can you talk about william rehnquist's judicial philosophy. -- judicial philosophy?t with his view of the role of the constitution, for example. the great tension is the original list versus the living document. elizabeth: if you are to categorize him and i'm not sure it is possible to do so, probably more on the originalist side. in contrast to some of the justices we have been talking about, that was the horizontal component, rehnquist's jurisprudence focused on the vertical component, which is the relationship between the federal government and the states. host: ronald reagan's issues. elizabeth: federalism. the william rehnquist court re-embraced the idea that, and this harkens back, it has echoes of chief justice hughes reacting to the new deal legislation. there are certain prerogatives the federal government and political branches have, but it is for the court to say when they go too far, whether infringing in a branch of the federal government or the states and individual rights. what we saw during chief justice rehnquist's tenure is a refocusing of a court a

turned to justice rehnquist and said, no fooling around. basically nobody knew. and the sweet thing about this is they ended up having a great friendship. yes, sandra turned them down. she strung him along for a little while but she did turn him down in a gentle way. they both married the loves of their lives. they had a very quiet but real friendship at the court. friendship at the court. justice rehnquist quietly lobbied the reagan administration or at least the attorney general to put her on the court. >> i feel i need to give jay an opportunity to respond if he wants to respond. how was it find out that your mom had a love letter from justice rehnquist? >> i'm sure my dad knew more about the relationship. that wasn't something she would have hidden from my dad, but she never disclosed it to her three sons. evan, called up and said i found some interesting letters. so, we were definitely surprised. she had handled that very quietly. >> and jay, i think i want to stay with you. >> the think it was interesting to us is what we had seen wit

can you talk about william rehnquist's judicial philosophy.t with his view of the role of the constitution, for example. the great tension is the original list versus the living document. elizabeth: if you are to categorize him and i'm not sure it is possible to do so, possibly more on the original list side. in contrast to some of the justices we have been talking about, william rehnquist's jurisprudence focused on the vertical component, between the federal government and the states. host: ronald reagan's issues. elizabeth: very relevant, the federalism. the william rehnquist court re-embraced the idea that, and this harkens back, it has echoes of chief justice hughes reacting to the new deal legislation. there certain prerogative the federal government and local branches have, but it is for the court to say when they go too far, whether infringing in a branch of the federal government or the states and individual rights. we saw during chief justice rehnquist's tenure is a refocusing of a court attention on the relationship between the feder

. >> i think rehnquist is a damn good possibility. >> what is rehnquist?e he's a damn protestant. >> that's too damn bad. tell him to change his religion. >> we'll get him baptized. >> baptized and castrated -- they don't do that. circumcised -- no, that's the jews. >> neither friday nor mrs. lillie is qualified. >> what did you say, not qualified? >> they said she was as good as any woman that could be qualified. >> she's the best qualified woman but she's not qualified for the supreme court. jesus, that's great. that's great. have you told rehnquist yet? >> not yet. i'm sure he'll be pleased. >> pleased? he'll probably drop his teeth. i don't want to see him. i don't think i should. >> it's not a necessity. >> and i haven't seen powell. i wouldn't know him if i saw him. >> lewis powell, william rehnquist. those are names you'll remember because they will add distinction and excellence in the highest degree to the supreme court of the united states. >> by design or not, the president has emerged from the controversy as having tried but failed to place a w

and it is more william rehnquist. that has changed quite a bit, one of the most liberal justices on the court. i don't think that will happen with these two justices but it is a mistake now when people try to predict what the supreme court is going to do. we may get more clues this term but argument has changed now. the oral argument used to be a time when justices would ask questions like these two guys solely to get justice kennedy's vote. you could really tell where the justices are going or what with a thought based on their questions and their questions are important because they are trying to sway justice kennedy. that has changed now. without justice kennedy, the whole composition of the oral argument is different. >> you get to talk in the beginning now. the chief justice and other members of the court, the council simply couldn't have a moment to make a comprehensive argument so they have two minutes at the beginning of a 30 minute argument and which counsel was allowed to speak uninterrupted. there have been

in the clinton impeachment, chief justice rehnquist viewed his role as ministerial.ilbert and sullivan's musical, said i did nothing in particular and did it very well. he ruled on a few objections, senator tom harken objected when someone called the senators jurors and rehnquist agreed they sit on court they're not just jurors, refused to accept limitations on questions by house managers. beyond that he always consulted the senate parliamentaryian. he didn't want to be the guy making substantive rulings and roberts is lyingly to want to make his role as ministerial as possible. >> chief justice john roberts said there are no obama judges there are not trump judges. but he can't be immune from the way this thing is shaping up as a partisan exercise. do you think he relishes this opportunity? do you think he loeths the thought? what do you think is running through his mind as he looks forward? >> i'm sure he dontrellish it. he's so committed to nonpartisanship. but he will take seriously the fact that this is one of only three requirements in the constitution for impe

he was a law clerk for then associate justice rend quiss -- rehnquist. he would take the same minimalist approach to the role that chief justice rehnquist took in the clinton process. i think he would try to keep it very low profile and keep things moving expeditiously. i'm guessing it's not a task that he looks forward to. host: do you think he would wear the robes with the golden stripes on the sleeves? guest: he hasn't done that on the bench. i don't think he would do that in the senate chamber, either. host: let's go to detroit on our democrats line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to speak about how tch mcconnell and the g.o.p. trump party are stacking the courts, they need to tell the people, are stacking the court to keep the 1% in control of power. how do we correct that? thank you. have a blessed day. host: we'll hear from -- do you have a response? guest: i don't think it's a matter of stacking the courts. there are vacancies that arise. they are being being filled reasonably expeditiously. there is open debate. that's our process.

justice souter, his first year, he voted most often with justice rehnquist. that changed. he became one of the most liberal justices on the supreme court. i don't think that is going to happen with these justices. now to it is a mistake try to predict what the supreme court is going to do. it is too soon. argument has changed with the departure of justice kennedy. the oral argument used to be a time when justices would ask a you could really tell where the justices were going and what they thought based on their questions. the questions were important because they are trying to sway justice kennedy. that has changed now. without justice kennedy, the whole composition and the feel of the oracle -- oral argument it's different. get to talk in the beginning now. >> the justices understood that they were interrupting people so much that the council simply could not have a moment to make a comprehensive argument. now, they have two minutes at the beginning of an argument in which counsel is allowed to speak uninterrupted. they're been a couple of interruptions because they forg

rehnquist had to prove that meant not guilty. senatorsmagine some were voting abstain, not proved, you know, a variety of things. then chief justice roberts has to decide how to count that vote. molly: at the end of the day, i don't think the ultimate outcome of this whole episode is going to come down -- elaine: not going to come down to it. it is just something to note that there are things out there. and of course, there is the question which bill brought up some weeks ago and a "wall street journal" piece, which is, if a vote to convict fails, would there be a censure vote? a censure vote in the senate is 50 plus one as opposed to an impeachment vote. the other question then is would they move from that vote to a censure vote? the reason i think that's important to keep in mind is that we have talked a lot of politics and public opinion, but there's another issue here, which is congress has to decide, do they want to lay down some markers about how presidents can behave? up thiswant to give much and let this president's behav

you are out there waiting a strong dissent, and chief justice rehnquist, when he was an associate justice was singular descent a lot. that must be so intention of being a census builder. can you think about that? >> i do, because i'm not the consensus builder. i think there is a tension but, however, i don't think that -- (inaudible), but i don't think that justice o'connor worried about being a trail blazer. i think she focused her life on, just do it. >> and, for her, what was right he would not accept that others would not understand. so, you read it and evan thomas says book. she really, by force of personality, basically forced people to either join her but she really worked on consensus and the sense of this is the right thing to do. not a consensus in bringing people together, sometimes doesn't accomplish what it can do and i wasn't along dissent but the descent made makes a huge difference and i didn't notice the time she didn't do that and that's what i'm asking is i'm going to get out there and have my dissent up. >> most of the time they on the courts opinion have the response

chief justice rehnquist out of nowhere and i think it came from gilbert andsullivan or something but showed up in word wearing stripes on his robes . i kind of think it would be neat if he did . >> no way. >> i think if ginsberg can have a dissenting power he should have a special impeachment robe that he wears only for impeachment. >> read? >> whatever. i would do stripes if i were him but something to stick out. >> it shows what we are talking about this term and the court being the center of attention in the election year, the court picking the mind of all the democratic candidates so it's i'm sure not where johnroberts would like to be in january or february . however, by tradition they start at 12 or 12:30 so he could do everything and the object will be to do it well and the question is whether he will be drafting it in opinion while he listens to some boring debate on the floor of thesenate . anybody else? yes. >> jeremy young, i'm a journalist with al jazeera. i have a question for nina, i was wondering if you could share a personal story about your interactions with the noto

he may take the position that william rehnquist took it's a largely ceremonial role and he won't do lot that affects the course of the senate trial, ordering witnesses to appear, things of that nature. i think it's likely he'll urge the senate to work out those determinations internally. maybe with guidance from roberts, but not him making the decision. >> that could lead to an interesting situation. let's say the democrats say we want to hear from mick mulvaney or mike pompeo. roberts gives it over to the senate. it's not certain you would have a majority against seeing mick mulvaney come forward. you have a few senators on the fence that could vote for that. >> it could. it would be viewed as heresy within the party. maybe they'll be able to peel off a view. i think we're looking at it the right way. i think kate is right. the idea that chief justice roberts is going to be a hero for the left and he's going to force witnesses to testify and the senate will have to overturn him, that's a pipe dream. it's going to be based on senate votes. the best they can hope for is peeling off a few

esther freeman obviously thinks that chief judge rehnquist did not know what he was talking about, even though he wrote about impeachment. ok. thatcourt has also held they are judicial proceedings. i have to say, i am not fully understanding what anybody would think this is different. will quote very quickly, in any event, as did judge mckinnon in his separate opinion, within the rule six exception for judicial proceedings. it is a footnote. judge howell asked me about that. it is a footnote. i pointed out that to my -- if theyfootnotes did not, that changes the court precedent about what haldeman held, so we needed to reach that point, and, therefore, this is a statement that the court makes in its opinion in order to help explain its dominion and give its rationale. i do not know any definition that says that is not. so that is, to my mind, clear. also, one preliminary thing i appreciated, and i think judge rogers picked up on this. my friend said the government, which he is obviously used to saying. i work for the government, 1000 representatives, the first branch, the justice depart

esther friedman thinks chief judge rehnquist did know what is talk about, although he written a book about impeachment, okay. so this court also has held that there are judicial proceedings. i have to say i'm just not fully understand why anybody would think this -- footnote three, in any event, we read haldeman at did the judge mccann in a separate opinion as fitting within the rule six exception for judicial proceedings. it's a footnote to judge help asking about that. it's a footnote and the pointed out, to my knowledge, footnotes by the d.c. circuit our law. and the court had to reach that point because if it didn't, that changes the court precedent about what haldeman held. so it needs to reach that point and, therefore, this is a statement the court makes in its opinion in order to help explain its opinion and give its rational. i don't know of any definition the says that is not a a holdi. so that is to my mind clear. one also preliminary things i appreciated, i think judge rogers picked up on this. my friend said the government, which he is obviously used to saying. i'm here

so ill rehnquist, his pred in the clinton impeachment found, lucked into a quite novel to this problem, which was that the then majority leader, i minority trent lott and quite to everyone's surprise went into a back room and came up with a detailed list and answers to all questions that they each and nted to their caucuses the result was that the entire trial proceeded on the basis of consent. all the questions were kind of resolved that way. i think you can pretty safely say, and the result was that rehnquist presided but really anything, which was, i think, fine with him. in his of sat there robes and looked dignified and that was the end of it. think we can pretty safely predict that that is not going to happen here, and that the two sides are not going to agree on a great deal, and that means roberts at least in the first instance will have to rulings.lot of and so i think that actually makes the problem worse, that deciding the ally answers to a bunch of questions poly, t, i believe, correct me if i'm wrong, but i think the rule is, the presiding officer rules and then can be ove

chief judge rehnquist, for example, told the senators, you are not jurors. you are a court. mr. freeman obvious he thinks that chief judge rehnquist did know what he is talking that even though he written a book about impeachment, okay. so this court also has held that there are judicial proceedings. i have to say i'm just, i'm not fully understanding why anybody would think this is different. footnote three, our corporate quickly, in any event we read haldeman as did judge mckeon in a separate opinion as fitting within the rule six exception for judicial proceedings. it's a footnote. judge howell asked me about that. it's a footnote and a pointed out to my knowledge, footnotes by the d.c. circuit our law. the court had to reach that point because if it didn't, that changes the court precedent about what haldeman held. so it needed to reach that point and, therefore, this this is a statement that the court makes in its opinion in order to up explain its opinion and get its rationale. i don't know any definition that says that that is not holding. so that is to my mind clear. one

and then rehnquist had to rule that that meant not guilty.ou can imagine some senators were voting abstain, doing a variety of things and then chief justice roberts had to decide how to count that vote. >> at the end of the day i don't think the ultimate outcome of this whole episode is going to come down to it. >> this particular questions but. >> it's something to note that there are things out there. and of course there is the question which bill brought up some weeks ago in the wall street journal piece which is infinite impeachment if a vote to convict or acquit, if a vote to convict fails with there be a central boat. the centerboard and the senate is 50+ one as opposed to an impeachment vote. the other question then is where they moved from and that wow to a central vote. the reason i think that's important to keep in mind is that we've talked to a lot of politics and public opinion but there is another issue here which is congress has to decide do they want to lay down some markers about how presidents can behave? do they want to give

i think you can pretty safely say and the result was that rehnquist resided but didn't doanything . which was i think fine with him. he sat there laconically in his robes andlooked dignified and that was the end of it . i think we can safely predict that is not going to happen prhere and that's the two sides s are not goingto agree on a great deal . john roberts at least in the first instance is going to have to issue a lot of rulings. and so i think that actually makes the problem worse, that he will be initially deciding the answers to a bunch of questions subject i believe molly, correct me if i'm wrong but i think the rule is the presiding officer rules and can be overruled by a vote of the senate. so you can imagine a situation in which roberts upsets everybody and there are a kind of serial roberts rulings and then serial rulings to vote to overrule these judgments but i think it's going to be a difficult situation for the chief justice honestly and also again with respect to the toxicity, you can imagine the president tweeting bile at him for every ruling that goes against hi

friendly on the second circuit, one of the finest judges of his generation, clerked for justice rehnquiste supreme court, worked at the justice department, white house, d.c. circuit court of appeals, and picked at the age of 50 to be chief justice of the united states. and taking his responsibilities very seriously, he comes to every single meeting he is supposed to, runs the meeting, and could not be a better chancellor. we are privileged to have him serve as chancellor. i would tell you one story. i did an interview of the chief in front of members of congress and asked, did you always want to be chief justice of the united states? he said, when i was growing up, i didn't think about it. no, i really didn't think about it. and did you want to be justice of the court at all? no i wasn't thinking about it. did you want to be a judge of any type? no. what about a lawyer? no, i didn't want to be a lawyer either. well, what did you want to be? i wanted to be a historian. all i cared about was history. my father said, john, that is nice and you will read a lot of a lot of books people probabl

her family papers to evan thomas he went through them and discovered the marriage proposal from rehnquist to sandra day o'connor. [laughter] marriage proposals were different in those days it's like dear sandy how about getting married this year and she said no. [laughter] >> some actually start off with those types of questions. >> your first interview. >> that's right. with the first one he wrote a book on jefferson he's a terrific scholar now the head of the foundation so what i tried to do is interview them in 45 minutes the members can ask questions and i added one person named john roberts he is not as well known to members of congress as he should be but they don't spend that much time like doris kearns goodwin or robert carol i interviewed john roberts and in the interview in the beginning i said did you always want to be chief justice he said no. when i was little i had no interest. did you want to be a s justice? no. a judge? no. not a judge either or a lawyer. i wanted to be a historian. that's american history i told my father that and he said that's a nice profession but you

the opinion written by a young william rehnquist who, as you know, went on to be a chief justice of theted states. been reaffirmed in nine administrations under both parties, it's a very simple proposition. it's called the mediad vising immunity. -- immediate advising immunity. they cannot command that he appears before them, those people are essentially his alter egos. but i want too emphasize one moe pointfo, there's another form of absolute immunity that is based upon a 1988 opinion by mike ludig. that stands for the proposition that national security information, no matter in whose hands it is, cannot be shared in the compulsory fashion based hiupon something even more venerable than 1989's secrets privilege. of course, t the president -- te people are being asked to testify not about some domestic policy issue, paul, but because of national security -- paul: does any of this change, this immunity change because it's part of an impeachment probe which is a core power of the u.s. house? >> it's an interesting question, never been litigated this way. i would like to think that even th

. >> part of the reason for that is they sort of talked about everything beforehand, and rehnquist had the parliamentarian sitting on his shoulder basically, and daschle and lot probably got along better than schumer and mcconnell, but still, the leaders of these parties do tend to when push comes to shove, understand that they have an object here and that the object is to complete a trial, and reach a result in relatively quick order. if they have different objectives and one wants to drag it out and the other one does not, then it get terry. in the last impeachment, that did not end up being a problem, and i would greatly suspect that this chief justice does not want to be making rulings that would get overruled by a majority. you are going to see him looking very regal but not much else. he may be doing stuff behind the scenes. nicking sure he understands what everybody wants. but i do not think we will get to see it. >> nina, you alluded to him looking regal. is isteresting thing stripes. [laughter] famously outuist of nowhere showed up in court wearing stripes on his robes. >> you

this opinion from the justice department that was actually written by former chief justice william rehnquist when he worked at the justice department back in the '70s. and the argument goes something leak this. you know congress has its authorities and its powers to investigate. but the president and his close advisers also have their responsibilities and powers and it wouldn't make sense the argument goes if congress could force the president or his close advisers to come in and testify and answer questions at a specific place and time that would effectively make the president's subservient to congress. it would make congress the president's boss. now the two judges who ruled on it have not been very impressed by that argument. but there is that argument and the fact is, it's been made by the department of justice in both the republican and democrat administrations. so you know you get if trouble when you try to predict conclusively what the supreme court is going to do with something. certainly, the two courts have looked at it. the two trial judges haven't been impressed. >> the supreme c

he walks across the street and would preside over any senate impeachment trial just as william rehnquistt. that means he's there to govern and make some key calls so it could be really interesting to see what tone he sets. then frank f. asks, why did the founding fathers make impeachment so confusing? was that intentional? well, that's a really interesting question. i think it goes to what you think the text of the constitution implies. the framers did give broad guidelines, so there aren't specific rules for what happens once impeachment gets going, and there isn't a list of all high crimes. you've heard a lot of debate about abuse of power. everyone understands that to be an impeachable high crime, but a lot of the rest is broad. bribery is impeachable. they say that. the house starts the process. the senate holds the trial. but over these next weeks, whether it feels really clear or more vague is really going to depend on how it goes. we do think that when you look at what's happened in other impeachments, there are clues, but they are not rules. the presidents tell us what's been don

chief justice rehnquist presided over the clinton trial.hief justice john roberts would preside over the senate trial. who prosecutes the case? a team of managers who essentially serve as prosecutors. i think you'll see adam schiff and others on it. this is not a criminal trial. let's remember that. and of course republicans control the senate. they will set the procedural ground rules. >> and do they have to have a trial? is there any way for mitch mcconnell to just shut down the process and not have a trial? >> there is an argument because the constitution gives the senate full power to try impeachments, mcconnell could say, i'm exercising that power not to. that said, mcconnell says he feels he has no choice. i think politically it would be tough for him to shut it down. interesting feature. the senators serve as jurors. many said where they would vote. others say i need all the facts. in the senate you need two-thirds of the senators in order to convict. right now the republicans hold the majority with 53. we would need to see 20 republ

you know, in 1998 when there was an impeachment trial of bill clinton, william rehnquist presided asef justice and literally made no decisions the entire time. i mean, he talked about playing solitaire off on his own during breaks. whether that's also true in the more contentious environment of today, we don't know. the structure of the senate trial and the power of the chief justice is one of the many things the senate is going to have to sort out. >> in 1998 to work out an agreement beforehand which is what both sides you get the sense want this time too. chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell could work this out beforehand. his decision to decide much of this. finally jeffrey, ruth bader ginsburg. back in the hospital this weekend. back at home now. 86 years old. just more questions about her health. >> you know, look. she is about this tall. i doubt she weighs a hundred pounds, and she's obviously as tough as any nfl linebacker. this woman has had every disease known to humanity. she's trying to hang in there. she's an icon. she's very popular among liberals in the united states. but,

turned over her family papers to evan thomas and he discovered a marriage proposal from william rehnquist to sandra day o'connor. they were different in those days and said she was still at stanford and something like hell about getting married this year or something like that but she said no. [laughter] >> and in fact you actually said that and you start out with those type of questions. your first interview was with john meacham. >> was the first one who had written a book on jefferson and john is a turkic scholar, now the head of the thomas jefferson foundation. .. >> in addition to our historian historians, i interviewed john roberts. in the interview i said did you always want to be chief justice of the united states? he said no when i was little i had no interest in that. did you want to be a justice? know. a judge? know. know i didn't want to be a lawyer either but i wanted to be a and historian about american history and my father said that's a nice profession but you won't make any money you will write books nobody will read how do you support your family? so he went to harvard a

and we know from the clinton impeachment, chief justice rehnquist presided, he made rules on the evidencetice roberts has to preside and be absent from the court during the impeachment trial, clarence thomas, the senior justice will preside as chief justice in his absence. so the supreme court is taking this seriously. the senate is taking this seriously. this is a question of constitutional politics. at its highest level of gravity. >> jeff, before i let you go, i want to give this little teaser, you have a book coming out, "conversations with rbg, ruth bader ginsburg on life, liberty, love and law" and i think i want to talk to you about a week or so when it comes out. >> next tuesday. i think we will talk then. i cannot wait to share it you with and share it with all of you viewers, the excitement of being able to collect 25 years of conversation with the heroic justice ginsburg. it is a tribute to her, and my great admiration for her and long time friendship and i can't wait to talk about it with you next week. jeffrey rosen, the president and ceo of the national constitution center a

here's the other thing, bill rehnquist the presidential debate coprocessor walked into a novel solution to the problem which was then majority leader and minority leader i believe that it was trent lott and tom daschle they went in a back room and came up with a very detailed list of procedures and answers to all that they presented to the caucuses and the result is that the entire tryout proceeded on the basis of unanimous consent. all of the questions were kind of resolved in that way. you can pretty safely say they presided that really didn't do anything which was i think fine with him. i think you can pretty safely predict that that is not going to happen here and that the two sides are not going to agree on a great deal and that means john roberts at least in the first instance will have to issue a lot of ruling. so i think that actually makes the problem worse that he will be initially deciding the answers to a bunch of questions subject i believe, correct me if i'm wrong but i believe the word is the presiding officer rules and then can be overruled by the vote of the senate. you

he was a law clerk for then associate justice rend quiss -- rehnquist.e would take the same minimalist approach to the role that chief justice rehnquist took in the clinton process. i think he would try to keep it very low profile and keep things moving expeditiously. i'm guessing it's not a task that he looks forward to. host: do you think he would wear the robes with the golden stripes on the sleeves? guest: he hasn't done that on the bench. i don't think he would do that in the senate chamber, either. host: let's go to detroit on our democrats line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to speak about how tch mcconnell and the g.o.p. trump party are stacking the courts, they need to tell the people, are stacking the court to keep the 1% in control of power. how do we correct that? thank you. have a blessed day. host: we'll hear from -- do you have a response? guest: i don't think it's a matter of stacking the courts. there are vacancies that arise. they are being being filled reasonably expeditiously. there is open debate. that's our process. i

chief justice rehnquist. i could count -- what was the one day when the family medical leave act was upheld against the challenge? >> my brain is empty. wrote the opinion upholding the family medical leave act. when i brought the opinion home , he asked did you write this postmark i think my old chief listened and he learned on the job and perhaps he was twouenced by his granddaughters he had a very close relationship with. >> ok well the dean is going to come back and he is going to -- pardon? >> you testified? >> i did. [laughter] >> i have a few questions from our students, but before we do that, a round of applause. [applause] when i read your question, i would like you to stand up. the question is, "what advice would you give those of us who want to be in politics considering how toxic the environment is today?" >> get involved and make it less toxic. [applause] >> i think you have to go in very clear eyed about what the current environment in our political system is and how you will be a target and all

clinton was tried, and the chief justice, who was chief justice rehnquist, when he came down to robe,ad his judicial robe and added a band of gold because it was such an unusual opportunity. we have not impeached and tried many presidents. host: does that mean the chief justice, which would be roberts, in chargeef justice of what is going on in the senate or is it just a ceremonial role? guest: it is more than le ononial, but he will ru matters of evidence. he will run the trial. he doesn't vote. he does not have a large roller, but he keeps order, and he makes sure the process works, as it should. host: will he have the final word on anything? guest: no. host: or can the senators overruled him on things they don't agree with the chief justice on? guest: well, he doesn't vote on the impeachment and conviction. the senate does control the rules of the trial. theory,kes a ruling, in they could disagree with him. i don't think they are likely to, but his rule is largely ceremonial. host: i want to get a couple more calls in, but i have one more question. we had a caller earlier that brou

tensions ran high 20 years ago as we stood in the well of the senate before chief justice william rehnquistas house impeachment managers, we presented our case against president clinton. we were somber, but confident knowing we had afforded mr. clinton every due process right to defend him. process is so fundamentally unfair that justice cannot be served. house democrats led by adam schiff have conducted a sham investigation with predetermined conclusions. it will do unthinkable damage to the credibility of the house and the nation. that this morning from inside the wall street journal. sonya from south carolina, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. simple comment, this impeachment goes on and on, i never hear one good thing of how great our president trump is and he is. it is like when he got elected, the people put him there. it is like he said in the beginning -- it came from something inside. thank you. host: president trump on sunday again reiterating his calls to reveal the name of the whistleblower behind the complaint that led to the house formal impeachment inquir