>> chuck, we got joyce to make sure that this pomp is not viewed as odd or discordant but glued to you. >> it needs to beer pus gotten under his skin. >> and we are going to keep watching you. let's quickly thank everyone. >> nicole, thank you very much. as we have been saying, these are the live pictures at capitol hill where we go through a formality here. the speaker of the house nancy pelosi will speak at a ceremony to formally sign the house resolution to trance in it articles of impeachment to the senate and names the seven impeachment managers that will be the individuals that will help prosecute the house's case in the senate's trial which is expected to start in full essentially on tuesday. there will be some preliminary

organizational things to begin as early as tomorrow and the process of sending the articles to the senate is marked with ceremony, pomp and circumstance of sorts. there is some rules here. they will be physically walked across the congress from the house to the senate and we then expect an announcement that the articles have been delivered and then as we watch the proceedings untold, there are two developments in the impeachment case itself. in some ways feel as if should trump this in a moment or be a bigger part of it. it is new evidence from one of the fixers. that gentleman will be on with rachel in a few hours and not mentioned it's -- 19 days, that's what it says, from the iowa caucuses. joining me is garret haake,

contributor jon meacham. on set with me, "hardball" himself, chris matthews and michael steele also a msnbc contributor. garret, explain to me where the rules of this ceremony come from. these are part of the senate rules on how a trial is to be conducted? >> reporter: the house rules gom governed everything but the house managers have to say we would like to present the articles to you. they don't actually hand it over to the senate tonight. the senate says thanks, come back tomorrow. tomorrow morning you'll have the managers come all the way out on to the senate floor to read the articles of impeachment and triggers the chief justice and the formal rules that we have been talking about for a couple days leading into this process. and if i can just say on the question of formality and pomp here, i think some of that is important to the arguments.

we have paid attention to this up to this point and one group who has not is u.s. senators. this is presented to them, the weight and gravity of this, in a way that never happened with the house. the senators have to sit there and hear the facts and house members didn't have to engage in this if they didn't want to. the presentation and the pomp and that contributes to that gravity that that is the introduction to this case, the details of it that senators will be getting and i think weshld think about it in that context. >> let me talk to jon meacham on this. you are residing right now in the home state of the first president to be impeached, i assume you're coming from the hometown of the afc's favorite underdog the tennessee titans. put this in context. is this what we would have witnessed if we were alive in the 1860s for the johnson

impeachment? you would have. it's -- physical embodiment. a manifestation of the central idea behind the entire constitutional structure which game from montiscu. learned about it at princeton, the college of new jersey. taught by john witherspoon who taught so many of the founders. this was the idea made real that the best way to check passion was to divide power. and so, the house delivers this to the senate. the senate sits as a jury. english common law, impeachment was -- impeachment and removal was seen as the ultimate sanction in order to keep the balance of power. and the animating idea, there were two an matding ideas at the beginning. one is reason should take a stand against passion and the other was that since we weren't

reasonable all that often we should find the best way possible to limit the capacity to do harm. and this is the ultimate tool in that particular chest. >> betsy, speak for all millennials here. i'm just kidding. >> we all share opinions on everything. >> there's the capitol hill correspondent's per suspespecti. what do you make of this? >> i think if there's one thing that millennials actually often do come together on it's cynicism with institutions and this is perhaps the clearest embodiment of an institution displaying itself in a very visual and almost thee attical way and they see as really meaningful and tonight and significant. i think in this particular moment, there is certainly a strain, especially among younger voters of saying we know what's going to happen.

this is basically preordained and i think that that instinct is going to cover -- color between generations the way people view what happens in the next hour. >> you are seeing -- these are the first things. you know? she's seeing cynicism and thinking monica lue went ski. >> it never got to this particular point with nixon, of course. i was thinking knowing the hill, you guys all know it, it's the same piece of land with two different cultures. like haiti and the dominican republic on the same island. >> you're right. couldn't be more different. >> language and everything. status and the upper house and the idea of the house members going over to the senate saying, okay, do your part now and the idea that the constitution long before we even had the bill of

rights, we had the structure of the constitution saying to the congress under article 1 you are in charge. you can get rid of a president if he or she has to go. that's profound. a president cannot get rid of congress. it's not like the king can dismiss parliament so i think the idea of the congress in its awesome power and also you would talk about with the mccall there's a sacremental quality to this. >> is that good there's a ritual? part of me thinks the fact we have a ritual -- >> i agree. >> a ritual for impeachment is depressing. >> to chris' point, and to betsy's, as a matter of fact, why i think it is important for millennials in this sense that it does draw your attention to the moment. you need something to after all of the political -- >> let me pauds you here.

only person that's held elected office around your table. when did you feel that moment? there's a moment. elected officials say they feel the weight of office. >> the day i was inaugurated. >> do i don't imagine the senators doing in there, when do they feel the weight of this? >> that's the most important question for me in this, ceremonial aspect, because if this does not move you to the gravity of this moment, if this is not moving you into the space where you have to say yes i'm a partisan and support donald trump, but i have got to now be objective in the observations and opinions with respect to this trial then this becomes a show. this means nothing and that's what the millennial and gen-z -- >> tv show? >> this is just a reality tv per vags and don't see it what it really means. >> garrett, is it a full senate chamber? >> reporter: tonight? no. i don't believe so.

i think tomorrow we're going to see the swearing in by the chief justice, going through this in blocks but senators i have talked to are prepared for the possibility to get very heavy probably that day. the idea that they get sworn in by the chief justice, go and sign their names in this oath book. i'm so glad chris used the word ritual because that's the word stuck in my head about this all day today. it is beyond formality. there is something almost religious to it and i think that's going to stick in the heads of the senators who have been watching it on tv up until this point. senators -- >> tell me about the oath book. is it -- are we saying that there are senators that signed the oath? a book that goes back for every impeachment trial, judges whatever? >> reporter: i'll bring you that back tomorrow. i'm learning that in realtime. >> i don't mean to trip you up. >> reporter: it's all good. >> an oath book?

yeah. >> reporter: we were learning about this in realtime and my point is, though, the senate has -- united states senators experienced this impeachment on television so far or maybe some republicans that talked to the president about it. that's it. this is incredibly real for them very fast and i don't think we should lose sight of that. >> the one senator that a lot of people talking about that i hear a lot about happens to represent the state you live right now and that's lamar alexander. he is a historian. he has a history. he had to be sworn into office early because of a pardon scandal taking place at the time in tennessee after he was elected governor. what do you think he's going to do here? he seems to be at a huge potential player in all of this coming to witnesses. >> he would be in any event and the fact he is retiring and won't face the voters down here again adds to the drama. senator alexander, i call him

governor again because i was a kid when he was governor and he hates that i bring up so i do. >> he prefers the title governor. >> only one of them and 100 of the others. he is a historian. he knows about the andrew johnson impeachment. we have talked about that. he's read about it. he gave mitch mcconnell the book that jeff engle edited. and peter baker did clinton. he hears the music of this. the question is going to be whether ultimately he wants to hear those witnesses and play the role that the constitution laid out for senators which was to use their minds and not simply vote along the party line. he will be -- he's probably the fourth vote to call witnesses and so that's really something to watch, incredibly closely.

he is very close to senator mcconnell who himself has a great sense of history. the question is he wants to be remembered in history as the most stonewalling senator majority leader. >> let me tell people what's going on. that's the articles. fathe there are signing pens there and what speaker pelosi will be signing the articles there and a rush of photographers. i didn't mean to interrupt you there. just wanted to let people know what they were watching. >> this is a huge moment for i think all of the senators. question is do they want to hear facts and actually change their minds or do they simply want to prejudge the whole thing? it seems pretty clear to me. i've never had to face a voter. chris hasn't. you haven't. >> that's why i went to steele.

meekal has. >> i noted that -- you asked me what was the moment -- the weight of this. it was when i took the oath so tomorrow -- >> taking an oath matters. >> yeah. when these senators stand up to take this oath tomorrow, particularly the one that is said i made up my mind, voting for acquittal, how can you stand in front of the american people and take an oath in which you swear that you will be faithful and true to the constitution in the duty as a senator as a juror in this trial? this is like any juror standing during voir dire and going, oh no, i decided what i'm going to do and you would throw them out. how do you impugn the integrity of the process? >> the few times i have gotten jury duty i never got on a trial but i sat up straighter. i'll take it serious. maybe that does happen and the jury duty -- citizen thing.

i don't know. are you too cynical to assume? >> i don't think there's a major change of thinking for republican senators and in fact i think it's possible we could see something to the contrary. i was in touch with a republican senate aide earlier this afternoon in the mix on these matters who said that some of the private conversations that republican aides in the upper chamber have been having is sort of pushing this notion what we are seeing now is the kavanaugh playbook saying of dramatic evidence to come out in the senate trial republicans trikely to say that the emergence is part of a smear campaign and an all we all know as the network covered wall to wall because we don't have the evidence and likely to get potentially game-changing material in the coming weeks is because the white house has done everything it has the legal power to do to keep that evidence from coming out and within senate republican conversations i think we can safely say that there is a pushback to that. >> to be honest, disgusting. i have a problem with that.

embarrassing. >> we live in ritual. neoclassical image. titles. i still refer to everybody by the titles instinctively. you're lieutenant governor for life a governor. also something about this sort of ex-communication aspect of this thing. >> you really -- you are taking this catholic metaphor and going at it. run, chris, run. >> a period of history. the french revolution was -- did the guy getting the head taken off hear the drum roll? why is there a drum roll? why so much ritual in life? it is part of the way we keep ourselves organized and i think pelosi is a real believer in this about ritual and i tell you the building is filled with is that tsa chews. it is built in a roman style to create the idea of the great republic. we live in this world. the capitol building. the lincoln memorial is

basically a church. >> okay. but, chris, chris, i wonder, you and frankly i think -- i like to think i was raised in a way to lionize senators. i have a feeling, betsy, you don't. >> certainly. >> i don't say that -- i don't know if i want to -- are the senators as great as they once was? >> they were people out of advice and consent the great novel. >> also where the more you learned about them the less impressive they turned out to be. >> they had a carriage. when i first came to the hill, senators like, you know, hubert humphrey and musky and goldwater, they walked around like senators. today they don't. >> is that impressive or phony to you? do you know what i mean by that? >> i think it fits within a genre of phoniness for people that came of age when i do. we hear the iraq war, immense institutional failure.

many graduated college in the wake of the financial failure and totally destructive to job markets and why trump got so much purchase with the voters is institutional failures. the senate as a failure? generating the affection? i don't think so. >> speaker pelosi is walking. you see adam schiff, jerry nadler. she is walking on the way to where she will sign these. we are told we're under the two-minute warning. we expect to hear from speaker pelosi again. one of the lines, chris, that stuck out to us this morning to remind people no matter what happens in the senate he's been impeached forever. they can never erase that. >> a statement for life. like a priest for life. a perfect statement of which she is. i think she is reverential. she has a part of her that's respectful of hierarchy and in

terms of who -- true moral authority. the elect officials to run the country. not just there. they were elected by the people. it is a republic. the ability of this congress to remove a president is an awesome power. >> it is. here's speakeret quiet and let you listen. >> good afternoon. good afternoon. my colleagues. as you know on december 18th, the house of representatives upheld its constitutional duty and voted articles of impeachment against the president of the united states. donald trump. he said in the course of the debate he did not uphold his

oath of office to protect, proserve and defend the constitution of the united states. the president takes a special oath, a little different from the congressional oath. he takes an oath that was taken by president george washington. the patriarch of our country. in front of his picture we stand here. so sad, so tragic for our country that the actions taken by the president to undermine our national security, to violate his oath of office and to jeopardize the security of our elections, the integrity of our elections, has taken us to this place. so today we'll make history. we'll -- when the managers walk down the hallway and cross a threshold in history. delivers articles of impeachment against the president of the united states for abuse of power and obstruction of the house.

as we make that history we'll be making progress for the american people, progress in support of our constitution, progress in honor of the sacrifice and the vision of the founders, progress and honor of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and progress for the future of our children. make it be very clear that this president will be held accountable that no one is above the law and that no future president should ever entertain the idea that article 1 -- excuse me article ii says that he can do whatever he wants. and so, with that, i will sign the resolution transmitting the articles of impeachment to the senate which will be delivered by our managers of whom i'm very

proud. when hthey bring this over it will set in motion a process on the senate side, probably tomorrow. i don't know their schedule. but it may be as soon as tomorrow. the senators will take an oath of office. they will take a special oath of office to do impartial judges and to impartial justice according to the constitution and the laws. let's hope that they uphold that oath that they take tomorrow. and so, now i'm very honored that -- to be here with our six chairmen who work so hard to help us uphold the constitution with their legislating, their investigating, their litigating. you know the chairmen of the judiciary committee is part of the managers. jerry nadler, mr. schiff of the

house select committee on intelligence, congresswoman maxine waters, the chair of the financial services committee, congresswoman maroney, may dam chair of the oversight committee, congressman mr. chairman elliott engle of the foreign affairs committee and richie neal, chairman of the ways and means committee. we thank them for all of their difficult work and we honor our darling elijah cummings who said one day we are dancing with the angels but what would we say about what we did at this difficult time in our country's history? and then i'm very proud that mr. nadler and mr. schiff are part of our managers but i want to acknowledge our other managers with us. freshman member -- but i shouldn't say freshman.

been here one year. accomplished great things. congressman jason crow of colorado. congresswoman val demings of the state of florida. congresswoman garcia of texas. are we all here? where's hakeem? hakeem our distinguished chairman of the caucus, senator hakeem jeffries of washington. and zoe lofgren. this is her third impeachment. for nixon she was a staffer for a judiciary committee member don edwards of california. she was a member of the judiciary committee in clinton impeachment and in her own right and a member of the judiciary committee and now member of the judiciary, chair of house administration with overseas elections, important to all of this. and a manager.

so with that, i thank them all for their leadership and their service and i'm now going to proceed to sign the articles. >> as you see here, speaker pelosi is signing the articles. this is one sometimes pen per letter. there's a form of that. but after this, there will be this procession and again, ben, let's introduce a couple more people. ben wittis at the table and a former juror otherwise known as a former senator, it is was feingold, democrat from wisconsin right now at stanford university. nice to have you, senator feingold. i appreciate that.

>> thank you. >> ben is here and you were talking about listening to the ritual conversation and going, well, it is becoming a ritual because they haven't changed the rules. >> that's exactly right. it used to be that if you did something in the house and you notified the senate they didn't just pull it off of the internet. somebody actually had to pick it up and walk it over to the senate and tell the senate, hey, we impeached the guy. are you ready to have a trial? so the rules, what seem like rituals now are really just a function of the fact that the rules have never been changed to reflect the fact that there isn't a sort of technological issue anymore. there is one element of this ritual and the set of rituals that are actually significant. not just theatrical and that is the oath in fact senators. that is in the constitution itself when the senate sits as a

trial of impeachment the senators are under individual separate oath and affirmation and i think reflects the fact that as you guys were talking about before, you know, when you do jury duty, there's in moment. >> i'd like to hear from somebody who actually felt the weight of that oath. senator fieingold, we have been talking about this. does the wageight get heavier t moment you take the oath in the clinton impeachment trial? >> you bet it does. the other rituals matter, too. the fact that you are all seated there, you can't leave, that you have to be there monday through saturday, you can't go to our office and talk to people. not supposed to talk to each other. then you individually as ben just said take an oath of impartial justice, it creates a solemnity that i can tell you matters and with the clinton impeachment i think many of us

felt that this was by comparison to other situations to be sort of a trivial series of accusations, not offenses against the united states and yet it was taken seriously. all of these trappings aren't just ancient traditions. they matter and they remind people that they have taken this oath so i think it's a package that does matter and the only -- there can be funny moments. for example, the pens that they gave us as commemorative pens were mispresented. the word united were misspelled and had to do it over. >> freud made the pen is what you're saying. freud manufactured the pens there on that one. >> from janesville. >> you were talking about -- look at you. always plugging wisconsin. appreciate that. you were talking about that it was a bit trivial in comparison. you had pressure to vote with other democrats to dismiss and

you put the -- you like, wait a minute. we have a duty to hear this. >> that's right. >> people wonder if there are going to be republicans like you with democrats 20 years ago. >> well this is the answer to your whole discussion which is i walked in thinking this is probably not very good. these house marchers aren't going to do a very good job but they did and i realized that i had an obligation to at least hear the evidence before i can make a conclusion about something so historic as an impeachment trial. in this case, you have a president charged with what i consider to be the most serious offense of a president in the history of this country and giving that respect to the accusations against president clinton you should do at least that much with regard to these terribling terrible accusations against donald trump. >> garrett haake, she's signed the articles. explain to us what will happen

next seeing the speaker walk out of the room here. >> reporter: whether the speaker walking out, that is the end of her fomal role rmal role. the house is now done with this. we are going do see the seven with a couple of aides and staff members parliamentary officers essentially for the house work their way across the complex here through statuary hall, through the ro ttunda and righto the door of the senate chamber. i think they're coming all the way on to the floor but they may, in fact, stop right there for this formal notification to the senate. this is not exactly a handover. the senate doesn't take exact possession of the impeachment football if you will but they come over and notify the senate that they have, in fact, determined the peemtd aimpeachm ready to present the case to the senate. the chief floor officer

essentially will say, thanks, come back tomorrow at the appointed time and that's when the formal process on the senate floor with u.s. senators will begin. >> i'm just curious. is it a gathering of staffers? gathering of tourists? have you noticed is the house more or less crowded? >> reporter: the halls have been very crowded all day. there's additional press here. members from both chambers still in town. our folks who have eyes in the senate chamber, the senate makes it more difficult to cover than the house because you can't have electronics in the chamber in any capacity and the folks running into the chamber and then informing the rest of the team what's going on in there, a smattering of senators on the floor for this. mostly democrats so far. again, that moment of gravity has apparently not quite arrived yet for the senate. the house members will be delivering it shortly.

>> one thing, one little update, garrett, the speaker will be accompanying the impeachment articles, perhaps that was a change in the schedule there. >> reporter: it is. i was yelled at by her office. not yelled at. spoken to by her office for suggesting she might accompany them. that is a change. >> perhaps we'll find out ourselves here. here in a few minutes. ben, since you have gone through this it is funny that they wrote the exact things for andrew johnson and that they haven't bothered to update these rules but part of this is because they're fighting over the rules and so some ways mitch mcconnell is like i'm going to default to what we had. >> they haven't actually had an occasion to use them very often since andrew johnson and there was a question of updating them in the context of the nixon impeachment but that, of course, was mooted out by his resignation. in the clinton context, trent

lott and i guess it was tom daschle did a kind of end run. they just agreed to a set of procedures. they got their caucuses to agree to it and so they kind of -- it is not that they didn't use the rules. it is that they actually created a set of additional understandings that actually guided the trial and that is what mitch mcconnell is trying to do here. he just can't get con census about it. >> betsy, you have covered a lot of members of congress here. schiff and nadler, been around washington a long time. jeffries, demings, grocrow, gar. seeing the procession, you heard russ feingold say the managers did a good job. >> it is a really interesting blend of people. >> we want to keep having these

conversations here. they oar carrying the articles there. >> a member of the house intelligence and house judiciary committees, two of the committees deeply involved this process. she's someone who has always focused on law and order being paramount to her as part of the way she defines her view of public service. and many of the comments that she made during the impeachment hearing when so many witnesses testified is some of the most memorable moments, talking about her heritage as an african-american member of congress and the way her generation and family had gone through informed her view of the soberness and seriousness of this moment. >> it looks like garrett haake's original reporting is there is no speaker pelosi there. obviously a lot of people trance mitting a lot of information. we are doing our best to share with you what we hear and now what you see is much different. michael steele, among the four

people likely to be the president's defense team, jay sekulow fairly well-known attorney in the conservative world there. of what you know of these folks, what do you expect to be their best sort of defense lawyer? >> you know, probably -- probably sepalone. i think he is going to have the ability to be in space with the white house obviously and what the president is trying to get accomplished here and also i think is someone that the senate republicans will listen to and he will listen to them if this thing begins to turn. if they need to go back and say, mr. president, we can't avoid the witness piece here, he will be in the best position to carry the news back to the white

house. >> you know the people. who do you expect to be the most effective? >> on the president's side, look for the role that pat philbin is going to play. he is an immensely talented individual and he's been a kind of quiet figure in the white house's counsel office as of late but this is a very serious person. also it is to me a very interesting question, what division there's going to be between the white house counsel's office and the president's personal lawyers. it is not i think a typical thing for the white house counsel's office to represent the president in sort of personal misconduct allegations which these are. so whether there's some kind of division where they only handle the institutional interests of the presidency like saying arguing that this is not an impeachable offense at all but i find it odd that the white house counsel's office is sort of directly involved in the

impeachment defense. >> hang on here. let's listen in here. we have a little bit of formality. the president pro tem of the senate. >> to inform the senate, the house has passed h res 798 a resolution appointing and authorizing managers for the impeachment trial of donald john trump, president of the united states. >> the message will be received. >> and if you're wondering why chuck grassley is presiding, it is supposed to be the president of the pro tem of the senate and he is that person. >> pursuant to rule 1 of the

rules and procedure and practice, when sitting on impeachment trials, the secretary of the senate inform the house of the representatives the senate is ready to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting articles of peemtd against donald john trump, president of the united states. agreeably to the notice communicated to the senate. further that at the hour of 12:00 noon on thursday, january 16th, 2020, the senate will receive the managers on the part of the house of representatives in order that they may present and exhibit the articles of impeachment against donald john trump president of the united states. >> is there any objection? if not so ordered. >> unanimous consent pure sunt to rules 3 and 4, when sitting on impeachment trials, that at the hour of 2:00 p.m. on thursday, january 16th, 2020,

the senate proceed to the consideration of the articles of the impeachment and that the presiding officer through the secretary of the senate notify the chief justice of the united states of the time and place fixed for consideration of the articles and request his attendance as presiding officer pursuant to article 1 section 3 clause 6 of the u.s. constitution. >> is there any objection? so ordered. >> i ask unanimous consent that the presiding officer appoint a committee of senators to upon the recommendation of the majority leader and two upon the democratic lead tore escort the chief justice into the senate chamber. further ask consent that the secretary of the senate be directed to notify the house of representatives of the time and place fixed for the senate to proceed upon the impeachment of donald john trump in the senate

chamber. >> is there any objection? if not, so ordered. >> i ask unanimous consent that access to the senate wing, the senate floor and the senate chamber galleries in the procedure of consideration of the articles of impeachment against donald john trump president of the united states and all times that the senate is sitting in trial with the chief justice of the united states presiding be in accordance with the allocations and provisions now send to the desk and ask that it be printed in the record. >> is there objection? if not, so ordered. >> i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s res 471 submitted earlier today. >> the clerk will report. >> senate resolution 471, authorizing the taking of a photograph in the chamber of the united states senate.

>> is there objection to proceeding to the consideration? without objection the senate will proceed. >> i ask unanimous consent the resolution agreed to and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. >> without objection, so ordered. >> for the information of all senators, a few minutes ago the senate was notified that the house of representatives is finally ready to proceed with their articles of impeachment. so by unanimous consent we have just laid some of the groundwork that will structure the next several days. we have officially invited the house managers to come to the senate tomorrow at noon to exhibit their articles of impeachment. then later tomorrow afternoon at 2:00 p.m. the chief justice of the united states will arrive here in the senate, he will be sworn in by the president pro tem, senator grassley, then the chief justice will swear in all of us senators.

we' we'll pledge to do justice for our institutions, for our states, and for the nation and then we'll formally notify the white house of our pending trial and summon the president to answer the articles and send his counsel. so the trial will commence in earnest on tuesday. but first, mr. president, some important good news for the country. we anticipate the senate will finish the usmca tomorrow and send this landmark trade deal to president trump for his signature. a major victory for the administration but more importantly for american families. so let me close with this. this is a difficult time for our country. but this is precisely the kind of time for which the framers created the senate. i'm confident this body can rise above short termism and

factional fever and serve the long-term best interests of our nation. we can do this and we must. >> well, we got the beginning there of how this is going to begin at least as you heard there from senator mitch mcconnell here. garrett haake, let me go back to you. chuck grassley is presiding because the constitution says the president pro tem needs to do this. he is the basically the guy that is third in line to the presidency by the way holding that title. and you heard mitch mcconnell lay out the next couple of days. and then the trial begins in earnest on tuesday. so what happens thursday and friday and we heard there the usmca, is that a small victory

for nancy pelosi, too, garrett, she did want to see that passed before impeachment. >> reporter: yeah. i think this is an opportunity for everyone to claim victory. it is the rare moment in washington where both parties, both legislative houses, and the white house, are going to call it a victory for themselves here on usmca. last piece of business the senate completes before the trial here. noon the managers will come back, read the articles on the floor. 2:00 p.m. the chief justice will have an escort committee, two senators from each party will be part of that. and then there's the formal notification to the white house that the trial will be beginning as mcconnell said there on tuesday and laid out a couple of housekeeping items making up a lot of what happens in the senate chamber over this holiday weekend where cameras away from it including turning the senate into a sound stage and add cameras in the senate chamber to better the television coverage of this and it will be interesting to watch the

transformation around the senate chamber itself as the anti rooms are turned into office space for the president's lawyers, work spaces for the impeachment managers and the senate chamber essentially becomes the courtroom, the ground zero, of not just this impeachment trial but the country's attention over the next couple of weeks. starting tuesday. i watched every mcconnell speech over the last week and a half or so and waiting for the transmitting articles. he called upon the senate to rise above partisan politics and act like the senate. to him that's going to mean defeating what he seals as a partisan impeachment in the house. he called on the to be the institution that is meant to be the thoughtful, cooling saucer here as his final close. you know? that tone might go away here and return to a much more partisan tone in the future but a

important moment to take grasp of the moment. >> let's go back to russ feingold. you have been a juror, sat in that room. what i'm curious about is, how does the -- in some ways you are a version of sequester. right? you don't get to have staff with you. you have to hang out with each other. you're there six days a week together. what did that do? did you guys start forming new bonds, old bonds? how much did you -- not supposed to talk during the trial and i imagine you spent more time together than you even had before. did that change the dynamic of during the trial? did those dynamics change? >> wasn't a lot of informal time together. you get a break in the middle of the morning and we'd have lunch together where there was a caucus. each party to go their own caucus. and have a discussion of what was going on. frankly, that was a place where

to be honest with you i felt some of the partisan pressure exerted by both parties to look at partisanship and trying to let president clinton off the hook or to convict him so that tainted the process a little bit but i distinctly remember in the cloak room after a break after the managers started to present the argument and john edwards, a new senator came over to me, russ, what did you think of the managers' presentation? i said i thought it was pretty good and he said i did, too. that was a moment of two senators, he later didn't vote to hear the evidence, but to me that was a candid moment where we both looked and said, wait a minute, maybe there's something more here to require looking at the evidence. >> walk us through some of this process because it is going to be the same. there's going to be different votes. we understand there's a vote to say, well, would you like to hear from witnesses and might be a generic vote. yes, let's have -- might be people to say we're open minded

on witnesses. it is really a vote on each witness. explain how that worked during your impeachment trial. >> well, as you pointed out as it was discussed there was an agreement led by senator fim graham and senator ted kennedy where all of this was agreed in a closed caucus how it would proceed and so what happened was we listened to the arguments of the two sides. the house managers and the president's attorneys. and at the end of that it was understood that if the democrats wanted to make a motion to dismiss they could and senator bird did and three days of closed debate whether or not to dismiss without hearing the witnesses. >> hang on a minute. you say closed debate, meaning nobody could witness it? >> all the -- >> there were no -- explain that. >> yeah. all the debate. there's no debate. that you will see on television unless they do this differently. there was a motion to dismiss made and went in closed session

in the actual senate chamber. each of us gave a speech for i think ten minutes anbout how we felt about the motion to dismiss. it took days. and then after that, it was agreed that there -- because the volt was to hear witnesses and that was in the form by agreement of having depositions to look at. so each of us had to go to a secured place and watch the depositions including the deposition of monica lewinski. at the end of that process we then went into deliberation and private on the question of whether to convict and, again, there were days where each of us, all 100 senators i believe gave about a ten-minute talk of what they were thinking about this and that is also -- >> no audience? i have so say this again. ten-minute speeches talking to each other, not performing. i don't mean to be that crass but sometimes senators realize the cameras on and give more of a theatrical thing or worry about constituents.

this is just amongst yourselves, right? >> and it was actually very interesting because some of the senators who are more quiet most of the time really showed tremendous ability, some were funny. some might have had a couple more drinks than they should have. at dinner. and so, it was quite a scene and it wasn't on television. >> you know, ben, i hope folks just heard russ feingold outline, finegold said, there would be days of closed sessions. betsy is a journal oyster deadline every hour. she's saying, i'm going to have to wait three days? and this is point that people have gotten lost. this trial will have a hard time getting momentum at times. there might be a lot of interruptions that russ finegold just outlined. 37 to go into closed sessions and deliberate. >> so there's that. and it is the same set of rules that caused this procession today. there is another feature.

that everything senator not feingold just described happened because you had this framework agreement that all the members of the senate agreed to. if you don't have that, if you don't have some degree of framework agreement, what you get instead is an assumption under the rules that each side can call their witnesses and then challenges to the individuals witnesses. >> what would have happened? there was a previous agreement that you didn't have to have that. >> that may have been what happened in the andrew johnson trial which i understand went on for a much longer period of time and there may be a record that i investment read where there was individual debate about how the witnesses were handled there. so ben is right. it depends on whether there is unanimous consent agreement. it could be more in the open.

the deliberation on whether to overrule the chair, the chief justice. a mere majority of united states senate can overrule the chief justice on any ruling he might make. >> and there's a key element embed in the there which is, does the chief justice make rulings at all? >> and that's a whole other, we don't know. >> we don't know what his attitude is. >> that will be interesting. let me see, let me bring in the fwhoum leader for the democrats. senator durbin from illinois. one of the voices may have sounded familiar to your old colleague, russ feingold who is giving us reference points on what happened in the clinton impeachment trial. so let me start with the gravity

of today. and where we're going forward. we heard the outline of the next two days. how will you convince them to open it up? >> i just left the floor of the senate where they delivered the articles of impeachment and in thissers escorted them over to the senate chamber. i'm sure my friend russ feingold remembers a similar experience. there is change almost instantaneously in the senate chamber. an air of seriousness. this is an important constitutional responsibility that happens rarely in american history. i noticed it on the floor as we waited quietly. which is unusual. for the house clerk to arrive. when it comes to the actual conduct of the trial, i am hoping members on both sides will rise above what senator mcconnell called petty partisanship. and understand that we should

put together a real trial. try to pursue the finding of the truth so the american people can be satisfied at the end as we are. >> i didn't see a full chamber there. how many senators were there? >> i can tell you, there were three republican senators and somewhere in the range of 20, 25 democratic senators. this is not a command appearance on our side. a lot of members felt, they told me as they were waiting, this is an historic moment that they didn't want to miss. >> do you believe, once the oath is taken, one of our reporters have said, the chamber, the united states senate. you've been observers of this process. you investment been fully engaged. do you think the cynicism of our colleagues is too hard to break through? >> it will certainly engage this senator.

we are challenging this president of the united states, donald john trump. his name was called out several times in the chamber and we thought, this is for real. this is serious. i think the senators will be engaged when they realize their constitutional responsibility. >> let's talk about the issue of witnesses. what is your understanding do you think you'll ever be coming to an agreement? we were hearing about how phil graham is ted kennedy was able to put something together. if you don't, this could slow down the try where there are interruptions at two and three days at a time. it is going to be hard for the public to follow, to be frank. >> we're close to the moment when four republican senators will stand up for the basic issue of witnesses. at that moment perhaps senator mcconnell will engage. he will realize they'll vote for witnesses and he may want to

discuss things like depositions in advance. the secrets of the witnesses and how they'll be treated by the senate. all of these procedural issues are to be decided by senators who stand as both jurors and judges at the same time. if there are four republican who's come forward and say this is an issue that we need resolve a bipartisan basis, that could bring on a conversation that hasn't taken place yet. >> i'm not asking you to quote, unquote work the refs here. what is your understanding of what the chief justice' role is and is not? >> i can tell you, rehnquist, chief justice rehnquist, when he presided over the clinton impeachment, did his best not to intervene. he was kind of an observer and traffic policeman, if you will. but there was a moment, a surprise moment, an historic moment. when our colleague tom harkin of iowa raised the pox we shouldn't be called jurors. we're much more. we decide the procedure to be

followed in this trial. there was a conversation which i don't believe was consistent with precedent. but chief justice rehnquist allowed it to continue and to be finished and we worked from there. i think he was careful not to intervene for personally. >> what i'm curious is, when you guys pass up questions, and i know, does he, can he decide whether the question is germane? if someone decides to harass a witness or something, could he just, does the senator get to ask that question no matter what it is? or does he decide whether it is germ and to the proceeding? >> that's a good question and i don't know the answer. maybe a case of first impression. it could be that he'll make a ruling that some question is being asked as improper and out of order. of course, the ultimate decision

on this, it will be made by 100 senators. if the majority disagree, then he is overruled. it is a very unusual proceeding for those of us who have spent a lifetime in a courtroom. >> for where you are as a party, there is the thought that there is a mutually destructive witness list. that democrats had never want to see a biden called. why not call the bluff call the bidens. go ahead. >> well, the thought is that they're divided. many think calling hunter biden is political theater. that it will diminish it. i happen to be in that same school. hunter biden's name is relevant to this because president trump asked for an investigation into the biden family. in terms of his testimony on this, it has little or nothing 22nd the conversation between

president zelensky and president trump. >> it sounds like, if that's what the republicans want to do, let them do it. don't assistant in their way. is that your mind set? >> no, no. i don't think it is relevant to the trial at hand. on senator dick durbin from illinois, a whirlwind couple of months, weeks, days. thank you for joining house the day full of gravity. >> happy to be with you. >> let me get everybody a quick final thought. john? what did you see? >> you know, walking through rotunda which commemorates gerald ford and dwight eisenhower and martin luther king, one of the things these senators will have to think about, what do they want us to think about when we look at their portrait? down the years? and the good news about that argument, there is not a single united states senator who

doesn't think we'll be gazing adoringly at their portrait. >> and some of them might think there will be some actual statues we'll be walking by as well. >> so my question is do you want to be margaret j. smith or mccarthy? >> ouch. i don't think anybody else will talk after that mic drop. thank you to all my guests. that's all we have for "meet the press" daily. a quick programming note. don't miss rachel maddow tonight. you saw who she has. lev parnas who took lots of interesting notes. our breaking coverage continues with my man, ari melber. all yours. >> it's been fascinating watching you and your pan on such an historic panel. thank you as always. thank you at home for joining

"the beat." for all the controversial and contested presidents in our rich american history, onlye