>> if you have a five for decision does one of the justice 4 decision,ave a 5- does one of the justices go to the other justice and try to change their mind. does that happen? >> no. >> when it comes time to meet my trainer i drop everything. >> many people feel the court is very political. >> agreement is not interesting, this agreement is. >> would you fix your tie? david: people not recognize me if my tie was fixed. leave it this way. i do not consider myself a journalist. nobody else would consider myself a journalist. i begin to take on the life of being an interviewer even though i have the day job of running a private equity firm. how do you define leadership? what is it that make somebody tick? let me ask you a question. how does it feel to get up in the morning and no 330 million americans want to know the state of your health? justice ginsberg: encouraging. no, that survivors dread disease is a challenge and it helps to know people are rooting for you. universal. [laughter] justice ginsberg: when i had pancreatic cancer 2009, there was a senator whose name i do not recall who

and justice o'connor sheer and unusual distinction that is interesting nicknames and justice o'connor was confirmed she earned the moniker, f w. oh tsv, for a first woman on the supreme court. justice ginsburg meanwhile, has been crowned the notorious rbg. i'll leave it to you to decide which one is more catchy. the justices also share a lifelong commitment to expanding opportunities for women. it makes sense that when justice ginsburg, joins justice o'connor on the bench in 1993, the two bonded over their historic role in transforming the supreme court both justices had to overcome discrimination. they had come of age when women could easily be lawyers, they would probably have been law and up as some retired lawyers because that route was not open to. us we had to find another way. and we both ended up in the united states supreme court one woman they expired was a young attorney in manhattan. she been working in the da's office. 1980, one when she heard the president reagan had nominated saturday o'connor, just two years earlier, she and her law school classmate, some wondered alou

justice kagan: mr. wall, i mean, there seems -- i was one of the then in trinity had -- state was using the religious status of various people or to anes to limit access unrelated public benefit, a completely secular public benefit. here, it seems to me what the state is doing, with respect to these educational programs, is to say we don't want to subsidize religious activity. we don't want to subsidize religious education. and, further, because of the way that the supreme court issued its decision, that will mean that we don't want to subsidize any private education. so you have both the non-discrimination as to that, but even put that aside, what this is is essentially a state saying, for many reasons that have been viewed as legitimate, even though not shared by everybody, but have been viewed as legitimate for many years, we don't want to subsidize religious activity, in particular religious education. that is a far cry from trinity lutheran. mr. wall: so your question gets at the two things i was h

>> yeah. >> justice breyer: okay.so why doesn't it also violate the constitution were the state to say we won't pay the salaries of any priests but we will pay the head of every other organization? you see how i am doing that? you see the point? >> let me answer that question and then go back to the race question i would like to address. >> justice breyer: okay. you don't have to answer if you don't want to. we recommend it, though. >> i'll give a brief answer. so i think that there's a constitutional difference between distinguishing among religions and say the government is just going to stay out of religion altogether. >> justice breyer: that's correct. >> there's many establishment clause cases saying that regardless of whether there's a civil liberties violation, it's just contrary to to disestablishment principles to say that we're going to treat one religion >> justice breyer: okay, i got that. so what about the other part, where we said, look, you can't discriminate against all religions by not giving them pla

chief justice. i send an amendment to the desk on provide for a vote of the senate on any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents after the question period. and i waive its reading. >> the objection of the waiving of the reading? >> i withdraw my request for a waiver. >> does any senator have an objection to the waiving of the reading? there is an objection. yes. the the clerk will read it. >> the senator from new york, it is amendment number 1292 on. page 3, line 8, strike four hours and insert two hours. on page 3, line 10, strike the question of and all that follows through rules on line 12. on page 3, line grown, insert any such motion after decide. on page 3, line 15, strike whether and all that follows through documents on line 17. on page 3, line 18, strike that question and insert any such motion. on page 3, line 23 and 24, strike and the senate shall decide after deposition which witnesses shall testify. and insert, and then shall testify in the senate. >> the amendment is arguable for th

justice: and that difference, to go back to justice alito's question, where in the statute? >> the differences in the scheme to obtain property. that's where it is in the statute. you look at what is the object of the scheme? and if the object of the scheme is to influence a regulatory decision, it's not a scheme to obtain property. that's just follows from cleveland. otherwise, every decision a public official makes is on the table, and the only thing that is separating -- justice: i am sorry. i thought the scheme was to make life difficult for fort lee. scheme, and you defrauded the use of government property to accomplish your goals, why is that any different than taking the maintenance worker to plow your roads? your private streets? here, difference is that the alleged purpose, the alleged motive was what your honor said, to increase -- justice: that was the scheme. >> yes, the scheme was to do that through a regulatory decision. by realigning the lanes from one public use to another public use. what the objection is to the conduct here is an objection to the purpose, n

we have just fixed our justice system. i hope they understand that the reason why we branded first step act as a first step is because it is just that -- we have such a long way to go. there are so many people who are buried alive in our jails and prisons right now. very talented people, good people, who have made mistakes. who are not bad people. and certainly, they are given the opportunity to come back into society and turned their lives around, they could make a difference in this world. there are two individuals who have become dear friends, matthew charles, who the president referenced in his state of the union this year, id alice mary johnson, who was just within new york as we were lobbying the past the fair spent decades in prison -- this woman is a grandmother. her marriage fell apart. she had five children. she was desperate to feed her kids and ended up falling into gambling and had all of this debt and fell into a drug conspiracy. but this is one is women i've ever met. i thought to myself how are we serving p

those questions asked through the chief justice. the chief justice redid the cart on which the senators have written the questions, so halfway through, eight more hours today or up to eight more hours a week. the next phase tomorrow with potential discussions on motions for subpoenas, witnesses and documents and four hours allotted for that on friday. our coverage, live coverage on c-span2 of the trial itself getting underway at 1:00 eastern today. checking our capital producer craig kaplan on the amount of questions yesterday. 93 questions were asked yesterday. he said all of those are posted at the congressional record. you can find that through craigs tweet. also in capital, the hill for fox, i never think to look for today including this and there's been some discussion about the whistleblower. watch to see if republican sender rand paul tries to force chief justice roberts to read a question on the floor which could reveal the name of a whistleblower. roberts would likely not do that as it would be he, not sender to paul, who w

chief justice? >> the senator from wisconsin. >> i send a question to the desk for the president's counsel. >> thank you. question from senator johnson for the president's counsel. if house managers were certain it would take months to litigate a subpoena for john bolton, why shouldn't the senate assume lengthy litigation and make the same decision as the house made, reject a subpoena for john bolton? >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, i think that's precisely the point. and the fact is that if, in fact, we are to go down that road of a witness or witnesses that had national -- in the case of ambassador bolton, high-ranking nsa, this is an individual that's giving the president advice at the highest level, the supreme court's been very consistent about that. that's where privileges are at their highest level. the presumed privilege, actually, what is the supreme court has said. in a situation like this, i think we're going down a road, if the senate goes this road, of a lengthy proceeding

justice. i sent an amendment to the desk to provide for a vote of the senate on any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents after the question period. and i await its reading. >> the objection of the weaving of the reading. >> object. >> i withdraw my waiver request of waiver. >> does any senator have an objection to the weaving of the reading? >> yes. >> the clerk will read the amendment. >> senator from new york, mr. schumer proposes an amendment. strike four hours and insert two hours. on page three, line ten, strike the question of and all that follows the rules on line 12. on page three, line 14, insert any such motion after "decide." on page three, line 15, strike "weather" and all that follows through documents on line 17. on page three line 18, strike that question and insert any such motion. on page three, lines 23 and 24, strike "end of the senate shall decide after deposition which witnesses shall testify," and insert "and then shall testify in the senate." >> the amendment is arg

the 51 of them vote to overrule the presiding judge, the chief justice.the new rule for the trial. there's only one other question. it only happened once during the andrew johnson impeachment back in the 1860s. if it becomes a tie, 50/50, normally it would be the vice president who cast the tie-breaking vote. there is no specific rule in the constitution other than it says the presiding officer but the assumption is that if it were 50/50 he would cast of the tie-breaking vote like the vice president and he would decide so if it were 50/50 as to whether or not they were going to call witnesses, then he would end up deciding by one vote, his vote whether or not the witnesses were called. >> martha, the interesting job of john roberts will be also that the senators can ask questions to the house managers. it goes through him, he physically asks the questions is this trial gets underway. >> martha: he is sort of a judiciary advisor to this process. from the judicial branch sort of picking the scope of all of the questions in the questions that come up, they t

justice ginsberg: justice o'connor was the most welcoming. gave me some very good advice. would you fix your tie? david: people not recognize me if my tie was fixed. leave it this way. ♪ david: i do not consider myself a journalist. nobody else would consider myself a journalist accurate i begin to take on the life of being an interview even though i have a day job of running a private equity firm. how do you define leadership? what is it that makes somebody tick? cornell,en you went to your grades were very good. you applied to law school at harvard and got into harvard law school. was the class have women and half men? [laughter] justice ginsberg: in those ancient days, i went to law school from 1956 to 1959. in my entering class of harvard law school there were 500 and the class, nine of us were women. a big jump from marty's class. he was a year ahead of me. there were five women in his class. schoolthe harvard law has about 50% women. [applause] david: in your harvard law school class, you did extremely well and got onto the harvard law review. you were near the top o

the grand jury is not in all of the justice department. awe of the justice department. the house and senate will come to the courts and it will be another dispute. it is a dispute only because of some convenience that the justice department is holding. >> could you respond to mr. freeman? i asked in the previous case, there have been two articles of impeachment that have been acted upon. are you here to say there may be a third? >> i will do the exact same brief, weh is in our tried to be very clear about this. a third?might be >> exactly. both committees said that for two reasons. one, the evidence that comes up might be usable in the senate trial. it could be that this material is useful for us, the house managers and the senate trial. >> who are the house managers? [laughter] >> i'm glad you asked. again, it could be useful. dennis, submitted to the court, obviously not hand as we made clear, the judiciary committee will look at this material and decide whether to recommend more articles of impeachment and i want to be clear because i think there was some hysteria. s

chief justice. >> senator from hawaii. >> i send a question to the desk for the house managers. >> thank you. >> the question from senator geraldo is for the house managers. can you talk about what has happened to whistleblowers when they have been outed against their wil will. what are the consequences of revealing their identity particularly when we have a president who is trying to bully and threaten impeachment witnesses. >> senator i don't know that we can give you examples of whistleblowers who were subject to retaliation although i have no doubt there are many and we can get in list of the whistleblowers that have confronted retaliation. this gives me an opportunity to speak about the point i made earlier about the unique importance of whistleblowers in the intelligence community. our area of intelligence is unique in this respect. if you are a whistleblower who wants to blow the whistle on a fraudulent contract and a transportation project, you can go public if you are blowing the whistle on

the international court of justice has ordered me and miles government to take emergency measures to prevent soldiers from committing acts of genocide against a still living there around 3 courses of a 1000000 fed to neighboring bangladesh during the military offensive against them 3 years ago. denies genocide has been committed. geria has hosted a meeting of countries neighboring libya to discuss ways to support a shaky truce agreed earlier this month a derrius foreign minister reiterated the need to uphold the international arms a bug and said he doesn't support foreign troops intervening in libya the only operating airport in western libya has reopened after a series of rocket attacks on wednesday. those are the headlines the news continues here on al-jazeera the inside story. me and more must prevent genocide against the ring tone that's the order from the international court of justice its judges say rohingya muslims there are extremely vulnerable but will this ruling make a difference or is it just symbolic this is inside story. hello and welcome to the program i'm homage i'm j

hello and welcome to the program i'm homage i'm joined the international court of justice the world's highest court has ordered me and mars government to prevent its military from committing acts of genocide against the regime go feral he in the end i have been subjected to iraq to. keep it a trick in their right to fix these things the i.c.j. has also warned that they were in the muslim minority remain at serious risk of genocide and ordered the country to abide by the genocide convention and take all measures within its power to prevent further killings the case brought by the gambia last year accuses me and more of committing an ongoing genocide against us minority muslim population mean more denies the allegations thursday's ruling comes just days after an inquiry backed by me and more as government dismissed allegations of genocide manned mars de facto civilian leader aung san suu kyi says they were having to have exaggerated abuses so what does this ruling mean and will mean more abide by the orders will discuss all this in a moment with our guests but 1st let's take a look at h

the justice program of san francisco criminal justice sharing hub. the small, but mighty team has facilitated operations for two decades by enabling data sharing between the court, sheriff, and public defender. every single process and the criminal justice system from arrest to booking to charging to adjudicating, to sentencing to supervision relies in part or in full on justice. when they can, the justice team has only helped to realize policy initiatives. they assisted in automating a paper-based deal assessment transforming the assessment into a mobile application and providing a tool for first responders to keep domestic survivors safe. the justice roadmap process has been very productive and we have a really great plan. the district attorney's office is fully committed to supporting this effort. we look forward to more information about the governance going forward and more transparency about the budget. we are now at a critical moment at which we can elevate the work of justice to fully realize its potential to provide the foundation to the cri

he was very much a student of justice rehnquist. he was a clerk for justice rehnquist. he believed in rehnquist's views on most of these issues. and it was justice rehnquist who wrote the opinion overruling roe. so in my view, it is absolutely clear roe will be overturned. we will return to permitting states to re-criminalize abortion. the only question in my mind is when. i think this court is politically savvy and will wait until after the 2020 election to do this. ok. so what does that mean for all of us? it means that the issue of abortion will return to the states. currently, there are 22 states fully controlled by the republicans. what i call trifecta states. 14 states fully controlled by the democrats. unlike the republicans, democrats don't always fall in line. so it does not seem to me that there is actually a pro-choice majority in those 14 states. i wish there were, but i don't really think there is. in contrast, it seems to me there is an anti-choice majority in the 22 states. so at a minimum, within a year following the overturning of roe, we are going to s

chief justice? >> senator from pennsylvania. >> mr. chiefstse justice, i sena the desk on behalf of myself and senator sasse, crapo, boone, young, ernst m braun. >> the question from senator toomey and other centers is for counsel for the president. given that the election of the present is one of the most significant political acts in which we as citizens engage in our democratic system, how much weight should the senate give to theig fact that removing the the president from office and disqualifying him from ever holding future federal office would undo that democratic decision and a kicked the preset off the ballot in this year's election? >> members of the senate, one of the concerns we praise throughouton this process over e last several months, going back to the time when the house was dealing with this in their various committees is we are in an election year. there's . there's some in this room that are days away from the eye wilcox is taking place. so we're discussing the possible impeachme

chief justice. >> mr. chief justice?- >> the senator from nevada. >> i sent a question to the desk. >> thank you. >> the question from senator rosen is directed to the house managers. over the course of your arguments, you have tried to make the case that the president put his permanent interests over those of the nation, risking our national security in the process. what precedent do you believe the president's actions set for future presidents? >> mr. chief justice, senator, thank you for that question. it's one i've wanted to answer for some time now. you've heard me speak before personal experience in service to the country, and one thing that that experience has taught me is that we are strong not just because of the service and the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, which is extreme and pure in all of its sense, and something that i think everybody in this chamber actually appreciates and respects, but we are also strong because we have friends. we are strong because america doesn't go it alone. you know, w

junior justice has to throw a party, to welcome the new justice, and justice, when louise awry arrived, at the most wonderful evening, she made sure we had indian food because she knew that louise loves indian food. and she got a chef she knew here in washington. to come and cook for, us and it was magnificent, and just his coffin arrived, i knew he was kind of a meat and potatoes guy, so dinner was going to be kind of boring, i'd to come up with something, something to liven up the evening, i said after dinner everybody follow me, we went down to the great hall, supreme court, of united states, a handed the chief justice the checkered flag, justice was a huge baseball fan, he loves to nationals, their mascots are these presidents, they have giant foam heads, in a run around, jessica barr low who's here tonight, my assistant of many years and dear friend, she found out you can rent them, she went online and we wanted to of the presidents, and we had a race, the great hall of the supreme court of the united states, know that was one where i thought, maybe better asked for forgiveness th

ands even delayed justice is better than no justice at all.that is perhaps more important now than ever, to show the rest of the world that this kind of -- that war criminals have no place living on u.s. soil. every time the people inside the justice department were question, why are you going after these guys? it has been years? leave them alone it's their little oldte men. barry white would say if years later wean found one of the terrorists who blew up panhandle 103, when we say well, 30 yearst' has passed. let's just let him go? of course we wouldn't. so why should it be any different for perpetrators of war crimes in the holocaust? why should be any different? and said they were really doing this the name of justice, and they did it most successfully. the justice department were able to prosecute more of these men from 1990 on than any other country in the world, including germany. and to this day they continue to doo their work, although the unit has expanded now to include war criminals from other parts of the world, guatemala, bosnia,

chief justice. it's sumac i sent a question to the desk on behalf of myself and holly. >> thank you. [silence] >> the question is for counsel for the president, from senator mcsally, senator scott from florida senator hawley and senator hoeven. senator schiff just argued that we think there is a crime here of extortion, or quote something akin to bribery". did the articles of impeachment charge the president with bribery, extortion, or anything akin to it? did they have facts for either crime. if not of the house manager's discussion of crimes they neither alleged or proved appropriate in these proceedings? >> mr. chief justice, centers, thank you for that question. and no, the articles of impeachment do not charge the crime of bribery, extortion, or any other crime. and that is a critical point. because as a supreme court has explained, no principle of procedural due process is more clearly established the notice of a specific charge and a chance to be heard in a trial where the issues are raised b

chief justice. >> mr. sekulow, two and a half minutes. >> with regards to the last statement, i'm going to say asked and answered. i've answered the question about the issue of moving forward, if there were witnesses and argue on that. i don't have to say anything else. with regards to the question that was actually presented. 29 times, 29 times the house managers have used the phrase overwhelming, uncontested, sufficient. proven except 31 times. that is what the record said. it is true that the record from the house was accepted professionally with evidentiary objections. but they are the ones who set overwhelmingly and improved. as a matter of fact in a matter of law for them to come up here and argue proved in overwhelmingly a total of eight s. 64 times in a couple of days tells me a lot about what they want. what we are asking for is proceeding to continue, and with that, we are done. >> thank you, counsel. the majority leader is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent that the trial adjourned until 1 p

chief justice b& senator, thank you. >> thank you mr. chief justice. i sent the question to the desk on behalf of myself and senator murkowski. >> thank you senator. senators asked counsel for the president, described in further detail your contention that all subpoenas issued prior to the passage of house resolution 660 are an exercise of invalid subpoena authority by the house committees >> mr. chief justice, thank you senators for that question. as i explained the other day, this contention is based on a principle that has been laid out in several supreme court cases, explaining that the constitution assigns powers to each house of the legislative branch, to the house of representatives, or to the senate, and particularly the language of the constitution is clear in article 1 that the sole power of impeachment is assigned to the house. as to the house of representatives as a body, not assigned to any committee, to subcommittee, or any particular member of the house. in cases such as rule versus the united states and the united states versus watkins,

the orders go to the justice department. the order is indennis -- >> it's usually where there's a criminal defendant or someone else who clearly has standing and all the articles for requirements. here that question is more murky. >> no. because you said the courts have authority to issue an order about grand jury material. >> authorizing. >> orders. orders. that's what i'm saying. dennis. the court. constantly the courts are ordering disclosure of grand jury material. so if they do that the only reason that it doesn't -- it wouldn't happen is if the justice department decides we're going to defy that order. so, that's what i'm saying. >> the power the to order might be different in this context where it's the congress that's seeking materials, and there's an inter branch dispute. might be different or at left arguably different from a case in which a criminal defendant is seeking that material. >> i'll try again but i think we're going round and round. first of all it's different in one sense. supreme court made clear discl

chief justice. >> the senator from utah. >> i sent a question to the desk on behalf of myself and senators hawley ernst and -- >> thank you. >> the question for counsel for the president from senator lee and the other senators. under the standards raised by the house managers would president obama have been subject to impeachment charges based on his handling of the benghazi attack or daca? would president bush have been subject to impeachment charges based on his handling of nsa surveillance, detention of combatants or use of waterways? >> thank you mr. chief justice and members of the senate. under the standard which is no standard that they bring their impeachment to the senate any president would be subject to impeachment for anything. presidents would be subject to impeachment for exercising long-standing constitutional rights. even when the house chose not to enforce their subpoenas. under their vague theory of abuse of power. i guess any president as professor dershowitz has a long list of th

justice delayed is justice denied. we all agree with that. butt churchill's maxim to study history that tells us it's not necessarily so. take by way of example the pentagon papers case. orders issued preventing and sanctioning agr gross violation of freedom of the press. the order issued with the district court june 151971 that order was reversed in the opinion by the supreme court of the united states two weeks later june 15 the house of representatives followed that well trodden path and could seek expedition six months down in the courthouse the judges are there they are all very able and hard-working with integrity. follow the path of the law. go to court. there would have been at least one problem had the house seen fit to go to court the issue is before you but among those flaws they counsel determined and i believe it is correct that all house subpoena issued prior to the adoption of the house resolution 660 for the first time authorize the aimpeachment inquiry as the house, all subpoenas were void. with all due respect to the speaker

the arrival of the chief justice on the hill, the swearing in of the chief justice, john roberts, tode over the senate trial. he in turn swears in all 100 u.s. senators to do their jobs in the weeks ahead. there are a bunch of firsts, of course, surrounding impeachment. never have we seen this circumstance where a mountain of fresh evidence from a federal case in new york has been delivered via democrats on the hill and the intel committee, all from one man, and at the same time that one man rachel m broadcast last night, broke all kinds of newhere's what happenel asked lev parnas wha president knew. >> what do you think is the main inaccuracy, the main lie being told that you feel like you can correct? >> that the president didn't know what was going on. president trump knew exactly what was going on, he was aware of all of my movements, i wouldn't do anything without consent of rudy giuliani or the president. i have no reason to speak to any of these officials. i mean, they have no reason to speak to me. why would president zelensky's inner circle or minister, all these people, pre

chief justice? >> the senator from utah. >> i sent a question the desk on behalf of myself and senators harley, ernst, and brawn. >> thank you. the question for counsel for the president from senator lee and the other senators -- under the standard embraced by the house managers, would president obama have been subject to impeachment charges based on his handling of the benghazi attack, the bergdahl swap, or daca? would president bush have been subject to impeachment charges based on his handling of nsa surveillance, detention of combat ants, or use of water boarding? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, members of the senate. under the standard, which is no standard, that they bring their impeachment to the senate, any president would be subject to impeachment for anything. presidents would be subject to impeachment for exercising long standing constitutional rights, even when the house didn't -- chose not to enforce their subpoenas. under their vague theory of abuse of power. i guess any president, as

chief justice?jority cheerleader is recognized. >> as the chaplain has indicated on behalf of all of us, happy birthday. i'm sure this is exactly how you planned to celebrate the day. [laughter] >> figure very much for those kind wishes and thinking to all the senators for not asking for the yeas and nays. [laughter] >> for the information while senators come we should expect a break every two or three hours, and then at 6:00 a break for dinner. with that, mr. chief justice, a yield. >> pursuant to the provisions of senate resolution 483, the council for the president have 22 hours and 5 minutes remaining to make the presentation of their case. the senate will not hear you mr. sekulow? >> thank you, mr. chief justice. members of the senate. managers. what we have done on saturday is the pattern that we are going to continue today as far as how we are going to deal with the case. we deal with transcript eviden evidence, we deal with publicly-available information. we do not deal with speculation, all

chief justice?nator from south carolina. >> i send a question to the desk on behalf of myself and senators alexander, cruz, portman, toomey, sullivan, murkowski, to the counsel for the president. >> thank you. the question from senator graham and the other senators is for the counsel for the president. assuming for argument sake that bolton were to testify in the light most favorable to the allegations contained in the articles of impeachment, isn't it true that the allegations still would not rise to the level of an impeachable offense, and that, therefore, for this and other reasons, his testimony would add nothing to this case? >> mr. chief justice, senators. thank you for the question. let me start by just making very clear that there was no quid pro quo. there was no -- and there is no evidence to show that, there was not that sort of linkage that the house managers have suggested, but let me answer the question directly, which i understand to be assuming for the sake of argument that ambassado

we are now at the point where i don't think the current justices will be as brave as justice kennedy. unlike myly predict, adversary here, this court is prepared to over rule roe and return the matter to the states. why do i say that? they have been very cavalier about this crisis since gore schutz -- gorsuch joined the court. anything, everybody says, just as roberts is going to save the date. a good vote on health care reform. justice roberts is not going to save the day on abortion. he was very much a student of justice rehnquist. he was a clerk. he believed in rehnquist's views on these issues. it was justice rehnquist who wrote the opinion overruling roe. it is absolutely clear roe will be overturned. we will return to permitting states to re-criminalizing abortion. the only question in my mind is when. i think this court is politically savvy and will wait until after the 2020 election to do this. what does that mean for all of us? the issue of abortion will return to the states. there are 22 states fully controlled by the republicans. i call them trifecta states. 14 states fully

chief justice. the short answer to that question is no. there's no way to have a fair trial without witnesses, and when you a witness who is as plainly relevant as john bolton who goes to the heart of the most serious and egregious of the president's misconduct who has volunteered to testify to turn him away, to look the other away, i think as deeply at odds with being an impartial juror. i would also add in response to the last question that if any part of the president's motivation was a corrupt motive, if it was a causal factor in the action to freeze the aid or withhold the meet, that is enough to convict. it would be enough to convict under criminal law, but here there's no question about the president's motivation, and if you have any question about the president's motivation, it makes it all the more essential to call the man who spoke directly with the president that the president confided in and said he was holding up this aid because he wanted ukraine to conduct these political investigati

chief justice. >> senator from maine. >> i have a question to both sets to counsel which i'm sending to the desk. >> the question to senator king is for house president and the house managers, president trump's former chief of staff general john kelly has reportedly said, quote, i believe john bolton, end quote and suggest bolton should testify saying, quote, if there are people that could contribute to this either innocence or guilt, i think they should be heard, end quote. do you agree with general kelly that they should be heard? i think counsel for the president it's your turning to first. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, members of the senate, this was a bit of a topic that i discussed yesterday and that was the information that came out in "the new york times" piece about what is purportedly in a book by ambassador bolton. now, as i've said the idea that a manuscript is not in the book, there's not a quote from the manuscript in the book, this is a perception of what the statement might be, th

chief justice. >> the senator from washington. >> mr. chief justice, i send a question to the desk for the house managers. >> thank you. >> senator murray asks the house managers yesterday when asked about why the house did not demand or reissue subpoenas after it passed its resolution authorizing its impeachment inquiry, the house managers touched upon the house having the sole power of impeachment as specified by article one of the constitution. could you further elaborate as to why that authority controls despite any arguments brought forth by men is of the defense team contesting the validity of those subpoenas? >> mr. chief justice and senators, that's a good question. the answer is these were validly issued subpoenas under the house rules. house rules. the white house argument to the contrary is wrong, and it would have negative consequences for how the congress and the democracy function. january 9, 2019 the house adopted rules like we do every congress, and these tools give the committee the

chief justice? >> the senator from nebraska. >> i send a question to the desk on behalf of myself, senators crapo and senator risch. >> thank you. >> the senators ask counsel for the president, the president's counsel has underscored the administration's ongoing anti-corruption focus with our allies. at what point did the united states government develop concerns about burisma in relation to corruption and concerns with russia? >> i think it bears on the answer that i was last giving to the last question. this is something that became, of course, president trump in his conversation with president zelensky in the july 25th call as the transcript shows us brought up a couple of things. he brought up burden sharing specifically and raised the issue of corruption in two specifics. the specific case of potential ukrainian interference in the 2016 election which he had heard about and asked about. and the incident involving the firing of a prosecutor who according to public reports had been looking into b

chief justice, oh, senator, thank you. >> thank you, chief justice, i send a question to the desk on behalf of myself and senator michalski. >> thank you, senator. >> senators ask counsel for the president. described in further detail your intention that all subpoenas issued prior to the passage of house resolution 6-60 are an exercise of imbalance subpoena authority authority by the house committees. >> mr. chief justice, thank you, senators for that question, as i explain the other day, this contention is based on a principle that has been laid out in several supreme court cases, explaining that the constitution assigns powers to each house of the legislative branch, to the house of representatives, and the language of the constitution is clear in article one trend that the sole power of impeachment is assigned to the house, that is to the house of representatives as a body. not assigned to any committee, to a subcommittee, or to any particular member of the house. and in cases such as room lee versus united states, or united states versus watkins, the court has been called with di