him, they think he is a smoking gun, that's fine. i think the larger problem here is this. right, with the american people are asking for, whether you are a democrat or a republican, we want all of our elected officials to be aboveboard and

to follow the law. no man, no woman is above the law. the government accountability office says the president violated the law, and the job of the senate is to be a jury, and hear all the evidence, here all the facts, here all the witnesses, and then make a determination upon those facts. to block witnesses and have this debate we are having now, a debate about a debate about witnesses, not a trial we see on television, not a trial in a real court. want to hear from witnesses to talk about the facts of the case. >> shannon: it sounds like both of you are open to that. the gao opinion is a legal opinion, they chastised -- the obama administration did that, as well. it is something that happens to both parties. we understand we may be onto yet another amendment. the lead house manager, i think this -- let's listen a little bit to adam schiff to see what this latest amendment is about. >> we at least had 24 hours to

file our reply, and that is all we would ask for. in the clinton trial, if we're interested in the clinton case, they had 41 hours to respond to written messages. we are not asking for 41 hours, but we are asking for enough time to write a decent response to the motion. that is essentially it. and i would hope that we can agree, at least, on this. i reserve the balance of my time. >> mr. sekulow? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, members of the senate. it seems like tomorrow is a day off, according to your procedure. is that correct, mr. chairman? today is tomorrow, tomorrow is today. the answer is we are ready to proceed. we will respond to any motions. we would ask the chamber to reject this amendment. >> 59 minutes remaining, mr. schiff.

>> mr. chief justice, we yield back our time. >> thank you. the majority leader is recognized. >> mr. chief justice, i moved to table the amendment. >> is there a sufficient second? there is. at the clinical called a role roll. mr. alexander. >> shannon: okay, we are now onto the next amendment. let's bring chad pergram back on the hill. chad, got to ask you, this is a situation now, they were each given an hour to argue each side of the amendments they are putting forth, as far as i understand it, they're getting out to 3 minutes each. >> that was one minute. >> shannon: really moving through these. what is this amendment about? >> i'm trying to see if i have information coming in here, give me one second, checking both phones, shannon. the bottom line here, this was about the timing of filing briefs. >> shannon: okay, technical, procedural. >> yeah, i'm looking at both phones come i don't have anything. >> shannon: they've had a

number of attempted amendments that have to do with things like calling specific witnesses, john bolton, that was tabled meeting it doesn't get to a vote, meaning it is done for now. about documents, witnesses, all kinds of things. the last couple we have seen have been procedural in nature, about the rules, as mitch mcconnell the senate majority leader has proposed, about the timing on debates, whether the witnesses will be deposed or heard from live. the top house manager on this thing, house until chairman adam schiff, had an interesting take on his argument there, saying we need to hear from the witnesses live. they were deposed, obviously, during the clinton impeachment trial, parts of the videos released transcripts were released, he said part of that was done because there was a salacious material or discussions about sex, those kind of thing is, so there wasn't going to be live video. it seemed like he was making argument that that is not the case here comes in no danger and people testifying live that anyone will be offended or any kind of information that shouldn't be discussed in a

public forum. but it's funny because democrats have argued they want the exact process that clinton impeachment followed, but if these witnesses testify live in versus a deposition, that would be a break from the way this proceeded in the clinton impeachment. >> that's right, you might have an issue of classified information, intelligence information, that is another reason why in the mcconnell resolution they talked about talking to these witnesses offstage first, and then seeing if they wanted to bring them before the senate. similar in that model to 1999. all of these things echo a little bit. they are all not 100%, the circumstances are not 100% similar here. let me see -- again come on by to check my phone again, shannon. okay. yeah, this really doesn't say much, just this is the tenth amendment is where we are here. and we should note the fact that it was only about a minute of debate there, tells you about the importance of that

amendment. and they want to talk about getting documents and information from the pentagon or the state department, they burned almost the entire hour on the democratic side, when they are talking about bolton. and a subpoena from mick mulvaney. if they burned a lot of time there. forever something very technical like this, they will skip -- and it's also the hour of the night here. one council stood up and said "good morning." >> shannon: nearly 1:30 a.m. on the east coast as they work through this, they have been here all day. like you said, and they told us about the very strict rules on the senate floor during this, can't talk to each other, they can have water or milk at their desk, the only thing they can have to drink or eat. they can't use electronics. there's been discussion about having on apple watches, but they are really strapped into those seats to pay attention. one may have been caught by someone who was sketching the senate floor, the gallery, the chamber, may be taking a little snooze. and now, as we are hours and hours into this thing, you have

to imagine at some point, you are going to lose some of the folks you are hoping to make an argument to, realizing these amendments are almost uniformly going to be 53-47 partisan votes. >> that's right. everyone has gone 53-47. that the breakdown of the senate between republicans and the 47 senators who caucus with the democrats. if you're mitch mcconnell, he might say, this is a fate accomplish, why keep trying this? you talk to chuck schumer, he will say these are not dilatory tactics, and we think some of the proposals fly in the face of the clinton arrangement and it doesn't completely mirror the clinton arrangement, and therefore we are going to fight for this right now and make a point of it. if you wake up and read the papers in the morning are you look at the analysis on the morning news programs tomorrow, it's going to focus on the points that the democrats were trying to make, and saying, this is the problem that mitch mcconnell, this is the problem we have with mitch mcconnell's senate process. will keep in mind, of course, that was the argument that many

republicans, the president, and republican house members set about the impeachment process in the house. let's go back and listen to the final part of this boat. john roberts, the chief justice. >> the nays are 48. the amendment is tabled. speaker mr. chief justice, on behalf of senator vander -- >> shannon: are first break of a night where there wasn't a district we party line vote. i don't know who it was, but 52-48, that means somebody crossed over, probably -- it was pretty much a party line vote, looks like one republican moved over to vote yes. we don't know for sure, but this is the first vote we've seen that wasn't strictly 53-47, and it sounds like maybe they are offering now is going to be the last amendment of the night. chad, we will see if it is one of those, as recalled, sexier ones like forcing a subpoena on john bolton, one that is procedural and may go quickly. >> right, that is what we're trying to figure out. but listen in and see if the reading clerk gives us some information as to what this

abutment is about. >> likely to have evidence relevant to either article impeachment before the senate after order. >> the amendment is arguable by the parties article i was equally divided. manager schiff, a proponent or opponent of the vault motion? mr. cipollone, proponent or opponent? mr. schiff, you may proceed and reserve time for rebuttal. >> senators, this amendment would provide the residing officer would look to authorize the subpoena of any -- excuse me. the presiding officer shall rule two authorize the subpoena of

every any witness or document that a senator a party moves to subpoena, if the presiding officer determines that that witness is likely to have probative evidence relevant to either article impeachment. it's quite simple. it would allow the chief justice, it would allow senators, the house managers, the president's counsel, to make use of the expanse of the chief justice of the supreme court to decide the questions of the relevance of witnesses. and either party can call the witnesses. if we can't come to an agreement on witnesses ourselves, it would pick a neutral arbiter, that being the chief justice of the supreme court. if the chief justice finds that a witness would be probative, that witness would be allowed to testify. chief justice finds their testimony would be immaterial, that witness would not be permitted to testify. it still maintains the senate

tradition, if you don't agree with the chief justice, you can overrule him. you have the votes, you can overrule the chief justice and say you disagree with what the chief justice has decided. but it would give this decision to a neutral party. that right is extended to both parties. it will be done in line with the schedule that the majority leader has set out, not the schedule we want. we still think it doesn't make any sense to have a trial and then decide witnesses, but if we are going to have to do it that way, and it looks like we are, at least, let's have a neutral arbiter decide, much as he may load the task, whether a witness is relevant or a witness is not. we would hope, if there is nothing else we can agree on tonight, that we can agree to allow the chief justice to give us the benefit of his experience

in deciding which witnesses are relevant to this inquiry, and which witnesses are not. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. >> mr. sekulow? >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, and with no disrespect to the chief justice, this is not an appellate court. this is the united states senate paper there is not an arbitration clause in the united states constitution. the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. we oppose the motion -- the amendment. >> mr. schiff, you have 57 minutes remaining. >> well, this is a good note to conclude on, because don't let it be said we haven't made progress today. the president's counsel has just acknowledge for the first time that this is not an appellate court. i'm glad we have established that. this is the trial, not the appeal. and the trial ought to have witnesses, and the trial should

be based on the record from the court below because there is no court below, because as the council has just admitted, you are not the appellate court. but i think what we have also seen here tonight, not only don't want you to hear these witnesses, they don't want to hear them live, they don't want to hear them deposed. they don't want a neutral justice to weigh in, because if the neutral justice weighed in and says, you know, pretty hards not relevant here, pretty hard to argue that mick mulvaney is not relevant here, i just watch that videotape where he said he discussed this with the president, they are contesting it pretty relevant, what about hunter biden? hunter biden is probably the real reason they don't want the chief justice to have to rule on the materiality of the witness, right? what can hunter biden tell us about why the president withheld

hundreds of millions of dollars from the ukraine? i can tell you what he could tell us. nothing. what does hunter biden know about why the president wouldn't meet with president zelensky? he can't tell us anything about that. what can he tell us about the defense department documents or only be documents? what can he tell us about the violation of the law and withholding -- of course he can't tell us anything about that. because his testimony is immaterial and irrelevant. the only purpose and calling him is to succeed in what they failed to earlier in this whole scheme, and that is to smear joe biden by going after his s son. we trust the chief justice of the supreme court to make that decision. that he is not a material witness. this isn't like fantasy football. we are not making trades, or we

shouldn't be. we will trade you one completely irrelevant, immaterial witness that allows us to smear the the presidents opponent, in exchange ones that are really relevant, . is that a fair trial? if you can't trust the chief justice appointed by a republican president to make a fair decision about materialityt betrays the weakness of your case. look, i will be honest, there has been some apprehension on our side about this idea. but we have confidence that chief justice will make a fair and impartial decision, that he would do impartial justice. and it is something that my colleagues representing the president don't. they don't. they don't want a fair judicial

ruling about this. they don't even want one that you can overturn. because they don't want a fair trial. and so we end where we started. with one party wanting a fair trial, and one party that doesn't. one party that doesn't fear a fair trial, and one party that is terrified of a fair trial. i yield back. speak of the majority leaders recognized. >> mr. chief justice, i make a motion to table the adjustment and ask for the yeas and nays. >> a sufficient second? the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. alexander. miss paul the one. >> this will likely become i would predict, the toughest vote they take so far tonight. let's bring in chad pergram. we have the chief justice presiding over this trial in the senate. this amendment would essentially say they could appeal to the

presiding officer, either party, either side, to subpoena a witness, and then the presiding officer, the chief justice of the united states, will decide if that witness has probative value or not, whether they have information they can offer, whether they are relevant to the case. this puts a lot of people on the spot, because, as chairman schiff said, if you're voting no, you basically say you don't trust the presiding officer here, which is the chief justice sitting right here watching all of you vote. chad, i would say this is probably their toughest vote tonight. >> i would agree with you. that was the counter case that was made by jay sekulow, the president's counsel. with all due respect, mr. chief justice, if you would article one section three of the constitution it says that the senate has the entire power to try all impeachments here. and so, you might be on a little bit of an interesting constitutional cliff. there is the chief justice, part of the senate presiding, and may be potentially could make that call or not, or is it just up to

the senators? again, that is the issue. this is were adam schiff, the lead house intelligence -- chair of the intelligence committee, lead house impeachment manager, said we shouldn't have this idea of reciprocity. ted cruz, the republican senator from texas a couple of days ago put out this idea, saying well, if we want to have the bidens, you can have both an. schiff countered that in his argument a few minutes ago, when he said, this isn't fantasy football, we shouldn't be making trades. i will give you these three baseball cards for that. pete rose for a catfish hunter. it's nothing like that at all. they should decide the witnesses based on the merit of the witnesses, and if they can't come to an agreement, defer to the chief justice presiding, shannon. >> shannon: okay commode to bring back in richard fowler and gianno caldwell. richard, having covered the chief justice for more than a decade now, i feel like this is sort of exactly what he doesn't want to happen, because he has tried to be the presiding

officer as he is here. and we've gotten the impression that he wants to stay as uninvolved as possible. if you call and become i will do what i have to do, but i don't want to be seen as taking sides in this thing. if this amendment were to pass and they have the ability -- democrats or republicans -- to come to him and say we want you to subpoena someone, and it's solely within his value, that first decision about whether or not this witness is relevant and the subpoena happens, richard, he is now drawn in, whether he wants to be or not at that level. >> i think that is exactly right, shannon. chief justice roberts, he tries to be a political. he tries to stay above the fray and out of the politics. this amendment puts him square center in the politics. but to some a stand, because you have a senate so divided, there is a reason with the chief justice is an arbiter to say this is a material fact witness. this witness can provide information. they were connected to the july 25th call. fuss, they have reason to be

here. what makes this amendment interest in coming after the chief justice makes a ruling from the senate is still allowed to overrule him, right? i think this is going to be the hardest vote of the night for the vulnerable republicans, but it also speaks to the fact, if we are going to have a trial here come every impeachment from a senate has ever had in its entire history has had witnesses. the fact they're taking this boat, and if his boat fails, it would say the republicans are very clear, dead set on trying to make it as hard as possible to hear from fact witnesses in this impeachment investigation. >> shannon: gianno, we know the framework as mcconnell has set out for now provides a chance to vote on witnesses. we part a number of republicans say this was a no deal for them, a deal breaker, if they didn't have that opportunity to vote on witnesses after both sides made their cases. mcconnell had to include that. that's the way it was done in the clinton trial -- clinton impeachment trial. is not that there will be no chance on witnesses, but this does put everyone, gianno, on the spot, voting in front of the chief justice asked whether or

not they think he could be fair and trusted with these decisions. >> i disagree with richard's analysis, and i would say this probably is, for some, a difficult vote, but certainly not for all. the constitution is clear about who can determine the rules when it came to a senate trial for the removal of a president. with that being the case, there has already been a determination, like you said, shannon, to have opening remarks -- >> shannon: gianno, sorry to interrupt, but we're going to get the results of this boat here. >> have the is tabled. >> mr. chief justice -- >> shannon: a party line vote again, 53-47. let's listen to the senate majority leader now. >> it comes with the job. [applause] >> on scheduling, assuming there are no more amendments, the next vote will be on adoption of the resolution. and then all senators should

stay in their seats until the trial is adjourned this evening. >> senate resolution 483. there is a sufficient second? okay. the clerk will call the role. >> mr. alexander. >> shannon: okay, i want to go back to chad pergram. is this the vote on the overall mcconnell rules package? have we made it through all of the amendment's? what is happening right now? >> that is what it seems to be here. this is the actual framework and mitch mcconnell put out yesterday and then modified with some chicken scratches, hand written very hastily from alterations before they started the trial, started 18 minutes late. it's going to be interesting to see all these senators sit in their chairs. this is the admonition that was issued by the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, to say stay there until the chief justice leaves. usually, when you have the last

vote of the day, especially when it's 1:42 in the morning, they run out of here. they will plow over you like a running back in the nfl, trying to get to their car, get across the street. >> shannon: they call it the jailbreak. >> absolutely. they have to stay in their seats. mitch mcconnell sent a couple of days ago, he had the votes for this. he had to make the change because he might not have had the votes for this, and so they altered this, and again, to reiterate what the changes are, it means they can have evidence, and it can be contested later. but the key thing here is stretching out how to house impeachment managers on the president's defense counsel can present their case. they are still aligned with this idea of 24 hours for both sides, and then 16 hours downline for questions submitted by senators -- written questions -- through the chief justice. than they are going spread that -- spread that out over three sessions.

going back to that last vote, that was 53-47. we had one defection earlier. that was from susan collins, a republican from maine, but again, that was a party line vote. as you put it, and i agree with you, potentially the most challenging vote of the night, to say, maybe we should defer to the chief justice, if we can't come to an agreement on witnesses, or maybe there is an issue of witnesses being called. and they rejected that out of hand, 53-47, party line vote, shannon. >> shannon: seems like that is something that may have been discussed within the caucuses before they got going. and that there would be a potential vote to do something like this, to ask for the chief justice to take on an additional role. but it seems like republicans were clear and standing together, knowing they will have a chance to vote on witnesses later on. not saying it is not going to happen, there might not be subpoenaed on the line, but again -- i'm sorry, go ahead. >> is going to make one postscript. go ahead. >> shannon: i was just going

to say what we think we are looking at right now is the vote on the rules package, the mcconnell resolution. this is dictating how this thing is going to play out now. so this shouldn't take long. we again expect a party line vote. i can't imagine anyone else is faulting at this point. chad, remind us again how this sets things up? >> it means there would be three days, 24 hours total, probably ate our batches, for the house prosecutors -- >> shannon: for each side. >> that's right. and 24 hours for the defense. we were initially told them i not consume all 24 hours, and i was told later, maybe they would take all 24 hours, but that probably stretches things out and elongates this trial. probably at least until the end of next week. here is the other interesting thing. we had a lot of these very state debates early in the afternoon and the early evening, and then we got to about 11:00, but the time your program came on, things really heated up. this is really where they made

the sausage on this impeachment trial. i've seen it over and over again, late-night votes in the house and the senate, it gets to be late, people get cranky, people get weary, people get testy. we saw that on the floor earlier in the debate with jerry nadler and pat cipollone. for good or ill, this is the quintessence of government, and this is really when they make the sausage, and the most consequential debate of the day came at midnight, probably the second most consequential vote of the day came just before, came about 1:40, and now they are on to the actual vote that will determine the framework. all after midnight. that tells you a lot about the way this place functions, shannon. >> shannon: let me ask you this, chad. a number of senators in there, and putting senator bernie sanders, who has made it clear he would rather be in iowa and new hampshire. two weeks out from the caucus in iowa, which is incredibly important for optics, momentum, all kinds of things. if it looks like this is going to come as you said, stretch out as the timetable works through late next week, will they also do saturday?

>> that's what we've been told to come in if you look at the senate rules, it says every day, saturday, excluding sunday -- unless you were to have some sort of another agreement. the 1999 president clinton trial, as of said before, they had an agreement going in. here, what they've been debating all day is tr trying to get -- s vote, we're going to handle it like the clinton trial. again, that is an anomaly, if you compare to the clinton standard. they didn't really meet on saturdays. but here, they will stretch that out over three days, then say, all right, here's our deal, we will adhere to the senate impeachment rules, those impeachment rules were adopted in 1986, and that is what -- that is the gold standard for this impeachment trial. you mention people like bernie sanders and amy klobuchar and michael bennet from colorado, people running for the senate -- running for president -- they talk about iowa, new hampshire. it's been said, it used to be thought there were three tickets out of iowa. it's believed now there might be

four or five tickets out of iowa. so maybe if you are here in washington for a couple of days, not campaigning, it really doesn't matter that much, because the conventional wisdom is the folks to really understand iowa politics think, in this cycle, there are more tickets, so maybe you don't need to be back in iowa campaigning. but when you talk to the senators, they might not like to be out campaigning, but they ran for senate first before they ran for president, and they say this is my duty, i need to be here, and this is an important trial. i'm going to sit here and do my due diligence. >> shannon: it looks like as we are talking about him, senator bernie sanders looks like he might be walking around a little bit on the floor. you know, it looks like this is wrapping up. as you said, the senate majority leader told him to stay in their seats and we will get this wrapped up and then let you go and explain what happens next. but again, it looks like they are wrapping up the final votes on the overall procedural package for how this thing will actually now play out and proceed. don't foresee any defections either way, by party lines. it looks like this is the

package that we are mcconnell had to put together in order to hold his caucus together, with reassurances for those who want to be able to vote on witnesses, and have been publicly talking about that. very interesting to see, chad, you and i have covered a lot of things on capitol hill, but to see the entire senate locked down in their seats at 1: 40:00 a.m. eastern time, in silence , i can't recall ever seeing that. >> especially at this hour of the morning. let me walk through parliament early what we are dealing with. their something in the senate called the amendment tree, and sold -- keep in mind, consider the proposal by chuck schumer -- excuse me, by mitch mcconnell, the majority leader. that could be the trunk of the tree. than you have the amendment tree, and this is something they apply in the senate, they talk about it all the time, the first branch is an amendment, then you have a sprig coming off of that, a twig, that is another amendment, and you work backwards. that is what they have been doing all day, is working off of these amendments, these branches that chuck schumer has been proposing to this amendment

tree, and then you could come to the base, which is the trunk, and that is what they're considering right now, which is the base resolution proposed by mitch mcconnell to set up the framework for this trial going forward. >> shannon: chad, does this vote itself, some of the other votes have been quick from a run through call. should we expect pretty quickly that we will hear? >> i've noticed for a while, we were burning through, they would set the clock at 15 minutes, which is standard. and they would be done by about ten and a half minutes. now they are now done below 7 minutes. this is taking longer. i don't know if somebody is not in the chamber, or they just want to make sure everybody is there, or there is some bookkeeping. that kind of surprises me. usually you would be waiting for somebody else to come in, but you wonder if someone wandered off, or maybe -- maybe -- they want to make sure they have unanimity on this, because this is the key vote, this is actually on the essence of the mcconnell proposal. >> shannon: while you're waiting, gianno, i want to bring

you back in if you're still there. i didn't drop you to here with the chief justice was saying, but if you would like to continue on your thought as to where we are tonight, and i apologize if advance if i have to interrupt you again, gianno. >> no worries at all. the senate determines the framework, as we have been seeing. kick was interesting to hear so many complaints from people like nadler, representative nadler, or adam schiff, when, of course, they determined with the framework was owing to be on the house side, and of course, it was an unfair process for president trump. >> unanimous consent that the trial adjourned until 1:00 p.m. wednesday, january 22nd, and that this order also constitutes the adjournment of the senate. >> without objection, so order ordered. the senate is adjourned. >> shannon: okay. gianno. again, sorry we had to get to this. the real deal is done. if they have voted on this package. they will restart the trial at

1:00 p.m. eastern, less than 12 hours from now. in the meantime, the interim, the chief justice is going to leave, go home and get some breath, because he asked oversee two arguments starting at 10:00 a.m., it's now wednesday almost 2:00 a.m. on the east coast, but it looks like they've reached a deal on party lines, only one vote night in which susan collins, senator from maine, republican, crossed over, but it was not of consequence, as the amendment was tabled heading into a vote. now we have the framework, gianno, tomorrow -- i guess it is today -- today, later today, they actually get started. >> right. we still have to look out for these senators. mitt romney, susan collins, lisa murkowski, to see what they do throughout this process, as well. think about susan collins, who is in a very interesting reelection bid, and one who is going to be very considerate about having a fair process. so this is something i think a lot of folks are going to be watching, as we now have the framework in place -- in the

senate, we can be assured, at least a little bit more than we were in the house, that we are going to have a fair process moving forward. president trump will at least have his opportunity to defend himself. >> shannon: richard, as we just confirmed with chad, this will probably go into next week, maybe possibly next weekend, run saturday's, and that includes four senators who are now out on the campaign trail, but they are not, because they are here. we heard senator bernie sanders say, listen, i voted to uphold the constitution, this is my first and foremost duty. a lot of these democrats feel they have very strong surrogates, family members, other people out there. by the way, we will watch to see if any of the senator stopped to talk as they are making a run for a nearly 2:00 a.m. eastern here. but richard, a lot of these folks are going to not have to depend on their surrogates, their ground game, their volunteers and the key states like iowa and new hampshire. >> yeah, they will. here's the thing. every senator, all 100 of them, understand the importance of what it is to be a senator of the united states, this is one

of the response abilities as per the constitution, and it comes before any presidential campaign. amy klobuchar, bernie sanders, senator bennet from colorado, will all be in the chamber and be focused on this particular task, which is part of their job. and i think, to wrap up this day, shannon, i think it's been a very long day, i think what we saw today, we saw the democrats really try to present their case, and we saw a lot of information thrown at the american people. the republican side, on the president's council, we heard may many of the points we have heard previously in the house case, and as we move forward, for me, i'm going to look forward to see, do the republicans lay out this claim, the president said it was a perfect call. they proved this on the floor in the next two weeks that this wa, nothing wrong about the skull? that is what i'm looking to prove you're going how will the senators react to that information? >> shannon: chad, if you're still there, is that with after proof, that this was a a perfect call? or to the democrats have to prove that what they're alleging in the articles, that those

things are firs first of all impeachable offenses, and second, that the president is guilty of them? >> one of the main defenses we heard from the president's legal counsel today was not so much an actual defense, it was to undercut the legitimacy of the house impeachment managers. they impaneled this other group of seven house republicans who won't have a role speaking in the well, like pat cipollone, that people like doug collins, the top republican on the house judiciary committee, mark meadows and others, to go out on tv and make the case there. this is where they were talking about, well, adam schiff, he doesn't have the goods. they were criticizing schiff on a number of fronts, saying this is a hoax, some of that same, familiar language that we've heard repeatedly. that was more what we were hearing from the legal counsel in the well of the chamber, and also what we have heard from some of these surrogates. the metals and the jordans and the zeldins. to undercut anything that the

house impeachment managers are doing. not so much defending the president, because they think they made some inroads. again, that didn't move the meter when they started to have these depositions for impeachment back in october and stretching into the hearing in november and december. that seems to work for the house republicans. if it works, it ain't broke, don't fix it, that is what they were maintaining here, shannon. >> shannon: you are looking live now at a shot of the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. he has been smiling. he seems happy with the way things have gone tonight. he got the rules package past. none of the amendments were able to even get to the process of being voted on. he is smiling and waving as he heads out. we are watching a number of the senators, as chad was kind of talking about, called the jailbreak, when they head out to escape and head home. there are reporters standing by a federal day a comment from anyone, they don't want to miss it, as we are watching, as they flow out with staffers in tow, and head home to get some rest,

as they start back at this at 1:00 p.m. tomorrow. it'll be interesting to see if mcconnell or any of the other leaders, anyone decides to stop. if they do, we will let you know what they say. in the meantime, gianno, we have now set the stage where we have dueling cases. we are finally going to hear them. for people who did not pay attention, or you know, didn't watch all of the house hearings, depositions that we weren't able to see. a lot of this was done behind closed doors. now we did see the democrats begin to make their case today, although they were arguing about these amendments. they start in earnest tomorrow, probably have three days -- eight hours each, we understand -- but for a lot of american people, this may be the first time you actually hear .5. what the house democrats are going to allege about the president, play documents from witnesses. this is their chance to persuade the american public. >> this is their opportunity. they've had several in the last three or four months.

they've had three plus months of really laying out their narrative, as they've been doing, and we've seen a continuation of it today. rather, yesterday, and today, as well. i think what is going to be interesting as the american people are going to actually have a chance to hear from the republican side. what we saw in the house with adam schiff was holding hearings, he would oftentimes stop republicans from asking questions of witnesses, and of course, we don't know if we are going to have witnesses at this particular time, but we know it won't be this obstruction of questioning, or rather presenting of the case. i think this is going to be really good for the american people to hear the republican side of it, and that is why i think it is so important to do have witnesses, republicans present witnesses for this particular trial, and like i said, 71% of republicans have said they would like to see witnesses in this trial, and i think that is so important. that is why susan collins wanted

to vote to see justice roberts actually be able to determine how we would move forward in terms of the witnesses. i think that is important. to at least show that we are looking to be fair in every aspect of this trial. >> shannon: yeah, the president tweeting a few minutes ago, he says "making great progress in davos, he's at the world economic forum. tremendous numbers of companies will be coming or returning to the usa, hottest economy, jobs, jobs, jobs." this is all playing out here at home. he is making a case, and bragging about the u.s. economy, what great shape it is income a record low unemployment numbers, and all of the other things he says has happened under his administration and his guidance. he's making that case over in davos, staying aware of what we've got here at home is much as he can. >> i would say this. i would give the white house credit for getting the president out of town into davos, doing the business of the american people. the problem for the president being out of town, though, the problem with the republican case

at this point, as chad brought up very carefully, you've heard republicans try to go after impeachment managers. you've heard republicans go after the speaker of the house. but they have not been able to really go through the facts, line by line, and takedown the democratic arguments backed by fact. what happened on july 25th? why was the money withheld? they will have to do that in the next two weeks if they want to prove to the american people that there was -- indeed, no quid pro quo. >> shannon: chad, 20 seconds to wrap this up. >> tomorrow, 1:00, we get into the heart of the trial, with the house democratic impeachment managers start to make their case that'll occupy your television screens for the next three days, shannon. >> shannon: you are right. in the meantime, chief justice will go do his day job at the supreme court hearing cases in the morning. tonight, he did step in and admonish a couple of folks from both sides, saying remember where you are come the dignity of this institution. we continue to watch his role in this, as well. okay, that is it, they have

voted on the rules package. they are back at at 1:00 p.m. eastern tomorrow. in the meantime, we will have around-the-clock coverage. don't miss it tomorrow. bret baier and martha maccallum have everything you need to know. until then, good night. >> laura: i'm laura ingraham, this is "the ingraham angle." of course from washington tonight you are looking at the center for life where there is a debate that raises over the rules resolution supposedly governing how the impeachment trial of donald trump will proceed. for those who have jobs and haven't been glued to your television all day, let me catch you up on what matters and what you need to get from the proceedings if you didn't get it, we were tortured for you. the senate, led by majority leader mitch mcconnell, has so far voted to table, that means basically kill, four amendments offered by chuck schumer and are currently debating the fifth amendment.