i should note that patrick leahy in fact escorted in chief justice rehnquist for president clinton's trial back in 1999 and after they administer the oath to the chief justice, he in turn will administer the oath to all of the senators. and then we see what happens come tuesday, the impeachment managers will be huddling trying to create their case, figuring out the lanes in which they will operate, who will present this element of the case, who will deal with ukraine, yovanovitch, so forth, maybe introducing some of the new evidence. they have 24 hours to present that if, in fact, the senate agrees to the plan proposed by the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and we think that boat will be tuesday. that said, we could have other votes for some bigger motions made perhaps tuesday where senators say we don't like this idea, we should go with something else. this whole idea of reciprocity, if democrats want this witness, we want the bidens. the republicans might say. there is a proposal by marsha blackburn who says that the four democratic senators seeking the presidential nominati

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 roberts clerked for chief justice rehnquist, and the only other one with simon chase wella hundred years ago, and so it's likely you'll see chief justice roberts take a page from justice rehnquist presiding over the clinton impeachment trial, and justice rehnquist famously said i did very little, and i did it very well quoting from a gilbert and sullivan piece, and i should add that chief justice rehnquist is possibly most remembered for being caught playing poker during a break from the impeachment trial and being reprimanded by the senate staff because gambling is not allowed in the senate, and the only reason i bring that up is on the whole, i think chief justice roberts will follow the rehnquist model and consider himself more of an administrator, someone trying to basically preside in the sense that he is organizing the questions and the proceedings of the trial. he knows full well that if he decides to rule on any issue, he can be quickly overruled by a simple majority. so look for him to actually choose option 2 in any controversy, which is to punt directly to the s

rehnquist ultimately ruled and sided with harkin the democrat. do you see roberts doing that, or do you think he will just put everything to a 51-vote threshold? >> that was a very procedural question, and actually i loved that question because it reminds all our viewers this is not any kind of standard trial because the senators are not sitting just as jurors. they're actually sitting as chief justice william rehnquist said, as a court. >> they're judges. it's like 100 judges. >> that one, it wasn't substantive, but it's important and it sort of put the house managers in their place and said look, you've got to call them by the right names. >> i have another question we have some confusion about. i know you want to talk about this. go ahead. >> you said you loved what took place with the harkin point of order. >> uh-huh. >> that was 21 years ago yesterday. you loved it. i didn't. i was the parliamentarian on duty at that time, and i turned and gave the chief justice my best advice, which is if i cannot find a basis to sustain a point of order, y

bush, to secede rehnquist as chief justice, a man he once clerked for. famously told his confirmation hearing that as a supreme court justice, he would strive to be a neutral umpire. >> i will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat. >> reporter: he became the youngest chief justice in nearly 200 years, but soon upset many conservatives by writing the court's decision that saved obamacare. but after obama criticized the supreme court decision during his state of the union speech, as the justices sat nearby, roberts wondered why they even bothered to the attend. >> to the extent the state of the union has degenerated into a political pep rally, i'm not sure why we're there. >> reporter: roberts clashed with president trump, too, after the president tweeted criticism of what he called an obama judge. in a rare public response, roberts said the courts don't have partisan judges, it's an independent judiciary, he said. the roberts as rehnquist did will preside over the senate trial and can rule on such issues as to whether

the senate went on their way to accommodate chief justice rehnquist. they provided a room, the room, just off the t off the senate chamber, for him to go to and take breaks. but he had a bad back. he told them at the beginning. he had to stand up occasionally. it is not out of disrespect to the senators, but from time to time they realized he was getting tired and they took a break so he could step aside into the room. he brought over the chief administrative officer for the supreme court as his assistant. otherwise, it is just a matter of coming across the street to preside. host: will the court be in session while this is happening? i think it was the last time. mr. ritchie: i believe they were. host: will the senate be doing other business while this is happening? mr. ritchie: most likely not. the senate can write their own rules and do their own thing but they like to operate on president. if there is a precedent, they can say, we have done it this way before. but they can rewrite rules if they want to. so it is hard to predict what the senate will

chief justice rehnquist: without objection, it is so ordered. senator lott: on behalf of myself and the entire senator we united states senate, we want to offer our thanks and the gratitude of the american people for your service to the nation and throughout this impeachment court to this institution as our presiding officer during most of it the last five weeks, your you have brought to our proceedings a gentle dignity and an unfailing sense of purpose and sometimes a sense of humor. the majority leader realized when it was time to take a break and not to take a break when the chief justice said "let's go forward." by placing duty above personal convenience and many other considerations, you have taught a lesson in leadership. .our presence in the chair gave comity to this chamber. i would like to leave you with the traditional mississippi parting "y'all come back soon," but i hope that is not taken the wrong way and on occasion like this one. as you return to the great marble temple, we salute you, sir, with renewed appreciation and esteem for

that's why i was filed to escort both chief justice rehnquist and chief roberts in, and i trust that both -- john roberts will be objective the same way chief justice rehnquist was. >> he was quoted as saying that his job was to do nothing and he did it very well. i think that's -- >> yeah -- he had a good sense of humor. but i know how hard he worked to prepare for it. i know how much he studied. he knew all the precedents that were raised for the -- off the top of his head. he was going back into the historical precedents. i think both are well prepared to do what they should do. >> as a senator who's obviously going to be a juror and have a vote, how do you feel about the whole argument over witnesses? should the democrats push really hard for witnesses like john bolton who obviously has first-hand knowledge according to all of the testimony. saying he called what rudy giuliani was going to do a drug deal. he has firsthand knowledge of what went on with ukraine which is central to at least, you know, article i of the impeachment articles. even if the republicans insist, okay, if y

chief justice roberts clerked for rehnquist, so he's likely to take that as his model.rd to imagine any contested question where he weighs in in any substantive way. >> hot handed plan. >> a potted plant, i think he'd be happy to come out of this trial viewed as a nonpartisan potted plant. >> the senate was a different place in 1989, if the republican majority tries to pull something roberts feels is unjust will he intervene? >> no, he will not try to correct injustice. he could rule on substantive questions, rehnquist weighed in on -- >> before you go on. why is he there? >> he's there because the institution in article 1, section 3 of the constitution says the chief justice shall preside at any impeachment trials. he's required to be there. i'm sure he doesn't want to be there but the constitution doesn't say what sort of role he should play and senate rules, basically, are responsible for the fact that if senators want to overrule him, they can. those change too. a while ago. and it's hard to figure out exactly when the chief had the power to break ties. he doesn't s

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 controlled by the democrats. ,nlike the republicans democrats don't always fall in line. it is not clear to me that there is a pro-choice majority in those 14 states. in contrast, it seems to me there is an anti-choice majority in the 22 states. at a minimum, within a year following the overturning of roe, we will see 22 states in this country criminalize abortion or take such extreme measures that it means that abortion will be unavailable for women. the second thing that will happen, we will begi

was, and rehnquist was very differential and respectful of the process. i think roberts is even -- we won't see any stripes on his robe to start with. >> which means the 51 vote will be potentially even more significant. >> my guess, just based on watching john roberts as chief justice of the united states is that he will defer as much as possible. he doesn't want to be tainted. he doesn't want to be seen as political. >>> stay with us. we have more live cnn coverage of the senate impeachment trial of president donald trump. we're going to take a quick break. stay with us. and a pair without. the bounce wrinkle guard shorts have fewer wrinkles and static, and more softness. it's the world's first mega sheet that does the job of three dryer sheets. it also comes in unscented. if you don't love bounce wrinkle guard, we'll give you your money back. conditions are protected. vo: a broken promise. trump repeatedly tried to undermine coverage for 134 million americans with pre-existing conditions. mike: "he just doesn't care if you have a pre-existing condition

. >> during the impeachment trial of president clinton chief justice rehnquist advised council quote the counsel on both sides that the chair will operate under the rebuttable presumption thatha each question can be fully and fairly answered in five minutes or less end quote. this transcript indicates the statement was met with quote laughter end quote. nonetheless managers and counsel limited their responses accordingly. i think the late chief's time limit was a l good one and would ask both sides to abide by it. span off mr. chief justice i ask unanimous consent that the trial adjourned till a 1:00 p.m. wednesday january 10-order constitute the adjournment of the senate. >> without objection, the court is adjourned. >> host: a live view for capital just passed 520 gluckin evening the president's lawyers wrapping up the defense on day three of the impeachment trial. this will include questions to the impeachment managers from senators that will be written and directed by the chief justice of the united states john roberts. we want to hear from you and we want to ask you this questio

>> i think so because he was a clerk for rehnquist. he has a respect for history.n a history professor and almost on that path in college and changed his mind so this is somebody who has a healthy respect for history and chief justice rehnquist took a minimalist approach and the constitution once again leaves with us a lot of gray area. in the same section it say that is the senate has the sole power to try impeachments but it also says in the only reference to the chief justice that the chief justice shall preside, whatever that means. but it's important to know that even when the rules call for the chief justice to elect to rule on evidence or other motions that the senate can overrule him with a bare majority, 51 senators. that's all they need. so the chief justice is an interesting political role. he can either choose to rule on motions and issues, risking or challenging senators to overrule him or he can kick it directly to the senators for a vote right away and avoid the controversy. >> cynthia, say he does that and he throws it out to the senatorinsenators a

josh chief rehnquist was adopted up with stripes.e was well-versed in what they had done in 1868 and thought they would play the same role. the senate had to explain to him that things had changed in the senate in the century between then and now and they said the presiding office of the senate is not a powerful position. the senate is from the floor or not from the chair and parliamentarians advised the presiding officer and what to do and they can even turn off his microphone where they can tell him what to do. if he deviates from that, he can be voted down by a simple majority in the senate. rehnquist pondered this and realize they were right and performed very well as presiding officer. he got into the spirit of what he could and could not do. he got high marks from senators. host: going back to the point. did al gore sit in? mr. ritchie: no. he can preside under the senate at any other occasion but if they remove the president, the person to benefit is the vice president so that is why the chief justice presides. vice president

so he doesn't have much ultimate authority as all. >> reporter: rehnquist said in a 2001 pbs interview he never had to make hard decisions in the clinton trial. >> i didn't have to make any evidence rules. >> reporter: roberts may have to make tough calls instead of showing excerpts from witness recordings like the clinton trial. he told the confirmation hearing he would strive to be a neutral umpire. >> i'll remember it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat. >> reporter: he'll try to stay above the senate's partisan fray perhaps trying to emulate the minimalist approach of rendquist who said i did nothing in particular and i did it very well pete williams, nbc news, washington. >>> a temporary state of emergency is in effect in virginia where members of a violent white supremacist group talked about attending an upcoming gun rights rally. geoff bennett is there. >> reporter: just days before thousands of gun rights activists are expected to rally at virginia state capitol, the fbi tonight arresting three alleged members of a violent white supremacist group on gun

roberts clerked for rehnquist. in his last for way, swearing in obama, he was facing a large national global audience and roberts flubbed the wording of the oath in the constitution. >> barack obama took the oath administered by chief justice john roberts. >> here you have the perpetual a student, john roberts. >> the chief justice went without notes. >> the guy's never made a mistake in public before, and he thought he could administer the oath by memory. >> and actually got the oath wrong. >> now in total fairness, anybody could make this kind of mistake. the constitution's text says faithfully execute the office of the president. roberts moved the word faithfully later. >> i barack hussein obama do solemnly swear. >> that i will execute the office of president to the united states faithfully. >> that i will execute -- >> faithfully the office of president of the united states. >> the president of the united states faithfully. >> not a big deal. but roberts did have to return to the white house the next day to re

. >> during the impeachment trial of president clinton, chief justice rehnquist advised counsel, quote counci counsel h sides that the chair would operate on the presumption that each question can be fully and fairly answered in five minutes or less. as the transcript indicates the statement was met with laughter. nonetheless managerss and counsl ltd. of their responses accordingly. i thinkal the late chief's timig was a good one and we've asked both sides to abide by it. >> so mr. chief justice, i ask unanimous consent of the trial adjourned until 1 p.m. wednesday, january 29 and also o this order constituted adjournment of the senate. >> without objection, we are adjourned. >> we will complete the question period over the next two days. i remind senators the questions must be in writing and will be submitted to the chief justice during the question here co. of the clinton trial. senators were thoughtful and brief with their questions and the managers and counsel were succinct in their answers. i hope we can follow both of these examples during this time. >> the impeachment trial of p

. >> during the impending peachpit trial of clinton chief justice rehnquist counsel on both sides thechair will operate on the rebuttable presumption each question can be fully and fairlyn answered in five minutes or less"the transcript indicates the statement was met with laughter". [laughter] nonetheless managers and counsel will have their responses accordingly i would ask sites tosk abide by that. >> mr. chief justice i ask you did was consent the trial adjourned until january 29th and this also constitutes the adjournment. >> without objection we are adjourned. >> at the conclusion of today's trial senate republicans discuss what's next following that meeting we heard from senator cruise of texas and lindsey graham judiciary committee chair. >> okay. hi everybody. i sought summation by the president's lawyer showed how weak their case was. he said we don't have eyewitness accounts all we have is a newspaper article. was well mr. jay sekulow we want to get witnesses you can bring bolton right into this chamber he can swear under oath and be cross-examined by you. he also kept sayi

. >> the impeachment trial of president clinton, chief justice rehnquist advised counsel, quote, counselon both sides that the chair will operate on the rebuttable presumption that each question can be fully and fairly answered in five minutes or less. the transcript indicates that the statement was met with, quote, laughter. [laughter] >> managers and counsel generally limited their responses accordingly i think the late chief's timing was a good one and would ask both sides to abide by it. >> mister chief justice, i ask unanimous consent the trial adjourned to 1:00 pm wednesday january 20 ninth and that this order also constitute the adjournment of the senate. >> without objection we are adjourned. >> after six days of opening arguments from house impeachment managers and the president's defense lawyers, senators will begin asking questions of both sides today, expected to last 16 hours over two days. on friday we expect the senate to vote

. >> during the impeachment trial of president clinton, chief justice rehnquist advised counsel, quote counsel on both sides that the chair will operate on a rebuttable presumption that each question can be fully and fairly answered in five minutes or less, end quote. the transcript indicates that the statement was met with quote laughter, end quote. nonetheless, managers and counsel generally limited their responses accordingly. i think the late chiefs time he was a good one and would ask both sides to abide by it. >> mr. chief justice, i would ask an instance of the trial adjourned until one p.m. wednesday, june 29 and this this would also constitutes the adjournment of the s

i think chief justice john roberts has made it clear that he is going to follow rehnquist's lead. he is not going to be interfering with the process, he's going to be presiding over the process. just to go back to our guidance what is going to happen today, i ran into nancy pelosi this morning. what she said was she believes the house managers will walk over, that it will happen at about 5:30 this evening. so that's the end of the day. and that then they will be called back tomorrow for the swearing in, for them to read the articles. what i thought was interesting is she gets to decide today, at 5:30, that they go over. tomorrow, it's up to mitch mcconnell. the power changes over to him. >> one quick point i think is worth noting for the public. once we're done with the process, 51 senators control what happens, though. i don't want people to get the misimpression somehow mitch mcconnell is going to control this whole thing. that's not really true. when it comes down to questions and things they have to vote on, 51 senators, just a simple majority control that. those four or five,

who presided in 1999 over the trial of william clinton and chief justice rehnquist famtsously to a page from gilbert and sullivan and said i did nothing in particular and i did it very well. if this chief can recede to the background, i believe he will want to. >> that's what i want to ask you jen, you wrote the life and turbulent times of chief justice john roberts. my guess based on reading your book and watching him is that he'll want to recede into the background even more than william rehnquist who was pretty quiet during the clinton impeachment. >> i think, first of all, he will show up sans stripes. >> no stripes. >> he's going to wear the robe he wears during supreme court proceedings. but think of how different our time is now compared to 1999. those of us who covered the 199 trial could have never imagined that 21 years ahead we would be saying, oh, that was easy. think of how much more polarized things are. think of the clashes he's had with president trump, think of just how he wants -- every time john roberts makes a public speech he reminds everyone that the judiciary is d

later to be chief justice rehnquist who wrote from the majority and united states versus brussel in 1073 these are the words we may some day be presented with the situation which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar of the government from invoking traditional process to obtain and conviction that day is today that day was a year ago that day was in july when special counsel mother testified i am not today going to take the time to review when i will do it later the pattern in practice was a bit irregularities that have gone on in these investigations from the outset but to say that the courts have no role the rushed to impeachment to not wait for a decision from a court on an issue is important as executive privilege as if executive privilege hasn't been utilized by presidents since our founding this is not some new concept we don't wave executive privilege and there's a reason we keep executive privilege and we assert it when necessary and that it's to protect to protect the constitution and the separation of powers

>> well, he has studied what happened to bill rehnquist back in 1999 and chief justice rehnquist made a comment at the very end of his service there after five weeks and said, i've left the very structured world of the supreme court for lack of a better word free form of the senate. just think, christie, how much has changed in the past 21 years. he will be entering a very polarized world. remember that in his day job across the street at the supreme court they're actually going to hear some cases involving donald trump in march. so chief justice john roberts is going to try to recede into the background as much as he can. his hand might be forced at various times, but i think he's going to turn it over to the majority of the senate to actually decide the substance of things that will determine whether donald trump is acquitted or convicted. remember, that requires 2/3 of a vote. >> so let me ask you this because "the new york times" also says of the chief justice's responsibilities that they will be full of peril for his reputation and that of his court. so connect that thread for us

. >> the impeachment trial of president clinton, chief justice rehnquist advised counsel, quote, on bothsides that the chair will operate under rebuttal priebus sums and that each question can be fully and fairly answered in five minutes or less. the transcript indicates a statement was met with, quote, laughter. nonetheless managers and counsel generally limited their responses accordingly. i think the late chief's timing was a good one and ask both sides to abide by it. >> mister chief justice i ask unanimous consent the trial adjourned until 1:00 pm wednesday january 20 ninth disorder constitute the adjournment of the senate. >> without objection we are adjourned. >> we are live on capitol hill ahead of the impeachment trial which is set to resume today at 1:00 pm eastern, live coverage on c-span2. this morning senate democrats are about to update reporters on the trial in the senate radio tv gallery that will get underway in just a moment. live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conve

. >> during the impeachment trial of president clinton chief justice rehnquist advised council quotethe counsel on both sides that the chair will operate under the rebuttable presumption thatha each question can be fully and fairly answered in five minutes or less end quote. this transcript indicates the statement was met with quote laughter end quote. nonetheless managers and counsel limited their responses accordingly. i think the late chief's time limit was a l good one and would ask both sides to abide by it. span off mr. chief justice i ask unanimous consent that the trial adjourned till a 1:00 p.m. wednesday january 10-order constitute the adjournment of the senate. >> without objection, the court is adjourned. >> host: a live view for capital just passed 520 gluckin evening the president's lawyers wrapping up the defense on day three of the impeachment trial. this will include questions to the impeachment managers from senators that will be written and directed by the chief justice of the united states john roberts. we want to hear from you and we want to ask you this question

before that, he was clerk to justice rehnquist and a very prominent court of appeals judge. the judiciary then. then he was in the white house, the executive branch. >> when, at 27, he went to work for ronald reagan's counsel, fred fielding. >> when you're in the white house counsel's office, you have to put in your thichinging the ingredient of the political impact and the social impact of something, not just the legalistic impact. and i hope that that was helpful to john in his developing his own philosophies. >> he was for limiting voting rights, for eliminating affirmative action. he was for restricting abortion rights. this was the reagan agenda, and it was his agenda. >> married with with two children, the son of an indiana steel executive and the product of a private high school and harvard and harvard law, the young roberts always figured he would be writing history instead of making it. >> what motivated me to go to law school is that there were not a lot of jobs for history teachers. >> roberts had plenty of offers as a lawyer and became a federal judge, and then i

so when he implored -- and he did that, rehnquist -- please, keep it five minutes or left, these guysad a hard time, most of them, and did a good job. >> and finally to wrap up, larry, when do you expect to see a vote either on the witnesses or a vote to convict the president? >> we could see a vote on the witnesses friday or saturday, if they need friday to go ahead and finish up the 16 hours. could be saturday. and then assuming -- well, if the witnesses are disadisallowe then on monday they'll debate, and they'll probably vote monday night. >> right up to the state of the union almost. >> well, pretty close, yeah. if witnesses are allowed, which is, by the way, another reason why the republicans don't want to allow witnesses, the idea of interfering with the state of the union. >> meantime, next week we have the iowa caucus. we have three senators who are running for president who would love to not be there in washington, would love to be in iowa, but the funny thing is, the three who are stuck in washington are gaining ground, and joe biden losing ground in some polls that are com

rehnquist views and most of these issues, and it was justice rehnquist who wrote the opinion overruling grow so my view it's absolutely clear. row will be overturned we will return to permitting states to real criminalize abortion, only question in my mind is one. and i think this court is politically savvy, and will wait until after the 2020 election to do this. 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. and so it doesn't seem to me 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. at a minimum. within a year following in overturning of row. were going to see 22 states in this country criminalize abortion. or take such extreme measures that the means of abortion will be unavailable. the

he was a law clerk to then-associate justice rehnquist in 1981. rehnquist famously took a page from gilbert & sullivan, "i didn nothinarticular, and i did it very well." so the former chi had rlly tried to narrow his role. and i think current chief justice john roberts would want to do the same. he does not want to get into a oosition of tipping things one way or another or against president trump. because the other thing we need to remember is, indeed, coming g in march, just a feer weeks aft this trial, will be the supreme court looking atre thdifferent cases involving president donald trump and his tax returns and financial records that have been subpoenaed. so he has enough responsibility over the fate of president trump that he does not want that to be in his hands in the senate. >> yang: joan, you mentioned the supreme court cases pending involving the president, that he is a party in. the president and the chief justice have also in the past exchanged some rather pointed words. >> yes. they have a public relationship actually to 2012 after

courts, he's important because he worked with rehnquist during the clinton impeachment.en studying past proceedings and is very much a student of history. one would imagine that he has read through the entire transcript of the clinton impeachment proceeding and knows how rehnquist handles things. host: where was he during the proceedings? guest: he was a lawyer in private practice at that point, before he became a judge he was a widely understood that she was widely understood to be one of the best supreme court agnew on behalf ofates corporate clients, but certainly familiar and no doubt following the impeachment closely. host: very familiar with the supreme court, we have questions, jeffrey is up first out of ohio, a democrat. good morning. caller: i don't really have a question, it's really in the form of the statement. i don't have much faith in our court system anymore. i think mr. trump has basically torn down our judicial system under the attorney general act. i don't have much faith in the everybody knows that the votes are rigged towards a certain party. cheat.y

first of all, i'm glad you mentioned chief justice william rehnquist who presided in 1999.e famously took a page from a gilbert and sullivan light opera and said, i did nothing in particular and did it very well. he did not want to be the standout here. and about whether the chief can break a tie, it never came to that in 1999. it did in the very first impeachment trial in 1868, but chief justice chase really was aggressive and quite political in that one. modern thinking, at least based on the current senate tradition and the current interpretation of the constitution is that john roberts would not have the power to break a tie. now, there is some disagreement, poppy, i'm in the camp he not only does not have the power to break the tie, and reserve cautious john roberts will not want to break a tie on anything that would be substantive. >> quickly then, who breaks a tie if there is a tie? >> if there is a tie, the motion loses, just like it would in the old -- but let me say one other thing, some people said, well, when the vice president presides, he's able to break a tie

not to have a forward role and roberts was a clerk to rehnquist. notable. here comes speaker nancy pelosi. let's listen in. >> good morning, everyone. this is a very important day for us. as you know i referenced markers that our founders and our poets appendicit and others have used over time to place us in time to emphasize the importance of time, because everything is about time. how we use it, how we mark it, and today is an important day because today is the day that we name the managers, we go to the floor to pass the resolution to transmit the articles of impeachment to the senate and later in the day when we have our engrossment that we march those articles of impeachment to the united states senate. as i've said, it's always been our founders, when they started, when in the course of human events it becomes necessary when. abraham lincoln four score and seven years ago. thomas paine, these are the times that try men's souls. again and again, even our poets, longfellow. listen, my children and you will hear the midnight ride of paul revere

he clerked himself for william rehnquist and had a lot of respect for rehnquist and rehnquist at thend of the clinton impeachment said i did particularly little and i did it very well and i think that chief justice roberts will be guided to that -- >> do you blame him? in this situation. >> exactly. but then the other side of it is there are some pretty strict legal questions like relevance and immateriality and the question of witnesses because the existing rules in the senate do allow the chief justice to make the first determination and so as you were talking about with your colleagues earlier -- >> okay. so let's walk through. okay. so somebody calls for -- who will call for a witness? >> so here's how i think it plays out. we will have the debate on tuesday. they were just talking about should the rules guarantee witnesses? let's say that doesn't come out in the democrats' favor and silent. then the existing rules say it's up to the chief justice and so the democrats, the house managers, can call any particular witness they want, bolton or whomever, the republicans can object or

>> 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 ques

roberts says rehnquist will preside over the senat c be overturned.role of the chief justice is quite limited as william rehnquist said in evaluating his own turn in fulfilling that duty. quote, i did nothing in particular, and i did it very well. pete williams, nbc washington. >>> joining me now, jeff. we had a chance to start this discussion earlier this week. a recent opinion article in the washington post focuses on the chief justice's role in the impeachment hearings say, quote, roberts has attempted to position the administration of justice and the role of the judiciary as being above the fray of partisan politics. that desire argues for a more assertive role in the chief justice at the impeachment trial, not less. so tell me about this. given that we've discussed what pete williams said, the role is somewhat limited, what do you think chief justice john roberts is going to do? the one thing he's staked his reputation on is some degree of impartiality and independence of the supreme court. >> the one thing that chief justice roberts wants to avo

. >> during the impeachment trial of president clinton, chief justice rehnquist advised counsel, quote counsel on both sides that the chair will operate on a rebuttable presumption that each question can be fully and fairly answered in five minutes or less, end quote. the transcript indicates that the statement was met with quote laughter, end quote. nonetheless, managers and counsel generally limited their responses accordingly. i think the late chiefs time he was a good one and would ask both sides to abide by it. >> mr. chief justice, i would ask an instance of the trial adjourned until one p.m. wednesday, june 29 and this this would also constitutes the adjournment of the senate. >> without objection we are adjourned. >> with that, the president's lawyers have wrapped up their opening arguments in the senate impeachment trial against president trump and you heard from the majority leader tomorrow when they come in for the senate session they will begin their 16 hours of questioning time alternating between republicans and democrats. they will spend eight hours tomorrow followed by

trying to keep this thing -- >> shannon, going back to the 1999 trial, they talked about justice rehnquist, who presided with president clinton's tribunal, he barely asserted himself. a lot of people said it was notable what he didn't do, here we are on the first day, and roberts has already asserted himself, probably by need, more than justice rehnquist did. i think that is significant. sitter just how salacious some of the information and some of the material was in the clinton case, and we never had a moment quite like that during any of the debate. never even got close to that. and here come we've had this electric moment on the senate floor, between nadler and cipollone. let's go back to the floor right now, listen to john roberts. >> the nays are 47. the amendment is tabled. speak of the democratic is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. i sent an amendment to the desk to provide for a vote of the senate on any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents after the question period. and i await its reading. >> the objection of the weaving of the reading. >> object. >> i withdraw

as chief justice rehnquist put it at the conclusion of the trial of president clinton i did very littlel, i believe, exercise great restraint and if someone says should we call hunter biden i think he will rightly say under section five of the senate rules that is for the senate to decide and we will have a vote. >> a quick reaction from you about legal news from the mueller investigation. the news that michael flynn is going to withdraw his plea that he made in this case, this is what his attorney said tonight about why. >> it has been one atrocity after the other, the recent sentencing memo is full of lies and distortions. they breached the plea agreement when they tried to withdraw the motion that he would be given probation. >> i will start with you, the government has been conducted in this whole thing. >> i will refer to the judge whether they have a case but it is a reminder we are dealing with fallout from the first ever to impeach donald trump, the mueller probe, we spent tens of millions of dollars chasing a conspiracy theory that the candidate for the president of the united

this is a man who's incredibly conscious of history, who himself clerked for chief justice rehnquist, who presided over the last impeachment trial. so i think we're going to see a lot of dignity, a lot of care, and frankly a lot of fairness. >> he is still a young man but he's now suddenly been around a long time. >> yeah. >> if you had to author a theory on the heaviness, is it sort of bemoaning the state of our politics? which as ari melber has pointed out is something he's weighed in on. or do you think it's what's happening to our country, that the conduct is not in dispute yet the outcome very much so. >> i can't really speculate as to that. i do think one thing that has been going on at the court and i think he's been part of it is this concern that the law has become so politicized, that there aren't right answers anymore because it's all viewed through a left and right lens. and that of course tees up the questions here because i do think many people are approaching this through a political lens, not through a lens of what's actually the right thing for our country to do. i me

and i think that's one of those thins we all work off of what happened in 1999, chief justice rehnquist was passive on everything except for one question and left it up to the senate. majority leader mitch mcconnell made clear his expectation is that john roberts will largely mimic what we saw from chief justice rehnquist in 1999, but we don't really know when or if he's going to decide to weigh in. the kind of -- the idea that you leave it to the senate because it is an operating body that deals with these issues pretty regularly probably is the one that wins out, but it is an open question in terms of what posture the chief justice will take. >> yeah. well, be prepared for surprises. phil mattingly, susan page, thank you very much. >>> story we continue to watch this morning, tensions high in virginia as gun rights advocates hold a rally at the state capital. there is fear that far right extremists, white supremacists may cause violence there. history in virginia is sobering. sara sidner live in richmond. >> so far peaceful. we're here at a day that this place hasn't seen quite like t

state that it was vastly overrepresented, and that was arizona, because there was chief justice rehnquist and justice o'connor. population of arizona is not >> until justice scalia passed away, there were four of you from the five boroughs of new york city. >> so, we were diverse. the only thing we were missing was staten island. >> i'm sure the president, if he had an opportunity, whoever the president was, would have been looking for someone 50 years old from harvard and staten island. >> there's quite a few of them, by the way. >> should that matter? there was a time earlier in our history when there were certain geographic areas were presumed it was a southern seat or something like that. should that matter? >> diversity of experience includes the way you grow up. by the way, you left out one werner. justice breyer grew up on the west coast of san francisco. >> and then he wound up at harvard. >> is that a special taint? >> well, you left. >> yes, and i have no harvard law school degree. >> i'm going to ask a question justice o'connor was a trailblazer. people knew who she was. this i