good morning, america. breaking overnight, explosive conversation. the reported shouting match between president trump and house republican leader kevin mccarthy during the insurrection at the capitol. how it could figure into the impeachment proceedings as trump's legal team prepares to make its closing argument in his defense. >> it's a preposterous and monstrous lie. >> what's happening today and the timing for a vote. road map to re-open. the cdc laying out guidelines to get students back in the classroom. their color coded system. will it work? plus, the pandemic sparking bidding wars for homes. traffic jams for open houses. >> this is absolute insanity. >> what buyers are looking for. wild winter weekend. causing wrecks on the roadway,

at least 40 states under weather alerts this morning. the widespread dangerous weather hitting nearly every region of this country. plus, the arctic blast surging toward the south. our weather team right here tracking it all. superstar's apology. >> justin timberlake's mea culpa over how he treated britney spears and janet jackson addressing past regrets. what prompted his actions and what he hopes will come of it. and start your engines. fans revved up for nascar's return with the daytona 500. pitbull and michael jordan new co-owners of competing teams. all the story lines as nascar president steve phelps joins us live this morning. hey, good morning. on what is shaping up to be another historic day in american

politics, this could be the final day of donald trump's second impeachment trial. in just a few hours both sides are expected to make their closing arguments. the next step after that the senate could vote on whether or not to convict. >> hanging over it all a story that broke overnight. new revelations about a phone conversation that took place in the middle of the capitol riot between a top republican congressman and then president trump. the story sheds light on trump's alleged state of mind as his followers were staging an insurrection. >> and there is one note of unity this morning. overnight the senate voted unanimously to award capitol police officer eugene goodman with a congressional gold medal. if you remember, he steered a group of rioters away from the senate chamber during the insurrection. he also guided senator mitt romney to safety. but we begin with abc's rachel scott on capitol hill once again this morning with more on those new details on donald trump's conversation with kevin mccarthy. rachel, good morning to you. >> reporter: whit, good morning.

and these are striking new details coming just hours before final arguments are set to begin and it's raising important new questions about what former president donald trump knew and when. this morning as the historic second impeachment trial against former president donald trump heads for a final vote, explosive new details revealing the former president's state of mind as violent mobs breached the capitol. a source familiar telling abc news republican leader kevin mccarthy and donald trump got into a shouting match as the insurrection was unfolding. the source says mccarthy was on the phone with trump pleading with him to tell his supporters to stand down telling him he heard gunfire outside the house chamber. but trump allegedly responded, well, kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are. republican congresswoman jaime herrera beutler said mccarthy told her the details of that conversation and she voted to impeach trump in the house. in a statement sending this

message to the patriots who were standing next to the former president as these conversations were happening or even the former vice president, if you have something to add here, now would be the time. it comes just hours after trump's legal team mounted their defense insisting the former president is innocent. >> to claim that the president in any way wished, desired or encouraged lawless or violent behavior is a preposterous and monstrous lie. >> reporter: and dismissing the impeachment trial as an act of political vengeance. >> the hatred that the house managers and others on the left have for president trump has driven them to skip the basic elements of due process and fairness. >> reporter: but this morning we are learning that lawyer, david schoen, threatened to quit hours earlier. sources say tensions grew over how to use video clips like these in the trial. >> we're going to walk down and i'll be there with you. >> reporter: schoen did show up after a phone call with trump and the defense accused democrats of selectively editing

the former president's speech on january 6th by focusing on the word "fight." >> and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. >> reporter: trump's lawyers arguing democrats omitted the one time he used the word peacefully. >> i know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. >> reporter: but the house managers did address that, pointing out he used the word fight more than a dozen times. trump's team pushing back arguing that word fight is, quote, ordinary political rhetoric showing this 11-minute montage of democrats. >> get in this fight. >> and it is a fight that we're going to work to make sure continues. >> reporter: but democrats objected to that video saying this is entirely different. >> none of us are saying that to a mob on the day of the presidential vote certification, so i don't think it's apples to apples. >> reporter: and the house impeachment managers still have the option to call witnesses. it is an open question this morning. overnight a handful of democrats

have said that is one way to clear this all up but it would definitely slow down the time line of the trial and both sides have also signaled that they want to move quickly. dan? >> rachel, thank you very much. for more on this, let's bring in congressman adam schiff who is chairman of the house intelligence committee and was one of the democratic impeachment managers in donald trump's first impeachment trial. congressman, thanks for joining us. so when you were a manager in president trump's first impeachment trial, you pushed really hard for witnesses. why haven't the current managers pushed for witnesses like kevin mccarthy to come forward >> announcer: this is an abc news special report. good morning, we're coming on the air because there is breaking news in this trial. we're expecting to go to final

arguments, but there you see jamie raskin saying he is going to call at least one witness in this trial. let's hear what he said. >> last night, congresswoman jaime herrera beutler of washington state issued a statement confirming that in the middle of the insurrection, when house minority leader kevin mccarthy called the president to beg for help, president trump responded and i quote, well, kevin, i guess these people are more upset about the election than you are. needless to say, this is an additional critical piece of corroborating evidence further confirming the charges before you, as well as the president's willful dereliction of duty as commander in chief of the united states, his state of mind and his further incitement of the

insurrection. because this is the proper time to do so under the resolution the senate adopted, we would like the opportunity to subpoena congresswoman jaime herrera beutler and to subpoena her notes she made regarding what president trump told kevin mccarthy in the middle of the insurrection. we will be prepared to proceed by zoom deposition of an hour or less just as soon as congresswoman jaime herrera beutler is available and proceed to the next phase of trial including the introduction of that testimony. the congresswoman also stated she hopes other witnesses, other patriots as she put it, would come forward. if that happens we would appreciate the opportunity to take their depositions or subpoena other relevant documents as well. >> there you have it.

news breaking last night from congresswoman jaime herrera beutler, republican congresswoman from washington regarding a conversation she had with kevin mccarthy on january 6th where he described how he was trying to get president trump to call off the rioters on that day. she made a call for others who have information to come forward. congressman raskin saying they're going to subpoena her and her notes. now the response from mr. van der veen. >> that nancy pelosi called for. it should have been done already. it's a dereliction of the house manager's duty that they didn't. now at the last minute after a stipulation had apparently been worked out they want to go back on that.

i think that's inappropriate and i ammp improper. we should close this case out today. we have each prepared our closing arguments. we each -- i mean i had eight days to get ready for this thing. we each had those eight days equally together to prepare ourselves. the house managers need to live with the case that they brought. if they don't, please in all fairness and in all due process, do not limit my ability to discover, discover, discover the truth. that would be another sham. that's the president's position, my position. >> the president's attorney,

michael van der veen, suggesting perhaps this trial could go on for sometime if the majority votes to add one witness. they should add more and give him the ability to discover witnesses. >> first of all, this is the proper time we were assigned to talk about witnesses. this is completely within the course of the rules set forth by the senate. nothing unusual about this. we've done an exceedingly thorough job with all the evidence available. last night this was breaking news and it responded directly to a question being raised by the president's defense counsel, saying that we had not sufficiently proven to their satisfaction -- although i think we've proven to the american people that the president after the breach took macplace was no working on the side of defending the capitol, but pursuing his political goals. the information that came out

last night from the congresswoman, apparently backed up by notes she had taken, will put to rest any lingering doubts by the president's counsel who now says he wants to interview hundreds of people. there's only one person the president's counsel needs to interview, and that's their own client and bring him forward as we suggested last week. a lot of this is matters are in his head. why did he not act to defend the country after he learned of the attack? why was he continuing to press the political case? this piece of evidence is relevant to that. finally, i was -- i was a little mystified by the point about the article of impeachment which i referred to. the dereliction of duty is built into the incitement charge obviously. if the president of the united

states is out inciting a violent insurrection he's obviously not doing his job at the same time. just like if a police officer is mugging you, yeah, he's guilty of theft and armed robbery, whatever it might be, but he's also not doing his job as a police officer. it's further evidence of his intent and what his conduct is. >> if i may? >> counsel. >> first of all, it's my understanding it's been reported that mr. mccarthy disclaims the rumors that have been the basis of this morning's antics, by the rumors that are the basis of this entire proceeding. this entire proceeding is based on rumor, report, innuendo. there's nothing to it. they didn't do their work. just like what happened with mr. lee, some supposed conversation that happened and

they had to withdraw that, back off of that because it was false. it was a false narrative. it is one article of impeachment. yeah, they threw a lot of stuff in it in violation of rule 23. rule 23 says you cannot combine counts. it's the defect in their entire case. it's one of the four reasons why you can vote to acquit in this case. jurisdiction, rule 23, due process and the first amendment. they all apply in this case. let me -- let me take my own advice and cool the temperature in the room a little bit. it's about the incitement. it's not about what happened

afterwards. that's actually the irrelevant stuff. that's the irrelevant stuff. it's not the things that were said from the election to january 6th. it's not relevant to the legal analysis of the issues that are before this body. it doesn't matter what happened after the in the capitol buildi. incitement is a point in time when the words are spoken and the words say implicitly say, implicitly say, commit acts of violence or lawlessness. we don't have that here. so, for the house managers to say we need depositions about

things that happened after, it's just not true. but -- but, if he does, there are a lot of depositions that need to happen. nancy pelosi's deposition needs to be taken. vice president harris' deposition absolutely needs to be taken. not by zoom. none of these depositions should be done by zoom. we didn't do this hearing by zoom. these depositions should be done in person, in my office, in philadelphia. that's where they should be done. i don't know how many civil lawyers are here, but that's the way it works, folks. when you want somebody's deposition, you send a notice of deposition and they appear at the place where the notice says.

that's civil process. k i don't know why you're laughing. it is civil process. that's the way lawyers do it. we send notices of deposition in the -- >> i would remind everybody that we will have order in the chamber. during these proceedings. >> i haven't laughed at any of you. there's nothing laughable here. he mentioned my client coming into testify. that is not the way it's done. if he wanted to talk to donald trump, he should have put a subpoena down like i'm going to slap subpoenas on a good number of people, if witnesses are what is required here for them to try to get their case back in order. which has failed miserably for four reasons. there is no jurisdiction here.

there has been no due process here. they have completely violated and ignored and stepped on the constitution of the united states. they have trampled on it like people who have no respect for it. if this is about nothing else, it has to be about the respect of our country, our constitution and all of the people that make it up. so i ask, when considering or voting on this witness matter -- and to be clear, this may be the time to do it, but, again -- everybody needs to know -- the back room politics, i'm not into it all or adept to it neither. but there was a stipulation. they felt pretty comfortable after day two until their case

was tested on day three. now is the time to end this. now is the time to hear the closing arguments. now is the time to vote your conscious. thank you. >> mr. raskin. >> we were involved in no discussions about the stipulation. i have no further comment. thank you, mr. president. >> there you have it. this is likely to go to a vote right now. >> i would remind -- i would remind everybody, as chief justice roberts noted on january

21, 2020, citing the trial of carl swain, all parties must refrain to using language not conducive to civil discourse. i listened to chief justice roberts say that. i agreed with him. i thought tfor our colleagues i would repeat it as i did last night. the question we have before us is whether there's an order to consider and debate under the rules of impeachment any motion

to subpoena witnesses or documents. >> this is a majority vote. >> the ayes and nays have been made. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. baldwin. >> aye. >> mr. bennett. mrs. blackburn -- >> this is likely to be a party line vote. as it's being conducted we'll keep an eye on it. we want to give everyone at home what's at play here. it's about a conversation kevin mccarthy had with the president on january 6th. according congresswoman jaime herrera beutler, she said mccarthy told the president -- his recounting -- you have to hold them. you need to get on tv right now.

get on twitter. call these people off. going on the president responded. kevin, they're not my people. the president was saying these are antifa protesters. mr. mccarthy they're your people. call them off. the president said i guess these people are more angry about the election than you are. michael van der veen said it's all hearsay. kevin mccarthy is disavowing it. kevin mccarthy spoke to us as it was unfolding on january 6th. let's listen. congressman, president trump has not condemned this or called the protesters to step down. can you convince him to come out? will you do that? >> as i was stuck within my room, i called the president. explained to him what was going on. i know he put a tweet out. i begged him to go talk to the

nation. don't do it by twitter. i know that he's doing a message right now. i called back. this has got to stop. i know a message is coming out. >> you believe the president will be speaking about this. when you say a message is coming shortly, what does that mean? a video taped message? >> that's what i believe. i just called back again to him. that's what's taking place right now. >> so there you have it. kevin mccarthy speaking to us on january 6th. let me bring in jon karl for more on this. the fact of a presidential phone call with kevin mccarthy has been widely reported and not denied by leader mccarthy. >> reporter: not at all, george. you had him in real time talking about his phone call. note it was phone calls. he had at least two calls with the president while the riot was going on. one while he was in his office

and one while he was being evacuated out of the capitol to a safe location outside of capitol hill wear the congressional leadership was brought. george, we see what jaime herrera beutler said about this. i can tell you from another source familiar with what kevin mccarthy said about these conversations it is exactly consistent with what congresswoman jaime herrera beutler said. furthermore, when kevin mccarthy spoke with the president literally in the car that was evacuating him to the safe location the conversation became very heated. mccarthy was -- mccarthy told people he was very angry with the president. he said who do you think you are talking about? mccarthy told the president he just heard gunfire outside the house chamber and that he had

been evacuated, and that the president needed -- donald trump, former president, needed to get out there and call his people off. >> jon, let me interrupt you. mitt romney voted yes. a 50/50 vote would fail because the vice president, kamala harris, does not vote. mitt romney, at least one republican and now a second republican as well. i want to go to rachel scott. looks like we're going to get witnesses. >> reporter: it does, george. senator susan collins and lisa murkowski voted yes. all this coming after we heard from democrats last night, senator whitehouse saying the witnesses would clear up the timeline here and they would be open to it. now they're deciding to move forward. you have senator minority leader mitch mcconnell who came out minutes before this trial came into session as we were preparing to head into the final

day of arguments here and he said he does plan to vote to acquit. now it is a question of whether or not those other handful of republican senators do here. they need 17 to convict. right now these handful of republican senators we've been keeping our eye on over the last couple days, they're proving to make the difference here. you have a handful voting to move forward with witnesses. >> i want to bring in our legal team. kate shaw, traumatic twist in this trial. it may not change the possibility of conviction in the end, but what -- actually hold on. they're about to announce the vote. then i'll come back to you. let's go back to the floor. we are quite certain there's a

majority here. we'll get the exact numbers right now. you heard congressman raskin say he wanted a deposition with the congresswoman by zoom. subpoena her documents as well. he very significantly left open the possibility they would request further witnesses as well. >> kate shaw, we'll keep an eye on the floor. of course this is a significant difference -- we just heard the gavel. >> senators voting in the affirmative baldwin, bennett,

blumenthal, booker, brown, cantwell, carper, casey, collins, kuhns, cortez, duckworth, durbin, feinstein, gillibrand, hickenlooper, cane, kelly, king, klobuchar, leahy, m mancin, murkowski, murray, ossoff, peters, reed, romney, rosen, sanders, schumer, shehenn, cinema, warnock, whitehouse, widen. in the negative blackburn, blunt, boseman, braun, burr,

cassidy, cornyn, co ton, capper, cruise, ernst, fisher, graham, hawley, i am of, kennedy, langford, lee, lumis, marshal, mcconnell, moran, paul, portman, risch, rubio, scott of florida, scott of south carolina, shelby, sul sullivan, toomey, tuberville, wicker, young. mr. president. >> i would like to change my vote to aye. >> mr. graham, aye. >> that could be significant right there.

that was one of the president's allies lindsey graham saying he wanted to change his vote. i presume that will give him some power. >> is that a vote on one witness or many witnesses? >> debate is not allowed on the vote. >> it's not debate. mr. president, it's a point of inquiry. >> that is -- i'm advised that is not allowed during the vote. >> some confusion on the senate floor in the wake of this vote to include witnesses in the trial. four republicans susan collins, lisa murkowski, mitt romney and

ben sasse. pat toomey did not vote for witnesses. neither did bill cassidy of louisiana. >> it is established senate procedure that we always follow. >> as we're listening, i want to bring in heidi heitkamp. give us a sense of what we're watching on the senate floor and what this means. >> senator graham would do that because, in order to make a motion to reconsider this vote, you have to vote in the affirmative. that's why he waited for the vote count. now there will be tremendous pressure on the republicans who voted for witnesses to get them to reverse their vote because a 50/50 vote the motion fails. >> hard to imagine at this point

they would switch. would they? >> it's really -- i mean, the pressure that you're going to feel when they're saying let's end this. we don't have the votes to do it. you can vote to impeach or remove him or sanction him in this proceeding. let's just end it now because it's hurting the republican brand. it's hurting the senate. our ability to move forward. i can just see the arguments. you're going to see tremendous pressure on those republicans who voted yes on this vote and that's why graham switched his vote so they can excerpt that pressure. >> right. >> then they're concerned, george, about additional witnesses. what if this just rolls out of control? that's the argument they'll be making. >> one of the things they could do if there was a motion to reconsider, graham could write all the requests for witnesses the president's team would have and kind of turn this into a

mutual destruction scenario. >> yeah. well, you would only consider this vote and revote on a motion for witnesses. when that fails on a straight party line vote, that would end the trial and we would go immediately into closing arguments. the one thing i want to say, george, this argument from the president's quite incompetent lawyer that somehow in a trial you can't call witnesses is amazing. if everybody thinks about the impeachment as the indictment, it sets forward a document. everyone knows if you didn't consider it during the indictment process, it doesn't foreclose it from being considered during a trial. if you do a trial analogy this isn't unusual. >> this isn't a criminal trial and that falls apart in many respects. >> on the question of whether it shall be an order to consider and debate under the rules of

impeachment any motion to subpoena witnesses or document, the motion is agreed to by a vote of 55-45. majority leader? >> mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. >> call the roll. >> ms. baldwin? >> you saw the majority leader chuck schumer ask for a quorum call to give the senators a chance to convene and work with the house managers to figure out how they'll move forward. let's go to barbara comestock. you know congresswoman jaime herrera beutler fairly well. tell us about her. >> she's one tough member. it's very smart for them to call her. she's very credible. she is a leader on health care issues. she had three kids while in

congress, one with special needs. she was one of a dozen who opposed repealing obamacare. we were all heavily lobbied and she stayed the course and was one of our tough allies on that. i know this is a move of conscious on her part, as was her vote for impeachment. i'm confident with her being honest and that she will be a very effective witness and when you see the trump attorneys consistently attack women and minorities, attacking her as i imagine they will, isn't going to intimidate her and will be another bad move for republicans publicly, even if it doesn't change any of the senators' minds. >> barbara, how about that possibility that heidi heitkamp raised that lindsey graham will use his rights to try to get a new vote and convince those four

republicans who voted for witnesses to change their mind? >> i don't think that will work. i mean, i think it's -- at this point given how everyone signalled how they're going to vote and they won't convict donald trump, i think it's still important to get the information out to the public every day that this kind of news is out there is harming republicans. donald trump continues to be divisive force in the country, as well as the party. this is important information to get out there. i understand why republicans wouldn't want it out there, but it is and it's important information and i think that they will stay with that because those folks have already been as sailed by the trump team anyway. intimidating them isn't going to work. >> let me bring in kate shaw. let's walk everybody through the procedure of what witnesses

would mean in this trial. >> well, you know, it proceed a few different ways. it sounded from manager raskin we're not talking about hearing from witnesses testifying on the floor, rather zoom depositions of at least congresswoman jamie her ra butler, that the team would review notes she took after hearing about this conversation between kevin mccarthy and former president trump and maybe there would be other individuals subject to zoom depositions as well. maybe those videos would be played in the senate or maybe they would form the basis for additional argument. that part we don't have much guidance on. >> let me just stop you there. you just heard there was a point of inquiry from a senator asking what did we just vote on. did we vote on one witness or documents? >> it's all moving fast. it seemed like we would hear

closing arguments and a vote. obviously this trial has taken a turn. that's because we have this new information from congresswoman jaime herrera beutler and other reporting that broke in the last 12 hours. in some ways we're here revisiting the questioning of w w witnesses because of the way president trump's team answered questioned yesterday. there was an important question about what the president knew and what he did during the siege itself. the president's lawyers really didn't answer that question. they pointed to one tweet and said the house managers should have done more investigation. in some ways the house managers picked up that invitation saying that's true. we don't know what the president knew and what he did during the hours of siege. maybe they have decided it's more important to run that to ground than to bring this to a

speedy resolution. >> let me bring in terry moran. appears the house managers called the bluff of the president's team. >> they did. what we heard from michael van der veen is a desperate lawyer. his tone was outrage and pounding the table. that is a panicked lawyer. he does not want this evidence in. it's obvious. i don't think he did himself any favors by saying the constitutional process of the impeachment of a former president in the united states senate should proceed like personal injury lawsuits in philadelphia where people get deposed in his office. he's going to have to remember where he is i think. on the question on what they just voted on and the organizing resolution, the rules passed for this impeachment, the question at this point is should any witnesses be called basically. on the question of whether it shall be in order to consider and debate any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents. that's the vote we just saw. the next thing is if the senate

agrees to allow either party to subpoena witnesses, then what happens is if such testimony is ordered by the senate any related matters are to be determined by subsequent resolution of the senate. now they have to horse trade what happens next. >> remember, of course, let's stay on this terry moran, there's big negotiations going on. every impeachment trial as brand new rules, all subject to negotiation and compromise. >> that's right and that negotiation resulted in this process because as we've been saying neither party wants a long drawn out maximum destruction trial. both parties have interests. the republicans don't want to dwell on this incident that long. democrats want to get on with president biden's agenda. trials have a logic of their

own. they cry out where there are gaps for evidence. if a witness steps forward and i have it and the people running the trial walk away from that, it just doesn't strike us with our hundreds of years of history of doing this as a real trial, as fair. they have a logic of their own. that's withat we're seeing happ. >> dan abrams, i can't help think about the year ago when there was a vote on witnesses, republicans defeated it after that last information came from john bolton. it shows the difference a majority can make. >> absolutely. i didn't think there were going to be witnesses called in this proceeding. i think most didn't expect there would be witnesses called. i think the arguments that were made mattered. i think that the level of vitriol, the attacks on the house managers, the claims that

the house managers were manipulating videos, essentially engaging on a fraud on this impeachment court, the comments about voter fraud from the trump team, i think all of that together probably ignited these house managers. yes, is the reporting that occurred overnight, that's a part of it. i think what happened yesterday led the house managers to be more willing to say, you know what, if they're going to go down that road, if they're going to play that game, we'll call witnesses. >> it's as simple as one of the arguments they were making is the democrats could have done this earlier. it was mitch mcconnell, the senator republican leader at the time, who would not consider the impeachment trial while they had the majority. >> right, which makes this argument bizarre and circular, this idea of sort of why wasn't

the impeachment trial held earlier and this notion that you can't then try a former president. i mean, think about that. to take it to its extreme, any senate in power could then delay the impeachment proceeding as long as they want to try to avoid any sort of trial. now in this case there was an agreement on the date. i think the democrats wanted a little extra time here as well. but, that is one of the arguments that i certainly think the house managers want to attack. >> dan, thanks. cecilia vega, president biden has not wanted this trial to go on forever. there wasn't anyway he could stand in the way of this request. >> reporter: no, and we haven't heard from anybody in the biden camp yet, george. he's away at camp david for the first time. this was a huge debate leading up to this trial, whether there would be witnesses or not. president biden himself made it very clear -- we've been talking

about this ad nauseam. they wanted this to be a short trial. everybody in the senate said, look, this will prove the senate can walk and chew gum at the same time. we can work on passing his nominees. we can work on passing covid relief. so they had this decision early on to not call witnesses. that was basically the acknowledgment leading into this. they never outright said they would and didn't rule out entirely. they said we would be open to anybody in trump's inner circle coming forward and testifying. the book was closed on calling witnesses. you're right, i don't think anything from the biden -- anything the biden world would say right now would make a difference if they go forward with witnesses. the democrats have to do this. >> let me bring in jon karl as well. jon, this is starting to get into dangerous territory for the president and his team. there had not been direct

testimony about what was going on inside the white house on that day. we saw in the presentation of the president's team they used the word reportedly again and again, trying to cast doubt on what we were hearing about what was going on inside the white house. saying it was essentially hearsay. witnesses and documents could change that. >> reporter: yeah. it seems that congresswoman jaime herrera beutler could be the first of many, george. the question is who was with the president during those hours when we really can't determine what he was doing as that riot was going on. there was a direct question posed by susan collins during the question period of when the president knew that his vice president was in danger. i mean, you could certainly subpoena or bring in senator tuberville to talk about his phone conversation. you could subpoena his phone records to see if that conversation happened before, as

it seems like it did, before the president tweeted that vice president pence did not have courage. it raises the question of subpoenaing mark meadows, trump's chief of staff, or kevin mccarthy. if you're going to be talking to congresswoman jaime herrera beutler, why not go right to the source, kevin mccarthy? come on in a deposition, do what he did with you on live television, but with further detail about his conversations with the president. when exactly were those conversations? those records are easily knowable and what did the president say to him? what was he telling the president about what was going on? i'm told kevin mccarthy mentioned specifically the gunfire he heard right outside the house chamber. that gunfire happened, you know, at a time when the president still wasn't doing anything to appeal for calm or to instruct

his supporters to leave the capitol, to stand down. there are a lot of questions and there are a lot of questions that are unanswered now, but are easily answered with document requests and with interviews. >> thank you, jon. i want to bring in sara fagen and talk about the pressure being put on the republican senators to change their vote. we see lindsey graham of south carolina saying in a tweet if you want to delay, it will be a long one with many, many witnesses. obviously that is not something these senators have wanted. >> yeah, that's the case. for republicans and i think democrats too, they had wanted this to be over quickly. but, if you're going to start to go down the road of witnesses and uncover what was happening inside the white house and what conversations were taking place, then you're -- then it's a different calculation. it gets beyond the process

argument of constitutionality and goes into facts that get harder and harder to deny and walk away from voting to convict. we saw those five senators vote to allow witnesses. that to me seems like the number that would vote to convict. for republicans now we'll see when witnesses come forward. you're right there will be more witnesses. there's almost going to have to be at this point. this trial will drag out. it's not good for republicans from a political perspective. it's maybe not good for joe biden from a policy perspective. sara, thanks. i want to bring in congressman adam kinzinger. congressman, what do you know about this phone call with kevin mccarthy and congresswoman jaime herrera beutler? >> i don't know more details than have been reported. i have heard of this for the

last few days. i heard parts of it prior, but it just kind of disappeared in terms of people knowing about it. i think it's important it comes out now. i think it's important we get answers to the question. what was the president doing and saying during the insurrection? i think that is key. if it takes witnesses to do it and it takes more time, that's what we have to do. >> do you have the sense there are potentially other witnesses in the house, in your party, in your conference who could offer information on what was happening that day? i've been told -- i've read that leader mccarthy was not hiding his discussion with the president in any way. >> yeah, no, he wasn't. i hadn't heard the details of the conversation particularly. it was very clear he was making it very clear he had a conversation with the president and it was very heated. i can't imagine it would be

heated if the president was aggressively trying to do everything he could to stop the insurrection proactively. that's an important question. obviously there were people around the president, people around the vice president that i think probably would have information. the key here is, look, we need answers to this. we need to move on from this chapter in our history, but we can't do that until we have accountability. there's a lot of people who know things. now's the time to come forward. >> how do you explain the republican majority in the senate? it appears there may be four votes to commit, collins, murkowski, romney and sasse. if most republican senators agree that at some level you have to get beyond former president trump, what's the best way to do it?

>> i think the best way to do it is to have real accountability, not just for the trump era, but particularly the last couple months and especially on january 6th. that's the only way to move on. is it a country first gop or trump first gop? at the moment the trump first wing has a lot of power. the people that put that oath to the country above anything else, that's growing. they need to come forward. i don't question anybody's vote on impeachment or conviction. this is a moment where you have to make that with all the information you can and not just because of politics. >> congressman, thanks for your time. i want to bring in chris christie. chris, you heard congressman kinzinger on the issue of accountability. weigh in on that and this vote for witnesses. >> george, as you know i was the united states attorney for seven years and before that a private practice prtrial lawyer. the first time i ever went to

argue in court, i argued a motion in court and i apparently -- although i was too green to know it, was winning by a lot. i just kept making my argument, despite the fact that the judge was giving me signals that it was over. after i won it, the judge knew i was a brand new lawyer. took me outside this courthouse in jersey city, new jersey and asked me to look at what it said above the courthouse. when you stand well, stand still. that's what the president's lawyers didn't do yesterday. you know, it was very clear that there were not votes for witnesses before they stood up, not votes sufficient votes for conviction, yet they decided to pursue a scorched earth policy which was obviously once again meant for an audience of one and now they've bought themselves this. you know, there's no doubt in my mind that, you know, you have to have smart lawyers.

you have to have a client willing to listen to those smart lawyers. in this instance i don't think you had either. >> i wanted to ask you about that. you're a long-time friend of the president. i presume he's asked you to be his attorney at various times in the past and you've declined. it appears the president chooses attorneys who will give him what he wants rather than their best judgment. >> or sometimes he chooses attorneys based on the merits. then when they don't agree with him, he fires them. a lot of lawyers have seen that play out over the last number of years. that led a lot to be reluctant to take on this task. you saw a group of lawyers from south carolina who quit before the trial. the fact is lawyers' jobs are to tell hard truths to their clients. what happened yesterday is what caused today. let there be no doubt that

that's what happened. it is an absolute abomination of lawyering that went on yesterday, but the lawyers can't be blamed themselves, just by themselves because i suspect -- i don't know. i suspect that, you know, this is what the client wanted to see yesterday, maybe even more than what he saw. so, you know, that's why this is going on. by the way, the idea of this dragging on hurting joe biden's policy agenda, let me tell you that's a fallacy. joe biden's policy agenda will be judged up or down. >> you could argue as rahm emanuel was arguing yesterday, the contrast actually serves president biden. he keeps doing his job as the focus on what was happening before he took office, shows how different the two presidencies may prove to be. >> that's what i was about to get to. i never believed this was a

negative for biden. any time you're talking about the riot that happened on capitol hill on january 6th and what role the president and the president's aides played in that, i don't understand how that's bad for joe biden. i don't think it's great for the country. politically for joe biden, i don't know how you could see it as being a problem. >> then, picking up on that point about what was going on inside the white house on january 6th, i remember talking to you on january 6th. you talked about trying to reach president trump in the white house on january 6th. he wouldn't take your call. you had a sense of what was happening inside there. >> well, just there was -- it was obvious there was chaos there, george. i tried a number of different ways to get to the president, and none of those people were even answering their telephones. >> your message was the same as kevin mccarthy's.

>> yes, and the same as kellyanne conway. all of us had the same message. kellyanne and i talked that day about what advice we were going to give to the president. we both decided we would separately give the same advice because it was the right advice, which is you have to stand up and put a stop to this and tell those people on live television you have to leave the capitol now and let congress resume its work in peace. that's the message i know kellyanne tried to deliver, the one i tried to deliver and ultimately one that was not received well by the president. >> we've also heard reports from senator ben sasse about that too saying he was talking to people inside the white house on that day who said president trump was walking around and couldn't understand why everyone else wasn't as excited as he was about what was going on at the

cap capitol. the president's lawyers dismissed that as hearsay. the minute you go inside the white house with subpoena power, it might not be a pretty picture for president trump. >> this is what i meant by when you stand well, stand still. you're winning and you decide instead of taking a knee at the end of the game, you want to throw the ball downfield recklessly. you don't know what's going to happen. that's what they did yesterday in my opinion as a trial lawyer. that's what they did yesterday. now they've re-opened it. i don't know if that will lead to a difficult result, but at this point, if i were prosecuting this case, i would be calling every witness i possibly could to describe what was going on in the white house and what the president's actions or inactions were. once you open the door to witnesses, then i think you have to call all the witnesses that you believe have relevant

information on what was going on on january 6th and in the days beforehand. it looked as if this was a senate that was prepared to let this go on with no witnesses. but now, because of the way they conducted their defense yesterday, a defense i would argue to you was completely unnecessary. if it were me, george, i would stood up, made the constitutional argument about whether or not this was an appropriate forum despite the fact the senate voted the other way, and i would have said the defense rests and sit down. then it would have gone to a vote and we would have been done with this. instead now they're buying themselves how many hours of witnesses and how uncomfortable it may be. >> want to go back to capitol hill.

rachel scott there. we know there's frantic huddling on both sides of the aisle. >> reporter: confusion and outrage inside the senate chamber happening right now. to be clear here, george, most of these senators thought they were going home after today. they thought we were headed into the final arguments. so, when lead house impeachment manager jamie raskin made this request senator lindsey graham was spotted shaking his head. senator ron johnson upset at senator mitt romney who voted to move forward with witnesses, at one point blaming him, saying blame you. then you have these conversations where senators are huddled on the floor. you have senator lindsey graham huddled with senator lee, johnso johnson and cotton. you have a senator mcconnell staffer huddling with senators. the question was what did trump

know and when did he know it, and i spotted senators murkowski and some are already made up their minds. >> rachel scott, thank you. it's just after 11:00 on the east coast. dramatic twist in the senate trial this morning. a call for new witnesses, majority vote for new witnesses based on account from jamie herrera butler last night talking about a conversation ke kevin mccarthy had with president trump on january 6th. here is her accounting of the conversation. mccarthy to the president, you got to hold them and get on the tv, you need to get on twitter and call these people off. the president responding, kevin, they're not my people. the president at the time was saying these were antifa protesters on the floor. mccarthy saying yes, they are. they just came through my w windows and my staff is running for cover. ye