20 Episode results for "Senate"
Ben Zaidi - Uproar, Uproar
"Yeah. People. On the. But going. Doing good. Right. Bedrooms. Stage. The small. Same safai? To be famous. Senate, dan. Too busy with show shortly. The phone. It wasn't same. Good. Was. Stage. Subsequently the small. Sub scopus.
Senate blocks motion to call witnesses
"The John Bolton is going to testify under oath to Congress. You will see that that day will come what happened today is the United States. Senate decided that it won't happen in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump the house representatives chairman. Adam Schiff will very likely call John Bolton Subpoena John Bolton put him under oath in the House Intelligence Committee on television weeks after sure the verdict is reached in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Yesterday Adam Schiff told the Senate that voting against witnesses and the Senate impeachment on trial Donald Trump would be what he called a descent into constitutional madness. He called it a normalization of of lawlessness and today the United States Senate completed its descent into constitutional madness because today the United States Senate for the first time in history and an impeachment. The trial decided to have no witnesses. The United States Senate cast one of the most anti democratic votes in the history of the Senate today and by anti-democratic democratic. I do not mean a vote against the interests of the Democratic Party. I mean vote against the expressed will of seventy five percent of Americans who say the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump should have witnesses fifty one percent of the Senate defied seventy five percent of Americans by voting against allowing witnesses. Mrs In the trump impeachment trial every republican except two voted against the will of seventy five percent of the American people today. Republican Senators Mitt Romney on an Susan Collins voted to open the trial to witnesses and the first procedural vote on witnesses. Today and senators. Romney and Collins voted later tonight to subpoena Jon Balka as a witness in the trial after the Democratic leader of the Senate Chuck Schumer forced four more votes on witnesses in the Senate. All forty seven. Democrats voted in favor of every request for witnesses but the Republican majority in the Senate was able to defy the majority of the American people on every vote for witnesses. The Senate will resume the impeachment trial of Donald Trump on Monday with a final vote on the Senate verdict in the trial scheduled for Wednesday at four PM so the Senate trial began today as it has on so many other days with a blockbuster. Mr Revelation from John Bolton reported in the New York Times just before the trial resumed today. The New York Times reported the Johnston's Book Manuscript described a scene in the Oval Office. In which just the president tells John Bolton then his national security adviser quote to help with his pressure campaign to extract damaging information on Democrats from mccranie and officials according to an unpublished manuscripts by Mr Bolton Mr Trump gave the instruction Mr Bolton wrote during Oval Office conversation in early May that included the acting thing White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. The president's personal lawyer Rudolph W Giuliani and the White House counsel had a SIP Baloney who is now leading. The president's impeachment defense had civil only was not one of the trump lurs who spoke today in the arguments over witnesses and not one of the president's employers mentioned the shocking revelation that one of the president's lawyers right there sitting right there in the Senate right on the Senate floor was actually in the Oval Office when Donald Trump told John Bolton what he wanted from Ukraine but house marriage Adam Schiff demonstrated that pat loney stood in front of the United States Senate and defended offended. Donald Trump knowing what donald trump told John Bolton to do Congressman Schiff highlighted passages of the New York Times article. As he spoke to the south. You will recall Mr Sip. Baloney suggesting that the house managers were concealing facts from this body. He said all the facts should should come out well. There's a new fact which indicates that Mr Soup Baloney was among those who are in the loop yet get another reason why we ought to hear from witnesses just as we predicted and it didn't require any great and active clairvoyance. The facts will come out leading off our discussion tonight claim former senior aides and vice president. Joe Biden and president has no bomber. He is an adviser. Joe Biden's twenty twenty presidential campaign also with US Glenn Kirschner former Federal Prosecutor in an MSNBC legal analyst. Maya Wiley is with us. She's a former federal prosecutor an MSNBC legal analyst. Rick Stengel is a former under secretary of state in the Obama Administration on MSNBC POLITICAL ALLISTON Chuck Rosenberg joins us. He's a former former senior. FBI official and former US attorney. He now hosts the MSNBC podcast the oath and rank lane. I want to start with you with your experience parents working in the Senate for so many years as you did on the Senate Judiciary Committee what did you say what. What do you think the the country has learned through this? Senate Senate impeachment trial we alerted. You said at the top you talk about the damage to democracy constitutional rule of law all perhaps the headline from today. But as you said I worked at the Senate who worked in the Senate and the damage has been done to the US Senate as an institution may not be as important as some of those other points. But it's just as lasting in some ways it's more permanent today. The Senate voted to make itself the lower body in Congress because it ensured that the House of Representatives not the Senate that will hear Mr Bulletins testimony the House of Representatives. Not The senate. That's supposed to try. The president will wind up being the place of gathering evidence in this proceeding and so the lack of senators willing willing to stand up for the Senate as an institution. The Santa for the Senate's prerogatives. I think that was a permanent blow to this institution that was done today. A rich single there was. There's one win in its way among Republicans of for the for the house managers. That is Lamar. Alexander Republican senator. Who voted against witnesses and is going to vote in the president's favor on the verdict? He's he said that the house managers proved their case. He said there's no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine are into investigate Joe Biden and his son hunter and he said because they absolutely proved it all. We don't need any more but it's not enough to remove him from office. Yes he basically stipulated that trump did everything that everybody thought that he did. One of the interesting things about that was that he was giving people an excuse to say. You don't to have Joel. John Bolton testify. I already agree. That trump did that. You don't need an eyewitness and also what he did was something he provided cover for everybody because he basically we said trump foreign country get information about a political rival. Yet that didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense that is by definition impeachable offense. John Madison talked about that very situation at the constitutional convention but he did go to the point of they also talked at the constitutional convention which is when and there's an election coming up. You don't get in front of the American people making that decision. I think if I were Lamar Alexander. I would emphasize that a little bit more but he gave cover for. People did not not vote for Bolton testify. I want to go to the lawyers. I WANNA get three opinions on this because it was so stunning to me. The revelation that the president's lead defense lawyer in the Senate trial was in the room during an incriminating Element of this story that John Bolton would testify to that that lawyer Patsy only knew John Bolton would testify to my start with you on this. There's just so many angles to this. It was just stunning coming to hear this. I was shocked. I was shocked for a couple of reasons. One is because as a White House counsel. He's the People's council he meaning. He is not representing Donald Trump. As a person he's representing the office of the president so to the extent that he's now sitting in the well of that Senate and not disclosing to senators that as he sits there he himself is as a fact witness to something that they are arguing about including arguing the facts and whether the Senate needs the facts. And here's this this explosive fact this explosive fact that goes straight to the heart of whether or not there was corrupt intent. Now maybe based on what happened in that room room there is an illegal argument for why it was not corrupt intent but he is tainted by not representing in a fair and transparent transparent way that he has information about it really. He shouldn't have been sitting in the well of that kind of of the of the Senate and it just makes clear how oh. Donald Trump has found a way to corrupt whether it's a legal corruption or just an ethical corruption to corrupt every aspect of the institutions nations of government. I think we know why. Donald Trump wanted a pet sip baloney as a lawyer in the case. Because he's free absolutely free. He's on the White House. Payroll doesn't have to pay room chuck when when the President Excellent says Loni I want you defending me in the United States Senate impeachment trial does attorney simple only have an obligation to say to the president. I cannot ought do it. I'm a potential fact witness. In this case I cannot possibly represent you under those terms I think even more than that Lawrence Tamayaz point and this is really important so let me restate it briefly and then answer your question. Mr Sip alone as the White House counsel represents the institution the Office of the president not an individual now. There's no question that a White House counsel ought to be involved in some way if there's an impeachment proceeding because our institutional the two interests at stake executive liaison like connection to the defense team absolutely but to your question. Now it's black letter law and we call something black letter law. If it's very clear in the law there's no question about it it's black letter law that a lawyer cannot be a witness in his own case it calls into question the integrity of the preceding every state bar. Every state bar in the United States would tell you that and so is that an issue. Well if true. It's an issue glen. That was my next point What does this do to him with the bar associations this disbar line that he's crossed the state bar that he is a member of will? I believe open an investigation. They will decide if there was wrongdoing. Ethically legally or otherwise is and if so they will decide what the sanction should be. But you know this is big ticket unethical conduct at a minimum and with this Bolton revelation that compromises sip alone. I think we have to ask ourselves the question who wasn't in the loop loot at this point so many people are being implicated in at a minimum ethical. Missteps that I I am glad to hear you open with John. Bolton will testify us because oversight doesn't stop because impeachment treatment may end up not turning out the way the Democrats wanted seventy five percent of the people want to hear witnesses so it is the houses responsibility to continue to conduct oversight now. That sip alone has been implicated now that Parnassus. Ns has said some really damaging. Things about Giuliani about bar by extension about the president oversight doesn't stop. The American people deserve to hear from these witness and my John Bolton testifying to the house he's said I'm ready to testify to the Senate. He declared that the first week of January presumably that extends to the house when this trial is over. So I'm sure we're going to see this moment. This under oath moment with those Republican members the house trying to figure out how to deal with John Bolton instead of senators well I certainly hope so because it is so critical to understanding what happened here. Here it is. They're very serious. If if you have a senator Lamar Alexander's Saying House. Managers proved their case and yet. There's all all this new information that John Bolton has an love parnes and who knows who else. How do you not exercise your subpoena power and fight fight fight even if you have to lift gate in court? I think the question here is will John Bolton do what John Bolton should have done this week which is say. I'm just going to tell you I'm GonNa tell you because I have free speech rights and I'm going to tell you I can go and talk to someone and tell that way. So so what will he do. When when when it's the house and will he force them to drag it out? I certainly don't think he should but I think he should have been speaking publicly already. As as soon as John Bolton was hired. I think we knew he's going to write a book. Because that's what John Bolton does when he goes to work in an administration high-profile spot literally the day he was fired. I said on this program at this hour. John Bolton is writing a book. He's making the deal. He's starting to talk to them today. I mean we knew that that. And here's here's here. The Republicans in the United States acting surprised the John Bolton suddenly has a book that's leaking out now but John Bolton's conduct up to now has been the perfect book launch doesn't WanNa talk in the House representatives because his book isn't ready. An has his publishes unsure force him the first week of January to say. I'm willing to testify. Because they didn't want to be party to this cover up and bring out a book from the Guy who helped cover it all up here but but but but the book may not come out for quite a long time. If ever. They're going to try to slow down that process. I just went through the process of being vetted by the State Take Department before my book came out. They looking for classified information they then send it around to the NFC. They sent to the Defense Department. They can slow. Walk it John. Bolton more than anybody had a contract that says they have to finish it in thirty days and he also deal with but he also knows exactly what classified fight information as he does not to put that in the book but the White House can slow it down they can say I need you to say you're saying we're not doing. We're not observing your. They don't actually have to. And then you know what's going to happen. Donald trump the most logistic person in human history will file an injunction preventing the publication of that. But we will have to go to a break. Our lawyers will decide okay. How how likely that Blackmail publication is when we come back from this break. We'll also be joined by congressman. Eric swallowed member of the House. Committee will ask him if he expects John Bolton to testify under oath to his committee when we come back. If you don't know your numbers you don't Know Your Business. Most companies don't have a clear picture of their business and that's why many businesses struggled to grow net suite by Oracle is here to solve that problem as a business owner. Are you really confident. You're making the right business. Decisions Serious entrepreneurs and financial teams run. Annette sweet the world's number one on cloud business system net sweet offers a full picture of your business. Everything in one place finance inventory h our customers no more guessing no more worrying in running your business with confidence grow successfully on net sweet like ring hint bollandbranch and over nineteen thousand other businesses net. Sweet business grows rose here schedule your free product or right now and receive their free guide. Seven key strategies to grow your profits at net sweet dot com slash. NBC set up your free product or and get your free guide today and that sweet dot com slash NBC net sweet dot com slash NBC. Why not out here witnesses? I don't need to hear any more evidence To decide that the president did what he's charged with doing. So if you've got eight witnesses saying that you left the scene of accident. You don't need nine. That was retiring Republican. Senator Lamar Alexander joining us now. By phone is congressman. Eric Swallow. He's a member of the house intelligence committee and Carson swallow all What was your reaction to hearing Lamar Alexander saying that in effect your investigation proved its case in the United States Senate Lawrence well that was reaffirming and it was really never in question but his logic really doesn't hold Unless Lamar Alexander is the only sure if he's the only sure sure than the fact that he heard enough is sufficient but he is assuming that the other jurors also heard enough and the other jurors particularly the Republican. Jurors have not come to the same conclusion that he's come to that we have prove our case in fact they have Twisted themselves and pretzels to say that we have not proved our case so it was actually for their benefit not his that we want to bring forth these other witnesses that could solidify and reinforce the case that we proved in the house. John Bolton's book is scheduled for publication on March Seventeenth. Do you believe that you will have him under oath in the House Intelligence Committee before that well we we said all along that you know the Senate was the proper forum for him to come forward and at the same time we are not going to and we're still not going to to rule out the House exercising our Oversight Authority and what we've learned from Donald Trump. Is that when you check. Donald trump using the subpoena power. You can stop stop. His corrupt practices. You know Ukraine was not going to get the aid until we started our impeachment inquiry. That's the only time that they did get. The aid was once we once we looked into why it was being held up. And so we're GONNA continue to look at not just what happened with Ukraine because if these leaks are true John Bolton is saying that there other you're unsavory dealings president has with other countries which we will be looking into. Let's get your reaction as a lawyer. A former prosecutor and one of the participants in the House investigation about the discovery. Today according to John Bolton's book manuscript that White House Counsel Pat Simple Oni was in the Oval Office when Donald Trump. I told John Bolton what he wanted him to do with Ukraine and how he wanted John Bolton's help on pressuring Ukraine to investigate the Biden's and that revelation comes after Pat Sip Baloney stood on the floor of the Senate and told those Oh senators that there was absolutely no evidence of anyone hearing Donald Trump directly. Talk about this this way so I senators were lied to if that's true second And you know really acting most importantly going forward. I hope that that future courts Future justices whether it's circuit courts of appeal justices or the Supreme Court as these cases regarding the president's taxes axes and other matters like dom again and make their way forward. I hope they take into account Mississippi loney credibility. Now that it it. It's clear that he probably misled. Read the sentence the the Senate and that is used against him as they decide whether they can believe any assertions that he makes. But you know Lawrence at the end of the day This was a rigged outcome. We knew that going into it. We tried to present the evidence had to convince them that they should hear witnesses but the Senate is not the last. Say The the American people will be the last say. And that's coming in November. WanNa bring a run clean back in this discussion as as a veteran staffer in the United States Senate Ron one of the things that shocked talk to me about the revelation about simple only today. Clearly he was standing there in the in the Senate floor lying to these Republican senators and Democratic senators for for days on end and there was a time not that long ago when you and I were both working in the Senate where one hundred percent of the Senate would have been outraged by that kind of making before. which is I think you see these senators? They've abandoned the Senate is an institution in the end for most of the Republicans all to at least I think the calculus the other thing Lamar Alexander said today is leaving the Senate. DONALD TRUMP GIVES US conservative judges tax cuts and election victories. That's enough that's enough. We don't really Oh care about the rest of it. I don't care that he did it. We don't care that he's guilty. We just don't care and I think that's your mindset that the ends justifies the means which is really all that saying then. The fact acted the president's lawyer. The White House counsel is Chuck assizes my emphasized a public official stood in the well of the Senate and lied the United States Senate about a matter of grave constantly import just as a matter because they're getting their conservative judges their tax cuts in their election. Victories Carson Swallow Senator Elizabeth Elizabeth Warren as part of a presidential campaign has said that if she is president she will open up. The executive branch will to an investigation of what has happened During these trump years set up a special unit and the Justice Department to do that but even if if she's not elected or even if the Democrats not elected and you still have control of the House will you continue to pursue what has gone on in this administration especially when you look at that scene. As described by John Bolton in the the Oval Office and wonder how many more were there like that on other subjects that have not yet been investigated we have an era of reformation had had for US Lawrence and I do hope it's a democratic administration. Going forward I hope the next president on Day One lifts the ban of the DOJ not being able to investigate instigate a president to send a signal that no one is above the law. But this if you look at this as like a ten storey condominium building. We were only in the Ukraine Room. And and when you turn on the lights you saw rats everywhere who knows what's going on in Turkey room or the Saudi room or the Russia room and so yes. We have a duty ready to continue to protect our country and explore further. What claims John Bolton may have over other dealings at this president is involved in in? We're not gonNA stop just because the Senate didn't do their job placement Eric's well. Well thank you very much for joining us. And as the Carson was saying that last part about the Ukraine Room and who knows how many other rooms were all the lawyers on the panel. Here we're not about the other possible rooms chuck what about that. How do you even begin? Let's say there's a Democrat sworn in as president less than a uh-huh year from now how do you even begin to look at everything from the Agriculture Department to Wilbur Ross's Commerce Department. That's a big task. I mean I thought it was is a good analogy and it made me smile and I did not my head. The House has shown despite the obstacles in their investigation in its investigation. That they do do really good work Lawrence Right. I mean despite the roadblocks look at what they put together and look at the number of people at some personal risk who came forward forward to tell their story those people out there and they're out there and all of these departments and Agriculture and Commerce and EPA. Those people out there and so my view. Is that these stories. Oris eventually get told. Sometimes it's painful to extract the information. Sometimes it takes a long time longer than we like. But these stories get told and Lamar Alexander's point about. Hey they prove their case the thing about the amount of time in which they prove their case it was it was one of the narrowest windows windows. I've ever seen for a prosecution of this magnitude with a document base of the magnitude that they were able to obtain the witness base that they were able to obtain. It's an extraordinary effort. What they did? Especially when you know how much was being held back. Yeah it was a strange statement by Alexander. They prove their case in their opening statements. So I don't need to see the evidence and the witnesses and the documents that supports what I believe. They proved that makes no sense to a criminal litigator. I don't think it makes sense to the average American but I mean. Let's be clear what the senators did. Today was not just a vote against witnesses. Fifty one United States senators voted to cover up the crimes of an American president. That's what they did and I'm done calling this an impeachment trial. It's an impeachment hearing or an impeachment proceeding or an impeachment matter but around the country in one thousand courtrooms. Today judges have instructed. Juries statements of attorneys are not evidence. Only evidence you will. We'll see comes from the mouth of the witnesses and the documents that are admitted into evidence. This was not a trial. This was just politicians talking. We're GONNA have to squeeze in break here. Everyone's going to stay with us and when we come back we'll consider the disappointment of seventy five percent of Americans who wanted the Senate. Let's do the opposite of what they did today. I will explain why that happened. Why it could happen again and what you can do to change? Hey it's MSNBC's Chris. As this week podcast wise is happening. I'll be talking with Ezra Klein about his new book. Why were polarized? It's incredible look diagnosing. What might be the most dangerous dysfunction in American politics right now? Polarization can be a problem anywhere but most of the time. It's not that big of a problem because function. Just what you mean is a part is a very different from each other and so they present different agendas to the electorate look at our system three of the four major power for centers in American politics are controlled by the party. That won fewer votes in the in the key election site. And you have this system where power split up in a way that it is not in parliamentary three systems. And so it is this system where you need this high level of compromise high level of agreement high level of willingness to see the other party as legitimate and even help them govern right. Not Do things that you can actively do under the rules to sabotage them. You need to let them govern. That's this week on. Why is this happening available now? Wherever you're listening to this podcast? NBC News White House correspondent. Jeff Bennett has been working the Senate this week covering the Senate trial forest day and night and he joins us now from Capitol Hill Jeff. What happens on Monday when they resume? Well I'll tell you what Lawrence White House officials have have resigned themselves to the fact that when president trump delivers his annual state of the Union address. He won't do it. As the acquitted president in large part because his Senate impeachment pitchman trial will still be underway. So next week kicks off with a four hours evenly split of closing arguments on Monday. Two hours for the house managers. Manager's another two hours for president trump's defense team after that wraps up then we move into a period of open public deliberation so each senator under if he or she chooses gets to say on the record for somewhere between ten to fifteen minutes where he or she stands on President Trump's dealings with his Ukrainian Indian counterpart and whether or not he should be removed from office so that will be the first time we'll hear from people like Mitt Romney like Susan Collins at length on this issue do it's also worth pointing out. That will be the first time we also hear from potentially swing Democrats like a Joe Manchin like a Doug Jones. Both of them told our team tonight that they have not yet made up their minds on where they will fall when it comes time for with senators call the final judgment the big vote on these two articles of impeachment that is now set for or Wednesday at four. PM EASTERN ONE PM Pacific Time. And of course Tuesday is the state of the Union address. And as we understand it the deliberations on the Senate Senate floor will end that though senators can make their way from the Senate side over here to the house side to hear whatever it is that president trump has to say Tuesday. Thank you very much for your coverage all week and I hope when I say good night to you right now that you are done that just get to leave and go home. Please tell you to go home. Yes Hi Jeff. Things are looking up. Thank you very much for joining us. Appreciate it Ron. Clang is back with us as is our our panel Glenn Kirschner my Wiley Rick. Stengel Chuck Rosenberg and And Chuck let me. Just read to you marco. Rubio's statement on this very short. He says just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a president from office so he seems to be saying that this conduct does meet a standard for impeachment in other words like Senator Alexander of Tennessee that the house managers was proved their case. There's something that troubles me about. All this Senator Alexander's statement really misses an important portent point. He thought there was enough evidence. I think congressman swallow touch on this but I want to expand on it a bit. Maybe Mr Rubio thought there was enough evidence but many members of their party might not have when real trial jurors go to deliberate in real trials. They often have questions. And they'll knock on the door and the court security officer will come and they'll pass the court security officer a node takes up to the judge and then she calls all the parties back into the courtroom and they read the note out allowed because jurors have questions during the trial. Sometimes the judge can answer it. Sometimes you can't but they have questions during the trial. Could you imagine if some of the jurors came out with their fingers. Angers stuck in their ears because they didn't care about the answer or if they came out and precluded the judge from reading the answer to the jury because they had already made up their minds. And so while I I respect the fact that Mr Alexander thought that the house managers proved their case. It's astonishing to me that he wouldn't think of the collective body in asking asking for more information My let me give you Senator Portman. I believe that some of the president's actions in this case including asking a foreign country three to investigate a potential political opponent and the delay of aid to Ukraine were wrong and inappropriate. But I do not believe that. The president's actions rise to the level double removing a duly elected president from office taking him off the ballot in the middle of an election. So when can you what's left. What is left? It's an election. It's we the people are elected officials. Do not get to decide who the next president is. We we do so to tell us that. Not only do they think he did it. That not only. Can they tell us that. They won't vote impeachment. They won't even allow US enough evidence to make our own decisions at the polls. That's outrageous and I want one other point though because I think in addition to both what congressman swale well said and what check said is. I'm sorry if you think. They made their case ace but are passing judgment on. Whether it's impeachable. How do you know whether you think it's bad enough to impeach? When you haven't even heard word from all the witnesses who have significantly more detail about what the president said thought and did because to me he? It's impeachable is all right. You believe maybe you had the authority to do something and maybe you can learn. You didn't but you still kinda take a little bit too much leeway. That is very different from. I knew I didn't care it was going to help me. It was gonNA screw a country that was actually going to help the American people and I still didn't care. They're like those differences in the quality in the texture of how corrupt the intent was. Go Straight to impeach ability and they not only denied themselves the ability to make an informed decision. They denied voters the ability to make an informed and the thing that they also don't mention and here's why they don't mention it and Hamilton talks about this better list. Sixty five when you impeach the president for having corruptly stolen and election you purposely do that so you don't want him to do it to the next election right so people have talked a lot about how how afraid deathly afraid the framers were of foreign influence influence. Well but they haven't made this point. They were afraid of foreign influence because America was small and weak and a baby then these other countries are more powerful. Now that we're strong long. A president can use our power to coerce foreign countries to influence our election. All these intelligence agencies friend and foe have information action on the people that Donald Trump is running against and because the US powerful now because he has immunity from doing this he can. He can ask other countries to help help him in this election. That's why he should be impeached and convicted BRONC lane. I need you to Helped me with a translation of something that I'm sorry to me makes no sense. This is the Senator Lisa Murkowski and it's her explanation of why she voted against witnesses. She said given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout. I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don't believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that as an institution the Congress has failed. Yeah Ron she is the congresses and and she and maybe she wouldn't maybe wouldn't fail of she didn't fail. I don't know what does it all main. Yeah the Senate is drowning. And I'm holding. Its head underwater. You you know look I I I think again. I think what you're really seeing here is a bunch of Republican senators. All all saying we're going to get away with it and we each have our own way of explaining it is not going to add up but we're just going to let them get away with it for political reasons and you go back to build US Rick said and take it a step farther when Rob Portman says. Hey you shouldn't impeach trump because it's an election in year. I think just the opposite is true in this case. What trump is accused of doing is trying to steal the election? If you don't do something about that in the election year ear when are you going to do something about it. I mean if the whistleblower hadn't come forward trump's scheme would have worked for. His car was in Ukraine to do the interview interview where the Ukrainian president was going to announce publicly an investigation of trump's opponents. So trump had a scam in place to steal the election it was working but for the whistleblower but for Congress and if that's not a reason to remove a president in an election year the what you're really saying is you know all all the bets are off and you can do whatever it takes to win and I think that really is what the Republican senators are saying. Okay we're GONNA squeeze in a break here when we come back we're going to show you the big moment in the Senate trial today. Day when the chief justice finally turned over his cards. You'll see that when we come back and today the chief justice finally revealed what he would do if faced with a fifty fifty Thai vote in the Senate. Trial is the chief justice aware that in the impeachment trial of President Johnson chief justice chase as presiding officer. Sir Cast Tie breaking votes on both March thirty first and April second eighteen sixty eight. I am MR leader. The one concerned emotion to adjourn the other concern. Demotion to close deliberations I do not regard those isolated episodes one hundred and fifty years ago as sufficient into support a general authority to break ties if the members of this body elected by the people and accountable to them divide equally on emotion and the normal rule is that the motion fails. I think it would be inappropriate for me and unelected official from a different branch of government to assert the power. We're to change that result so that the motion would succeed and that is exactly what I expected him to say. Chuck Rosenberg. Your reaction couldn't agree with them more. I think he is is precisely correct in staying out of this. He is a non elected official from a different branch of government not sitting in the Senate as vice president of the United United States. WHO has the constitutional authority to break ties but as presiding parliamentarian? No matter what he did if he had voted for witnesses or against witnesses is it would have cast him and therefore the courts of the United States the great courts of the United States as partisan but one of the the rules give give him that power and the reason they give him the power is the rules. Do not say he doesn't have the power and that's where the chiefs power is in these rules. It's either either stated specifically or left open. This is open and so it's Tracy could of made his answer doesn't surprise me what I do. Find surprising is is how he could sit there and keep straight face when he heard the president's lawyers lying dissembling distracting. I mean there should be some parameters I mean. They were making arguments that were wildly inappropriate unsupported by facts or law. They when we had the question and the answer period it was almost laughable because so many answers were non responsive and. I don't know I don't I was was hoping for more somehow from the chief justice but I think he gave us what we expected. We was predicting from him is that he will be behaviorally. Leave your elite conservative. I don't mean politically conservative. behaviorally conservative as William Rehnquist. His mentor was before him and in the last trial. So that's what I expected him to say I do believe though he completely had the right to cast that tie-breaking vote if he chose to let me tell you something he did Completely on his own number he did a number of things that are not in the rules all by himself. There is nothing in the rules. Nowhere does it say in the rules. When a senator sends a written question up to the chief he doesn't have to read it? He made that up up. Chief Justice decided I'm using my discretion. It doesn't say I can't do it so I'm going to do it. I'm GonNa Take Rand Paul's question and throw it away a Just tonight very simple thing that everybody's used to I ask for a call Mitch. McConnell stands up and ask for quorum call the the chief justice could have looked at the United States senate seeing that all hundred of them are sitting in front of him and said there's a core imprison no corn call. The reason and Mitch McConnell wanted a quorum call was because he was in trouble and he needed an hour to negotiate with Republicans and Maya the chief justice gave him made gave him the political gift of an hour of this trial time to do whatever he wanted to. And that's not in the rules so the the idea that this guy was very conservatively playing the rules simply isn't true so I think I can argue it either way. I can't to now. Let's let's hope so because I think part of what what what we're saying. Here's I I agree with you Lawrence. That if he had chosen to he could they could read the rules that way and I think chuck is absolutely right. What he was making a decision about is whether he was going to make the courts appear politicized is to the American public? I what I will say is there is a distinction. The way both read the Andrew Johnson. And when I say read a I read just security. That did a great piece on it. If you notice what Robert Said is look in the Andrew Johnson case when the chief justice broke okay tie it was just he's very transactional procedural ties and so I will distinguish mind because this would not this could potentially impact impact the outcome. But in that history he justice chief justice chase did make evidentiary decisions and that's different affront. And so part of what you're saying is there are some judgements. He made. That are clearly acting as a judge that what he left out and this trick book called the impeachment. It's about the trial Andrew Johnson. He Chase made a number of decisions. He was political. He then was voted down by the Senate. So what can and he can get out there and then it's not it's not an overweening example of the judicial branch because the legislative brands can overrule it. I bet there there were plenty of times that he would have liked to have done that and I think he should have let me give claim the last word here on the chief judge's role in this trial and so I disagree with much of what's been said head. Those normal rules about interbranch separation and unelected judges don't apply here the Constitution of the United States specifically says that the chief justice supposed to preside in this trial and they picked him not a talk show host or some functionary or some. You know the head of the J. O.. To do this because they expected he would exercise some control over the course of the trial and that control includes voting in the event of ties. That is the only precedent that exists and include shape the injury evidence and I think the chief justice just walked away from a duty handed specifically to him by the Constitution. Okay right claims one way. Overrun Glenn Glenn Kirschner Mayawati. Rick Stengel Chuck Rosenberg. Thank you all all for joining us on this important and I really appreciate it and when we come back how fifty. One percent of the Senate could defy seventy five percent of the people and how you can prevent that from happening again. That is tonight's last word when we come back when you're watching the United States Senate on days like today. It's always important to remember that you are not you are. I'm not watching democracy in action. The Senate is now always has been and always will be an anti democratic institution because the Senate does not represent resent people the House of Representatives represents people. That's why it's called the People's House the US Senate represents land and because people are not evenly distributed over our land. The seven seven hundred sixty thousand people of North Dakota get to United States senators and the thirty nine million people of California get to United States senators. California gets fifty three members of the House of Representatives and North Dakota gets one and that is fair that means the people of North Dakota are fairly represented in the House of Representatives where their participation Asian accurately represents their share of the population of the country and so to the people on twitter today. Find themselves despairing at the Senate's anti-democratic action and said things like democracy died today. No American democracy didn't die today. American democracy once again revealed its most serious structural flaw the United States Senate. But there's hope this is what hope looks like that's Democratic Senator Jon Tester. That's him today. Going into the Senate Chamber. He represents the state right. Beside North Dakota and South Dakota Montana. Donald Trump won Montana by fourteen points but Jon Tester won re election Montana after Montana voted for Donald Trump. And today Jon Tester voted the way. Seventy five percent of America wanted him to vote. The the other senator from Minnesota is a Republican who voted against the wishes of seventy five percent of the country. Today if John Tester can win a Senate seat in Montana another other Democrat can win a Senate seat in Montana. The same thing with main Arizona West Virginia Wisconsin Pennsylvania Colorado Ohio. The places that have already elected one on Democratic senator. If Democrats are only able to win seats in those states that already have one. Democratic Senator Than Democrats would have solid control of the United States. Senate that can be done but democratic voters never concentrate on winning the Senate as much as they concentrate on winning the presidency. Today is a day of disappointment for Democratic Democratic voters but it should also be Vida when they begin to concentrate on winning the United States Senate and making our government more responsive to the will of the people a true democracy is supposed to represent Lisa Sky. Hain loved working with people. She was excited about her job day. One literally am I have an an email that says good morning. Let's create the largest networking community on the planet. Lease is new. Boss was a six foot by entrepreneur from Israel named Adam Newman and he had a brand new startup called we work. I remember thinking all right. I'm about to be on a ride is this. I better idea for millennials than working at home or finding an office. We like to say this is for the generation exclaiming they'd pay age or gender ee said that they were elevating the consciousness of people on the planet it was a billion dollar idea co working giant. We work is amongst the most valuable stafa awesome. Thank you ver- here Evil Lemay. Who does this do all the people? deloite go Lloyd Lloyd or Goldman Goldman Sachs Goldman Sachs. Nobody does that nobody does that. It's weird it's just so weird from wandering the makers of Dr Death and business comes a new series. We crashed about a forty seven billion dollars. Startup up with a lot of talk about movement and culture and spiritual awakening and quite frankly. It sounded like both that was just too good to be true. David Brown hosted business wars and from one becomes. We crashed subscribed to we crashed on Apple. PODCASTS now they two thousand.
Scrapping the Senate Filibuster
"This episode of what next is sponsored by how to raise a parent a new podcast from dairy here in collaboration with sleep studios dairypure believes the world would be you better place if we reconnected to it's pure and innocent in ourselves and in each other that's what host mallory kasdan explores how to raise a parent throughout the series she talks six to parents and experts about how our kids can teach us to shift our perspectives conquer our fears and become more open to all the exciting things. The world has to offer make sure to listen and subscribe to how to raise a parent where you get your podcasts this week. I like to think that washington d._c. Has that back to school feeling senators and members of congress heading heading back to the capital getting ready to do the people's work slates jim newell he is here to burst my bubble. Everyone will come back and you know why they're gonna have a lot of work to do on a government spending bills and they may wanna take up some gun legislation will see if they're still the movement to do that but it's not really too dramatic. I know people just come back pretty quickly and pick up right where they left off which is doing very little gym lives in the muck muck of the swamp so he can see this vast disconnect between what politicians say and what they're actually able to do. Just you're watching democratic debate with this guy. He's like medicare for all free college. They can't even reauthorize violence against women act over here. I mean being a congress. Supporter like has ruined me. You know in terms of you know having any hope really just i watch it. I'm just like this is never going to happen. You know you can promise promise everything but if you don't change the rules. The chances of it happening are pretty slim. One of those rules that some people in washington are starting to think we should change is the filibuster that's because it's become all but a requirement that legislation passed the senate with sixty votes instead of a simple majority you make the case like why should we eliminate the filibuster. Well i think right now. We have a system where we haven't election. One party does really well they take over the government and then for some reason nothing that they campaign non can get through congress. I think people don't really understand this and they start to wonder what's the point of these elections. If nothing could happen you know why. Why do we even bother doing this. It might encourage people to participate more in the electoral process and it would also just plainly make more sense that you know if if you win an election by a big margin then you have the opportunity to actually do what you campaigned on. I also think and this might be stretched but if you then have have the ability to pass what you want and you know that the pressure is going to be on you to actually do what you campaigned on then maybe when you campaign you might be able to more or realistic in what you say like there are a lot of people who you know campaign on the wildest promises knowing that they're not actually going to get anywhere in the senate because of the filibuster so maybe if the filibuster is gone and you're gonna be on the line do something we we can have a little bit more coherent and pragmatic debate during during campaigns when someone like elizabeth warren says she wants big structural change. This is the kind of thing she's talking about. Getting rid of the filibuster former senate majority leader harry reid said he wants to call the filibuster to both of them. They've noticed they can't keep proposing big things unless the senate it goes through some fundamental change. The senate is sort of at a point right now where needs to decide what it wants to be you know is going to allow authorities to govern earn or is it going to try to hold onto this idea that consensus can be reached the senate game where the filibuster would effectively be this official acknowledgement that consensus can be reached in the political culture anymore. Does that make you does that. Mean you optimistic or pessimistic optimistic about what uh-huh very jim newell answer today on the show washington is about to head back to work but will they be able to get anything done and if they can't should lawmakers consider drastic steps to ease the blockade none of this i mean none of this makes the optimistic. It's really unhealthy political culture right now. It's just a matter of of managing. I'm mary harris. You're listening to what next stick with us people can get a little confused about why the senate is in more of a legislation relation factory part of the reason stall out is because congress is divided senate majority leader. Mitch mcconnell isn't just about to pass a bunch of democratic bills also sent over by the house that is not his style but the other reason install is because the senate is divided and the filibuster makes it impossible to advance legislation even if you've got a slim majority when i think about the filibuster get these really specific images in my mind and i think of wendy davis on the floor of the texas state senate in her pink sneakers talking about abortion clinics and why it's important to keep them open or i think of jimmy stewart in mr smith goes to washington you like speaks on the floor of the senate for twenty four hours arguing against corruption that actually ends with the senator he's talking about running onto the floor and saying i'm not fit for office is very dramatic thing. What did those images get wrong. There are a little more <hes> romanticised than the way it really is. There's also times where the filibuster you know an image that may we might associate with it as well as when strom thurmond gave a twenty four hour filibuster block civil rights legislation so it's not always you know this wonderful <hes> patriotic duty so so the filibuster it's basically an outgrowth of the senate not really having many rules covering debate. I mean the senate rules about debate. It says if a senator like to speak the chairs shall recognize that person and they can speak for as long as they want so the idea behind a filibuster is just to you speak as long as you want us. Whatever delay tactics you can to try and push back vote in the hope that you either persuade the public or persuade the the people pushing a certain bill to drop it or you just take up so much time that the majority leader decides. It's not worth pursuing this anymore. Just wear them down yeah. Yeah just wear them down. So i mean it is you could say true. Filibuster is really where you're just holing floor one person talking for as long as possible but it's become so vague as to i just mean using the senate's lack of rules about to debate try and make it sort of a pain in the ass to try to pass something. Can you walk doc me through how this works like win. The house sends the senate something they want past. How does the filibuster intervene and to get in the way. The way it works. Normally is just you know. The majority leader looks around realizes something isn't going to get sixty votes and then doesn't even bring it up their recent examples of this that you might remember. Let's look at the the manchin toomey gun bill after the sandy hook shooting in twenty thirteen when they tried to do this. It was brought up. There was a gun debate open. This amendment was brought up so there is a motion to proceed onto this amendment so then that got filibustered meaning you know there was just a very lengthy debate and there's an effort to cut off debate that effort to proceed to it got fifty four votes think it needed sixty so it just failed. They never proceeded to considering that. I mean that's an example of how it worked. Got a minority you know at least forty one senators senators does not want something to happen and they're going to use up a lot of floor time. If that comes to the floor so the majority leader just decides not to bring it up in the first place. I mean that's practically what it is now. It's not like it doesn't actually get to the floor a lot. It's just mitch mcconnell knowing that this is going to be blocked by by the the minority and they're gonna take too much time and he'd rather do something else during that time so he doesn't bring it up and the filibuster wasn't part of the founders original idea of how how this body would work was it no. There's no mention of it in the constitution or anything i mean the way it developed was the way senate. Rules are written to just allow open ended debate until the body reaches consensus. I mean that was obviously being exploited. In the form of filibuster so around world war one they finally introduced what's called the cloture rule which which allows debates be cut off they of course because it's the senate have to use a word like cloture. They can't use closure or ending debate. When did the filibuster like dirty like. When did it become a dirty word. I'm really in the last fifteen years. That's when the number of cloture richer votes really started increasing exponentially on pretty routine mares of business. I mean nominations both the court and the executive brands as well as legislations. I mean it's become routine now where it really didn't used to be. I mean used to be a fairly rare thing when someone would have to introduce a cloture petition to cut off debate but now it's just sort of you know standard operating procedure for pretty much anything that comes up anything of any importance i should say the first couple years ears of obama's presidency and that's really when mitch mcconnell made a pretty big discovery which was if you stop stop the president's legislation. You won't necessarily get blamed for being obstructionists as hard as democrats tried to make mitch mcconnell the obstructionists. The public won't really blame um you. They'll blame the president and the majority party for not getting things done so that's sort of. It's very cynical but it was right. I mean work for mitch mcconnell. He couldn't stop everything because democrats period there had sixty votes on their own but he was able to stop a lot from coming to the floor and you know who paid the price in those midterms the obama did and that's the way it's been since republicans took back the government when they had the unified government dean democrats just as a matter of course just filibuster authored as much as they could well. I guess i know why the minority party would like to filibuster because it gives them leverage. One person can take control and just hold the floor four but why would the majority party like the republicans right now. Why would they like the filibuster will concert in general have a theory about the filibuster that so you got rid of it there make it easier to pass legislation that would help democrats and liberals in the long run it would just sort of grow the size of government and more exponential essential pace legislation isn't really that it's really not that important to the republican agenda right. Now i mean mitch. Mcconnell doesn't have a lot of legislation nations that you know he's desperate to pass. He just wants to confirm lot of judges who could roll back. What's already on the books whereas democrats if they win the presidency i mean they really do need legislation. Get most of their agenda through the can't do everything through executive order so republicans yeah they feel in the long run that getting rid of the filibuster having kajority only body would just would just grow government. That's so interesting. I hadn't even thought about it that way. What would it take to eliminate the filibuster buster. <hes> fifty votes kind of ironic yeah yeah it's it's a bit of a loophole technically to change senate rules. You need two thirds votes votes but there is this loophole where you can change the precedent in the way that the rules interpreted whenever someone talks about the senate using the nuclear option. This is what they mean. The majority leader can raise a point of order and allow a simple majority of senators to change senate. Rules are interpreted voila. That's that's all it takes to kill. The filibuster. Harry reid did this in a partial way in two thousand thirteen. He used it to get rid of the filibuster for presidential appointees. It was a way you get a bunch of obama. Judicial picks confirmed right and the democrats were fine with that intil trump became president yeah yeah and then the sort of lack of filibuster buster amend judges were being approved to they weren't especially fond of like if you look it brett cavanaugh for instance sailing through so what does that experiment sadio see. I think there have been some democrats who regret taking that vote. I think it was going to happen eventually anyway. Eh mitch mcconnell really was blocking a lot of judges for no particularly good reason and i think it was necessary. Just after years of obstruction not being able to get many judges through he was able to finally get a lot of his appointees through you mean you're saying the democrats basically had no choice. They weren't going to get anything done if they didn't eliminate the filibuster for judicial appointees yet i mean they're they're gonna leave a ton of vacancies and they were thinking at the time to you know the courts are very important to republicans next time they have unified power. They're just going to eliminate this filibuster and pack the courts as much as they want. You look at the national environment and it's so polarized polarizing. There's so much pressure on each side to sort of top the other that it's become looking at every possible permutation of filibuster you'd have to think like is there any chance that they won't change it next time and it just seems unlikely just because of the pressure each side has so democrats went ahead on that particular one and changed it. I so you're saying the democrats. Were trying to get a jump on the republicans essentially yeah pretty much yeah but at the same time they s- it set us up for where we are now. How which is you know tons of republican judges going through and if you're a progressive your may have your hat in your head in your hands about that. I think it it also shows how once you eliminate this rule. You eliminate it for. Everyone and you're basically increasing the volatility. You are increasing the volatility but i think there's a feeling among senators that in terms of appointments in the filibusters on that it's not as has dramatic a step as doing it for legislation which would really be a whole other category of change the government. I mean if we didn't have a legislative filibuster the buster right now. We probably have a wall right. We never wall and we i mean we'd have a wall and their <hes> planned parenthood might longer get any federal funding and you. The government could be slashed in half. I mean all these just extravagant wishlist items at the moment congress laughs off because they know that you know they're we're going to have to reach a bipartisan deal because of the filibuster it's sort of democrats leverage now imagine they don't have the filibuster then you look at that you know insane trump budget legit and that's all in play like he can do all that if he if republicans had both the house and the senate and they're able to to get their majorities is united they can do whatever they want. You know then again if they know that they can do whatever they want. Maybe they don't over promise quite as much because they don't wanna live with the consequences of actually getting done something that they that they've pitched right because right now involves is this hardcore negotiation where the republicans come in hard with the budget that the democrats and the democrats come in hard with medicare for all or whatever other green new deal proposal. They're putting out there and this might force them to propose something realistic something. They're prepared to live with being signed into law rather than something. Something just gets a quick cheer at a rally or something jim newell. Thank you so much for joining me thank you. Jim newell covers politics for slate all right. That's the show what next is produced by mary wilson and jason de leon. It is hosted by me. Mary harris and we are all so site to be back from vacation. Talk to you tomorrow.
What Happens When the Senate Takes up Impeachment?
"At Omaha steaks cyber Monday isn't just one day. The deals last all week right now. podcast listeners can get cyber Monday deals on one hundred percent guaranteed stay gifts that everyone will share remember and love delicious. Ten Omaha steaks are unique gift that keeps on giving. They'll be delighted when your gift arrives. Yes and think of you. Every time they could enjoy their meals. Act Now during the cyber Monday sale to get a podcast exclusive six piece. Cutlery said in cutting board with every regifters end go to Omaha steaks DOT COM and type the point in the search bar to order the favored gift package with twenty one delicious gourmet items for just sixty nine ninety nine today and welcome to the point for December fifth. I'm Lauren Danske and Co author of the point. I'm here to cut through the political spin to bring you the news. You need to know there is still a lot that we do not know about the houses impeachment precedings and how they will play out but on Thursday house speaker. Nancy Pelosi said that the house will proceed with articles of impeachment against the president that means trump will very likely be the third president in. US history to be impeached. Democrats are planning to hold a vote before before Christmas. Once the house. Votes to impeach trump the Senate then takes over. There is a lot of question marks around that Senate trial for starters. The the timing is completely up in the air so much so that when the Senate's twenty twenty legislative calendar was released on Wednesday which lays out when senators are expected to be at work next year the entire month of January was left blank. Does that mean that. The Senate impeachment trial will ask the entire month of January. We will even start in January as expected. Senate Majority Leader Mitch. McConnell perhaps put it best quote there is no answer at the moment and quote quote one thing we do know while the White House was not involved in the houses process. Expect them to be involved in the Senate part of the trial as CNN's Phil Mattingly and Lauren Fox reported the White House is now onboard with a full Senate trial. One that would include a robust defense from the president's resident legal team. Why would the White House play ball with the Senate and not the house? That's because Republicans are in control of the Senate process because Republicans control the Senate Senate that could also mean that we could hear witnesses that the White House wants to hear from like Hunter Biden or that anonymous whistleblower but truly we do not know if that will happen which brings us to the point. The House is going to take up articles of impeachment which means that it is very certainly headed to the Senate but when that happens happens and what that looks like is still entirely unknown and that is the point for December Fifth Twenty nineteen. Thank you for listening for more updates start the week including our Sunday night. Campaign edition. Subscribe to the point newsletter at CNN dot com slash. The point. If you like this audio briefing you can get on Google home or Amazon Echo or subscribe on twitter or apple podcasts or your favorite podcast app so you never miss an episode shop the Omaha steaks cyber Monday sale all week long and save on delicious memorable gifts. They'll enjoy throughout the holiday season this week. podcast listeners can get the favored gift package for just sixty nine ninety nine when you go to Omaha. STEAKS DOT COM type the point in the search bar. You're happy friends and family will open their doors to a cooler full of deliciously tender stakes bless premium meats sides desert. They'll love it when it arrives and think of you. Every time they cook and enjoy their meals Omaha. steaks is a fifth generation. American family only owned company. That's been handcrafting. Incredible state gifts for one hundred two years and every gift package is unconditionally. Guaranteed so you can order with complete confidence. Yes the cyber Monday deals are available all week. But you don't WanNa wait order now to get a six piece. Cutlery said and cutting board added your gift absolutely free. This exclusive Lucido. Free Gift is only available for a limited time. So don't delay take advantage of the Omaha steaks cyber Monday sale. Now go to Omaha steaks DOT COM and type the the point in the search bar to order the favored gift package for just sixty nine ninety nine today.
Awaiting a Senate Trial
"From NBC News. This is article two inside impeachment. I'm Julia the Ainsley. NBC News correspondent covering the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security sitting. In for Steve Kornacki. Today is Monday December thirtieth. And here's what's happening. When we proceeded with are going to the next step we've put forth our resolution that described of how the process would be conducted? We hope to get some signal from the Senate on that may or may not. It's been twelve days since the the House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment against President Trump but trial can't get underway until the articles are moved out of the House and into the Senate and that hasn't happened yet. You just heard speaker. Pelosi say she wants more information from the Senate before. The articles are transmitted his trial. Those people it's all about the papers go right ahead. Congress hasn't returned from recess yet but in the meantime some senators are weighing in on. What a trial should look like everything I do during this? I'm coordinating with White House. Counsel there will be no difference between the president physician our position as to how to handle this well in fairness when I heard that I was disturbed. A Senate impeachment. Trial is different than what Tori no in a in a criminal trial Avak. Senator McConnell is entitled to his opinion and his approach so is Senator Murkowski. So as Senator Schumer Senator Blumenthal if you look at the constitution the standing rules of the Senate. What you'll see? Is that when it comes to impeachment. The rule he has virtually no substantive rule so today on article two we look ahead to the next phase of this impeachment the likely next phase. That is what can the country expect from an impeachment trial in the Senate Frank. Thorpe is an NBC producer Sir reporter covering the Senate actually be in the room when and if the Senate trial happens frank. Thanks so much for joining again on article too thick so much fatemi so so frank right now impeachment is in limbo as I understand it. Is there a chance at the Senate. Trial won't actually happen. I mean hypothetically there could be no trial. The speaker occur. Pelosi needs to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for the Senate trial to begin. There's really no precedent for the Senate to just begin an impeachment trial without the house. Actually sending those articles over so until that gets done. We're pretty much at a standstill but in reality Mitch. McConnell the Senate majority Jordan leader Republican from Kentucky. He said that he has plenty of stuff to do. In the meantime so if there's a delay in the trial McConnell said he's pretty much fine with that okay so assuming. The articles of impeachment are in fact transmitted to the Senate. What does the constitution say about? How the Senate trial should work? What are the rules here? Are there rules here. So there are some rules that are established in the rules of the Senate but the constitution is pretty vague on what the procedure is and in this situation. Obviously there's not been very many the impeachments in the past so they really don't have that much to look at but there are also other things that are kind of codified in the rules that they would probably follow. I mean at the beginning of the trial though say all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the Senate of the United States sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. That is technically in the rules. I mean that would be there. That's not part of the constitution though. That's it's part of the Senate rules and again that can change so you have stuff like that. You also have the fact. That senators won't be able to stand up and ask their own questions they would submit. Those is questions in writing and those questions would then be asked to either the managers or the defense or any potential life witnesses. Senators won't be talking hawking. They'll be sitting there. Basically silently listening to the trial. They won't be able to use their phones. That's a just a regular Senate rule. They didn't have cell phones back when they drafted the constitution itution. So I think that because it's such a rare thing to happen on the Senate floor. They're going to have to make up a lot of this stuff as they go. So when we're all watching in this on TV and we're trying to figure out who we should be paying attention to. You're going to be in the room and you know these players better than anybody. Can you just flag for his. Who are the key players in this trial? And what are their roles yeah. There's the managers the house managers are going to be the members of the House of Representatives. That Speaker Pelosi Lousy designates to come over and lay out the case against the president. You know there's also the the White House counsel the defense the way that it will work is at the managers lay out their case and and the White House counsel will then lay out their arguments of why the president should not be convicted. They will be key players in this chief justice. John Roberts is going to be a very major player as well considering that he will be presiding over this trial. This is a very unique process the pomp and circumstance of an impeachment trial is unlike unlike any other having the chief justice. Preside over the Senate it. It just doesn't happen. The Vice President Vice President Pence is technically the president of the Senate. He can come in and and break its high for any kind of regular vote. The vice president will have any role in this the last group of people that were really keeping an eye on here. Is that Group of Republican senators others particularly the moderate senators who have said that they really want to see a a fair trial impartial. Trial who have been Not so quick to come to the president's defense during this entire process in the house It's really going to be them. who were going to dictate how this trial goes in terms of whether whether or not there witnesses and basically how the trial goes in general whether or not? They feel like they've heard enough and they can end it or whether or not they want to hear more and sew leader. McConnell is going to have to be very closely in contact with them and to be honest you know. Democratic leader Chuck Schumer is probably going to be communicating with them as well in in an effort to see if they can get them on their side. The majority in the in the Senate is very very slim fifty. Three senators are on the Republican side. If Democrats can pull hole for them over to their side they can do a lot with how they want this trial to go. Well said there's this really small group of people who really matter later and this this moderate Republicans that you talked about. Does that mean those people might actually switch or that. They may just dig their heels in on the process side of things. What are you predicting in terms of of moderate Republicans? Why would say that? In terms of digging in on the process we have a situation where you know. Senator Lisa Murkowski. Who's a Republican from Alaska? Senator Susan Collins is a Republican from Maine and Senator Mitt. Romney who's a Republican can from Utah. These are senators who have not been critical of the house process. We've pressed them over and over again in the hallways about how they feel. The Senate trial L.. Should go how they felt the house. Impeachment inquiry has gone and while they've said that the house impeachment inquiry hasn't necessarily been an ideal situation they weren't really very critical of the way that it was handled because they are more on the of the view that they wanna hear the arguments over in the Senate when they lay out the case in the Senate trial McConnell. CONNEL's going to go to these senators and say I need to know whether or not you've heard enough and we can vote to convict now or whether or not you're going to be pushing for witnesses and you feel like we need to go further and those three are going to be very key in terms of how this whole process plays out. Thanks Frank we're GONNA take a quick break. If you could just hang tight eight we will be right back. Hey Chris as you know. Sometimes it's good to just take a step back from the day to day onslaught of news and take our broader. Look the issues. That's what I'm doing each week on my podcast. Why is this happening? We're exploring topics ranging from school segregation to climate change. Well the way that I think of it is. Climate Change will be to the twenty first century. What maternity west of the nineteenth century? It'll be the central subject of questions about economic justice. Everything you care about in the world will be affected by climate and digging deep with guests uniquely qualified to analyze issues from incarceration to race relations as you know for the first time in our history at the national level level whites are on the verge of losing their majority status in twenty years. And I think it's no coincidence that our politics are getting more tribal. Join me for wisest happening. New episodes episodes every Tuesday. Wherever you get your podcasts so frank on this question of whether each side will get it to call witnesses? That's really important to this debate. Who are we talking about? What witnesses do you think each side would plan to call so Senate Minority leader? Her Chuck Schumer has sent a letter to majority leader. McConnell asking specifically for four witnesses actually ended up sending that letter to the entire Senate it. That's all we want the facts. We don't know how these witnesses will testify. We don't know what the documents if we get them. Our hands on them will say. Maybe they'll be expelled. Tori of president trump. Or maybe they'll be further condemning president trump's actions we don't know but we should see them regardless of what what they say and two of the notable witnesses would be John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney the acting chief of staff at the White House the four or witnesses that Schumer asked for were not witnesses that we heard from in the house impeachment inquiry now. McConnell has responded saying there's no precedent precedent for hearing for new witnesses in this trial that that the reason why the impeachment inquiry exists is to get all the information and send it over to the Senate to be able to you decide whether or not to convict now. In the ninety nine trial of President Clinton they had witnesses that they deposed instead of actually having them live on the Senate floor. which technically you could do? They had them in a room and they were. They videotaped a question and answer and then they ended up playing those questions and answers on the Senate four for senators to watch now the difference there. Is that those those witnesses that they depose which included Monica Lewinsky. Were actually witnesses. That had already ready been heard from as a part of the investigation that resulted in articles of impeachment passing in the House. This would be different situation. Schumer is asking for something different. Here he's asking for more he's asking for particular witnesses that have information related to this case that have not been heard from the only other issue here. Is that what this would potentially open up. The Senate to is the flipside witnesses that Republicans might actually want to talk to. Which is somebody like? Joe Biden Hunter Biden. There's a number of different people. Republicans have threatened to call in the event that they're witnesses that Democrats want you the idea of having witnesses witnesses shortness. In fact I talked to the Senator Joni Ernst a couple of weeks ago and I said well would you be open to having a Mulvaney Bolton testify before the Senate you WanNa hear Mulvaney or like people want to hear from fighting. It's kind of a back and forth that they're going to have to do because they need fifty one senators to agree to have any kind of witnesses at all. There might be a back and forth negotiation. That would if you end up opening up the Senate to Democratic witness you also might open up the Senate to a Republican witness so free it seems like this issue of fairness is hanging everything whether we're talking about witnesses or whether we're talking about if Speaker Pelosi is even going to hand over these articles of impeachment and start a Senate trial. There seems to be the the big thing that both sides are using as they point back and forth to each other. Can you just walk us through. Wind did this issue becomes such a flash point and how of both sides been using it. Will I mean the idea of fairness is is obviously an important one. It's obviously also defined by either side in different ways. The idea of leader McConnell saying I am not an impartial. Juror was a notable thing for him to say. Also D- partisan political decision to impeach. We will have largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all but at the same time you know a Senate trial and impeachment trial is inherently political. He's going to advocate for his person for his president. Now the reality is that you know. The the senators are going to take an oath. If they're going to take an oath. But at the beginning of the trial saying I solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment I will do impartial justice according to the constitutions and laws so help me God. That isn't that they're going to be taking but again. They are not technically impartial. Jury this is not a court of law. There's not the same expectations. Well Frank. I have learned a lot from this now. Some of our listeners. Have some questions for you. Kamal from Lakewood California says could certain senators. Just choose to not show up for the final vote or abstain from the vote. So that's a good question. I think that there's a a little bit of an open answer. There I mean I think you know. Senators are compelled to be there for the trial. I think that senators have said that they would be there for the trial that they would do. Do their duty. There's been a little bit of discussion about what happens if you know Senate. Trial is happening during debate. Day Whether or not there could be an agreement amongst the Senate which would require basically all one hundred senators to move the trial time or the trial date maybe push today or move it a little bit earlier. Technically President Clinton's trial. We saw the trial happened. Start at usually one o'clock pm and go until around five or six o'clock They could move that but I mean I in in reality all one hundred senators are expected to be in their seats for the entire time. And that's one of the things that McConnell has been kind of dangling over senators as a way way to get them to realize that this is going to be heavy and potentially long process. They're going to be there sitting in their seats and they really Kinda. Don't you have an option and then pat from Dallas says can achieve justice overruled. The Senate vote well so the chief justice as we kind of already already established could have an active or a passive role and. I think the expectation is that he would probably have a passive role meaning. He would leave a lot of the questions to the body of the the Senate to vote on if there is a motion. Made if there's an objection made he would let the Senate decided to vote now. Hypothetically the chief justice could overrule all emotion but again any motion by or any decision made by the chief. Justice is subject to a responding motion by any senator her which would then be put up for a vote. The short answer is no fifty-one senators. Have the most power during the Senate trial that is just the reality. What the chief justice? We'll do is just oversee this trial and make sure that it doesn't get unruly and take their cues from the parliamentarian and from the folks that will let them know let him know how they expect the Senate trial to go so frank last question for me. This just comes from talking to family over the holidays the people want to know. Is this a foregone conclusion that Republicans control the Senate so the president won't be convicted and should they even be paying attention to what happens. That's next to the Senate and if so why should they. It's not a ridiculous thing to think that this feels like a foregone conclusion and McConnell has said as much he's basically typically assured that the president will not be convicted. They need sixty seven votes to do so. That would take twenty Republicans to join all democrats and that's a they've a highly unlikely scenario for them to vote to convict and remove the president now. Obviously we've seen the president tweet about a million times about this this. We've seen his surrogates argue. Why they feel like this impeachment is in their words Sham but the reality is is that a lot of that has been very much focused on the process and this this trial is going to be very different? It's going to be worth watching simply because it's going to be more austere almost in a way. There's not going to be the yelling and the screaming and the crazy motions and things like that put forward and end. Democrats or Republicans giving speeches in the middle of MARKUPS. And so we're going to hear a clear argument from the house managers. Why they feel that? What what president trump did was impeachable? And we're going to actually hear the defense. The White House argue. Why it's not and that's something? I think that whether or not there are enough enough votes for the president to be convicted or not is definitely worth watching. That's a great argument. Well we will certainly be watching and we will be watching for your great coverage from the floor. Our thanks Frank Q.. Article two inside. Peach is produced by Isabel Angel. Max Jacobs Jacobs Clear Tie Air Dalton. preseve are Thon Alison Bailey. Adam Noboa and Barbara Wrap our executive producer is Ellen Franken Steve. Lik Tai is the executive producer of audio. I'm Julia Ainsley. NBC News correspondent covering the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. We'll be off on Wednesday for the New Year. But Steve Kornacki will be back in the host chair on Friday. Hi Everyone Steve Kornacki. Thanks for listening now I want to invite you to talk to us appeared NBC News. We'd like to know more about you. And the topics you'd be interested in hearing about as we look to launch new podcasts. So you can text the word podcast. Two six six six eight six six. We'll text you a link to a short survey again. Text the word podcast to six eight six six standard text messaging rates. Apply your input matters and we are looking forward to hearing from you.
U.S. Senate votes to extend government surveillance tools
"The senators voted to renew three domestic surveillance. Tools that lapsed in March after Congress failed to reauthorize them as NPR's Ryan. Lucas explains the surveillance programs are used by the FBI and National Security Investigations. The Senate voted by a wide margin. Reauthorized the three domestic spying provisions the Senate version of the bill includes one amendment that supporters say will strengthen privacy and civil liberties protections for individuals who are targets of government surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or Faiza with that amendment the legislation. Now heads back to the house where lawmakers will have to vote on it again. The HOUSEWORK FOR WEEKS TO COBBLE TOGETHER. A bipartisan compromise. Bill that they passed in March. It's unclear whether the Senate version will have the necessary support in the house. Pass if it does. The bill would then head to the president's desk.
A Socially Distanced Senate
"From New York Times I'm Michael Barr. This is the daily a today despite reservations from its own. Doctor the Senate reconvened on Monday nick. Phantoms on why one chamber of Congress is so determined to return to wash it. It's Wednesday may sixth. Give us the scene inside the US capital on Tuesday morning. So it's a totally surreal setup particularly for those of us that are used to watching congress in wood hearing room across the street from the capital which are usually full of people getting ready to watch senators question a witness and instead you had a totally empty room. You're really quiet. Is Few senators gathered at one side wearing masks? They've got pumps of hand sanitizer at the ready totally at the other side of the room. Maybe twenty or thirty feet away is a witness. Who's ready to give them testimony? They wave across the room. Richard Burr the chairman and Mark Warner the top Democrat. Throw out there. Hobos for a little bit of an elbow bump but there's none of the usual energy that we'd see on a typical weekday morning in the capital. And what exactly is happening in this very weird sounding seen what was playing out was a confirmation hearing in this case of John Radcliffe. Who's a republican congressman and a loyal supporter of president trump? Who's now nominee to be the director of national intelligence to oversee the country's seventeen intelligence agencies? Skip ready right at nine thirty Richard Burr. Who's the chairman of the committee? Pulled down his mask and revealed a scraggly uncharacteristic beard that evidently he'd been growing over the last month. I mean who who hasn't exactly and like all. The order called the hearing into session. This hearing will Be a little bit different. It is perhaps the first congressional hearing held during the extenuating circumstances of the pandemic. We have a sparse crowd and expanded bias reflective of the committee's adherence to the guidelines put forth by the Rules Committee and the attending physician senators had certain social distancing requirements. They were spaced out around the room and only allowed to come in to ask their questions in small waves but without any kind of normal energy tension or cross talk that we might be used to in a high-profile Congressional hearing like this this is basically like a socially distant version of the United States. Senate at work. Yes I wish I could also welcome your wife. Michelle and your daughter's Rally Darby. But given our attempts to minimize the number of people in the hearing room I send them my appreciation via C. Span and it was not very compelling. Tv everything about this hearing that you're describing sounds labored and surreal and risk right. I mean it's a confirmation hearing it's not a pandemic Relief Ville. It's not a hospital funding bill. So why is this even happening in this way in person a lot of senators were asking themselves that question in the last few days as they prepared to come back to Washington as well and you know the answer really goes back more than a month. When at the end of March senators found themselves staring down? This increasingly dire situation Wall Street is about to close any minute now. The Dow collapsing. Its worst single day. Loss Ever Ohio and Illinois shutting down restaurants and bars today. Cal problem is job. Losses are adding up and it is across the country and it is in all sectors out front now Jim Bianco and so the House and Senate Republicans and Democrats did. They rarely do has reached a bipartisan agreement on a historic relief package but as they set aside their own kind of partisan interest in issues in very quickly put together this massive two trillion dollar health and economic relief bill that they passed almost unanimously in the house unanimously. In the Senate to all Americans I say help is on the way big help. And quick help. And then basically out of concern for their own health and safety. They left town and they didn't know when they were GONNA come back. They didn't know if it'd be a couple of weeks or a month and almost as soon as they did lawmakers in both chambers start to debate when and how do we get back to Washington and get back to doing this thing kind of few round to debate but it really comes to a head. Basically last week at the very end of April win both the leaders of the House and Senate come out and say Congress will be back in session next month may fourth. That's according to a tweet from house. Majority leader Steny. Hoyer's press office Senate Majority Leader Mitch. Mcconnell made a similar announcement regarding his comeback on Monday may fourth. And we're going to try getting back to normal as best we can but some house. Democrats say that they are worried about the spread of covered nineteen at the Capitol and some say for the House. As soon as they announced that decision they immediately started getting pushback from some of their members. Who were saying. It's not safe for us to come back. We're not ready any decision that we have that when we come back with sergeant arms and the Capitol Physician Democratic leaders in the House consulted Congress. Top doctor who told them really wouldn't be wise at this point to bring Congress back into session and so not twenty four hours after they announced that they would be coming back to the US House of Representatives on Tuesday changed. Course on its house reversed itself and Said No. We're going to stay out of session indefinitely until conditions have improved and we feel that we need to take action on some meaningful legislation but the Senate comes to very different decision. Meanwhile leadership maintains the upper chamber way backed work as usual on May fourth. They have much the same medical advice. They work on the other half of the Capitol building from the House and Mitch McConnell. Who's the top Republican basically sets the schedule in the Senate he calls the shots says that we're going come back into session. And what are the implications of that decision by McConnell practically speaking we convene the Senate so on the one hand you know the Senate is a pretty small body. It's one hundred senators. You know two thirds of them are over the age of sixty so they are at risk but the real impact. When you start to think about it is. There's this huge network of Support Staff. Basically behind each senator the institution as a whole. There's cooks that run dining services. There's people that keep the capital clean. There's Capitol Police stationed everywhere to keep everyone safe. They're all kinds of jobs that you wouldn't think about it. So the decision to bring an institution like the Senate back into session ripples outward and you know could impact hundreds if not a thousand or more people and what exactly is McConnell stated rationale for doing this. I mean given that the House has said it's too great a risk right. What is his argument for. Why one hundred senators from fifty different states have to get on planes and return to Washington well. Mcconnell essentially says after more than a month away there is a lot of work piling up for the Senate would normally be doing and McConnell essentially put senators in league with frontline workers if it's essential that brave health workers grocery store workers truck drivers and many other. Americans continue to carefully show up for work and it's essential that their US senators carefully show up ourselves and support them you know for asking doctors and health professionals and grocery store workers and other government employees to go out and put themselves at risk every day to show up for work We ought to be doing that to. The Senate is integral to responding to this crisis and if we take the right precautions they can do it safely enough to justify being there so basically his cases were all in this together that's right but I think the reality underpinning that is a little bit more complicated and it has to do both with politics and with the aspirations of Auto Republicans and government leaders. We'll be right back. This episode of daily is supported by the new showtime original series penny dreadful city of angels when a gruesome murder shocks nineteen thirty eight Los Angeles Detective Iago Vega and his partner. Louis Michener find themselves grappling with Nazi spies crooked politicians and powerful supernatural forces. Natalie dormer Daniels of auto and Nathan Lane Star and Penny dreadful city of angels now streaming only on showtime the daily listeners can try showtime free for thirty days go to showtime Dot Com now and enter code daily offer. Expires may twenty four. Th Twenty Twenty. Hi. This is archie say graphic structure for the New York Times. We recently published data that we've been collecting over the past few months on the krona vars cases throughout the United States. The see only reporting things kind of spot at the state level. We wanted to try to get as much detail geographic information about the cases as we could federal and local agencies reaching out to a saying. Hey we really could use this data to help model what is going on in our communities. We knew that this was important. That readers needed to know what was happening in their own. Neighborhoods the impact of that. Visual presentation of the data is much more powerful when we put it on a map than if we were describing words that we made the decision to release data publicly. So that anybody that needed for public research or for policy making could use the data for those purposes you can find the coverage on the ongoing ours crisis at NY TIMES DOT com slash krona virus. So what are these more complicated and unspoken reasons? Why Mitch McConnell Would WanNa Bring the Senate back into session? Many senators in his Republican caucus come from states like Georgia and Texas and Florida that are run by Republicans and are kind of at the forefront of starting to reopen where governors and state leaders are trying to convince their citizens to get back to normal that things can reopen the economy can restart and you know part of that to these Republicans feel like maybe we can model getting back to work. We can show people that if we take the right precautions. If we wear masks and socially distance we can continue or get back to doing this work and we don't have to be cowed. By fear we can start to reinvigorate parts of society and if government can do. That business could do that too. That's not to say other parts of the country should move more slowly right but we can lead by example right and there's a certain logic to that as well as I guess credibility if the senators are doing this and taking the risking showing people. It's possible then it's not just them saying it's good enough for you. They're saying it's actually good enough for me. Yeah they they have a certain amount of skin in the game albeit better protected skin than a water front line workers. Probably do but it seems to me. You know basically a kind of optimistic view that this can be done. We don't have to stay inside forever now. Something else has been going on here in the last month. That is layered on top of this and that is the kind of political impact of the pandemic on that New York Times reporting that Republican governors are growing more concerned about President handling of the corona virus outbreak. And how it could shape the results of the November election you know. President trump has seen internally in public polls have shown that his standing against Joe Biden nationally and in key swing states has grown shakier over the last several weeks states survey commissioned by the Republican National Committee which found that trump is struggling in the electoral college battleground and as likely to lose without signs of an economic rebound this fall. There's been polls coming out of key. Battleground Senate races across the country may decide the Senate majority that show. Democrats knocking on the door of the Republicans or in some cases opening up significant leads. There were fundraising reports that showed Democrats out raising Republican incumbents for three years President Trump and Republicans in the House and Senate have pinned Awad of their political hopes on the economy and the kind of upward march of the stock markets and of wages and the corona virus has wiped that out and so there is an has been over the last several weeks. I think a real uneasiness settling in among Republicans and nobody has a better finger on the political pulse particularly of Senate races than Mitch McConnell. And how does the Senate returning to Washington begin to change any of that Dire Dano for Republicans that you just tick through one of the best things that Republicans running for reelection who are in office right now can do to make a positive impression on their constituents is look like they're at work you know is help put in place programs and policies and solutions that help the country through this going back to work in? Washington being seen as doing their job as kind of leaders for the country could prove very helpful. Politically right so the thinking. Is that the worst possible situation. For a Republican senator in a state where polling shows the president down and perhaps a competitive race coming up in the fall. The worst thing would be getting stuck at home unable to look like a lawmaker at this moment. Yeah there are certain things that he's centers have been able to do from home connecting by phone or you know zoom with constituents but it's lower-profile and certainly they would not want to be accused of sitting on the sidelines while thousands of Americans are dying of Americans are losing their draw by McConnell's in the minds of the Republican leadership all that much downside to bringing senators back oven perhaps exposure the virus sure and there is some risk of that bring senators back into the capital in their step mingling. Lawmakers have contracted the virus before but they have basically judged that that risk is low. Enough that it's worthwhile that there's too. Many other reasons Veritas. They may be to be in session. Not Too right. And so that explains why all these senators are going in and out of that room and these weird waves with masks on and all that Burell for this confirmation hearing and curious did it and the playing out as Republicans had hoped senators. Thank you MR chairman. It looked really bizarre but at the end of the day you know this hearing basically worked out well for Republicans Why do you believe that? President trump has accurately conveyed the severity of the threat of covert nineteen to the American people. Congressional hearings like this are often adversarial. Misunderstanding I'm sorry. Has He accurately reflected the status of the pandemic conveyed the severity of the pandemic? Yeah and it's about trying to pin nominee into an unflattering statement or expose something about their backgrounds as he accurately conveyed verity of covert nineteen to the American people. I believe so you do. And and in this case Democrats really struggled because they were cycling in and out of the room because radcliff was so physically far away from them to really kind of build any momentum or any tough critical picture of him. You know it was just a kind of diffused stretched out atmosphere and Republicans lined up in support and they have the majority so at the end of the day. They're probably going to be able to get their guy through so they went quite well for Republicans it did. I want to thank you John for your time this morning. I want to thank the members for working under the temporary construct at the end of the hearing Chairman Richard Burr. Pull down his mask again and essentially announced that he would support the nominee. Ford to advancing your nomination rapidly and to voting in favor of your confirmation in the full Senate. He felt confident enough that he'll hold a vote in his committee next week. And you know the full Senate could be voting within a couple of weeks to install kind of loyal defender of president trump as the head of the nation's intelligence apparatus. So as well as that. Well I'm curious what happens if over time as the pandemic persists if the pulling for Republicans ends up staying pretty bad right and they have ultimately come to Washington for nothing or in an even worse scenario they come to Washington and members get sick and maybe staff get sick and it really looks bad for the Party and all this ends up. Kind of backfiring will it have seemed at all worth you know? There is a lot of different directions that things could go in but there is one benefit that basically gets locked in as long as they're in session holding votes And it's one that. Mcconnell has always been attuned to and sees as the first of the Senate and that is confirming nominees for the Executive Branch and in particular lifetime appointments to the Federal Courts. And so the way to think about this perhaps is that if Republicans political prospects are looking unfavourable at the moment. If they don't recover then these may be the final months of a Republican majority in the Senate. This may be the final opportunity to continue the kind of record streak of pudding judges on the bench that will shape the law and policy in this country for a generation to come to move those things through. And you know that's not an opportunity that Republicans WanNa pass up on either case in point one of the first actions that the Senate is going to be taking when it's back is setting up. A bunch of additional district court judges all over the country and Democrats can complain about it and Gripe about it and they have. They've argued that senators shouldn't be taking the risk of being back. Your unless all of their actions are laser focused on the corona virus and the response and overseeing the trump administration's implementation of their relief programs etc. But ultimately you know the majority wins on this stuff and I think that McConnell feels time is of the essence so there's a version of this where things do keep going south for Republicans and their response is to just keep crashing these confirmations through and in the process cement their legacy in this last set of months that they may the majority if they can show and these next couple of weeks. There's a way to safely function by putting in place different precautions. Then yeah even in the very worst case scenario for Republicans where they don't do any additional corona virus legislating where their political prospects continue to window. And they're going to lose the majority. There's only upshot in in staying in town and filling up every last court seed in in every corner of the trump administration that might still be league out. Some Republican conservative policy wins before November. Because if they don't if they leave town none of those things are possible and they essentially you know seed back the power the majority in what may be the last weeks and months that they can really exercise. You thank you. Thank you so much for having me Gary. Back Van Guard was founded on the simple but radical idea that investment company can succeed because it puts investors first vanguard is client own you own their funds and the Fund's own vanguard which means vanguard is built to ensure that your interests will be the priority together vanguards thirty million investors are changing the way the world invests visit vanguard dot com or talk to your financial advisor to learn more. Here's what else you need. Hyundai thrilled to be here in the fantastic state of Arizona. I Love Arizona with the incredible through. Had some good moments here especially on election day on Tuesday during an event at a plant in Arizona. President Trump said that the White House Task Force on the Corona virus would be shut down and replaced with something else which he said he was not yet ready to describe Dole. You need to continue to meet with a task force to get this scientific expertise on your freedom. We will have certain people as an example of we have hospitals that we built. We have medical centers that we built. We have people on the task force and focus on that asked why he was winding down the task force. Now in the middle of the pandemic. The president offered no clear explanation but said that the key doctors on it like Dr Deborah burks would still be involved in the response you're saying mission accomplished no no not at all. The mission accomplished what itself The Times reports that the decision will only intensify questions about the ability of the White House to confront a public health crisis that has already killed more Americans than the US wars in Vietnam Iraq and Afghanistan combined. That's it for the daily. I'm Michael Borrow see you tomorrow a payroll and HR company needs to be prepared for whatever's going to happen. You could say that. Over seventy years of experience helping businesses all over the world run. Smoothly is good preparation but for ADP. That's not enough to make sure. Millions of people are getting paid on time and in compliance. We're staying on top of each new piece of legislation so when it comes down to it. Adp isn't just a payroll and HR company where the company that helps you navigate the complexities ADP HR talent time benefits and payroll informed by data and designed for people.
House, Senate in impeachment standoff over next steps
"So one of the breaking news items of the hour it comes from a magazine that was founded by the Reverend Billy. Graham called Christianity. Today it's one of the most influential publications in the Evangelical Anjelica Community and published a rare editorial about politics tonight with the headline trump should be removed from office. This editorial will be more influential with more trump voters than any editorial run by the New York Times The Washington Post and the L. A.. Times any of those newspapers. We'll get into the specifics of that editorial and the political implications of it later in this hour our first guest tonight will be Harvard. Law Professor Laurence tribe who wrote the most influential op. Ed piece yet about impeachment on Monday he published an OP. Ed Piece in The Washington Post suggesting that Democrats should consider not sending the articles of impeachment directly to the Senate after they pass them. which is exactly where we are tonight? The impeachment action resumed at nine thirty A. M. This morning as promised by Mitch. McConnell Senator McConnell announced last night that he would make a statement about the Senate impeachment trial on the Senate floor at nine. Thirty am After Nancy Pelosi's dramatic announcement last night that she was not ready to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate because Mitch McConnell was still bill. Promising an unfair trial a rigged trial for Donald Trump. Here's the way Mitch. McConnell characterized the speaker's position when he went to the Senate floor this morning Speaker Pelosi suggested that House Democrats may be too afraid to afraid to even transmit Smith or shoddy work product to the Senate spread. It looks like the prosecutors are getting cold feet in front of the entire country and second guessing whether they even want to go to trial patient was so urgent that it could not even wait for due process. But now they're content to sit on their hands. This is really comical and less than an hour after that speaker. Pelosi said this we would hope there would be a fair process just as we hope that they would under the constitution. By the way I saw some of it. But I heard some of what Mitch McConnell said today and it reminded me that our founders when they wrote the constitution they suspected that there could be a real president. I don't think they suspected that we can have a president and a rogue leader in the Senate at the same time. And here's another look at Mitch. McConnell going rogue the day before the president was impeached by the House. I'm not an impartial with your this is a political process. Judicial about impeachment is a political political decision. House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial Marshall about this at all and hear the words of the oath that Mitch McConnell will take as a juror in the Senate impeachment trial I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws so help me God impartial. That were is actually in the oath. Both and that is the specific word which McConnell used one saying. He would violate that oath. He said he would not be an impartial. Juror here's what the Senate Democratic leader Truck Schumer said before going into a negotiating session with Mitch. McConnell today leader McConnell breaking precedent strongarm his caucus into making this the first Senate impeachment trial of the president in history that heard no no witnesses. We ask is the president's case so weak that none of the president's men can defend him under under oath if the house case so weak. Why is leader McConnell? So afraid of witnesses and documents then Mitch McConnell announced the results assaults of their negotiation after their meeting on the Senate floor we were at an impasse. Because how's my friend. That Democratic leader continues to demand a new and different set of rules for president trump. By different he met different from the rules in the bill. Clinton President Clinton impeachment trial senator. McConnell said that he was willing to make the same agreement that the Republican Democratic leaders made and in the Senate Bill Clinton's impeachment trial during the Clinton pay trial. The Senate reached a bipartisan agreement. To take testimony from witnesses. Senator McConnell seems to be technically leaving open the possibility of reaching an agreement to hear witnesses during the trial but Democrats believe wants. The trial is underway. Mitch McConnell will do everything everything he possibly can to block any witness testimony in the Clinton impeachment trial. They agreement was to begin the trial. AL without any consideration of witnesses. And what Mitch. McConnell is pointing out it was during the Clinton trial that the Senate decided collectively to hear ear from some witnesses and that is the distinction. He's making that. It was a two stage decision at that time. Chuck Schumer wants an immediate one stage aged decision on the same elements on Monday Harvard. Law Professor Laurence tribe wrote an OP. Ed Piece for The Washington Post that I foresaw precisely where we are tonight on Monday. Professor tribes suggested that House. Democrats consider voting for articles of impeachment but holding off for the time being on on transmitting them to the Senate. This option needs to be taken seriously now that majority leader Mitch. McConnell has announced his intention to conduct not a real trial but a whitewash letting the president and his legal team call the shots at leading off our discussion. Tonight is professor Laurence Tribe Harvard Professor at Harvard Law Professor Constitutional Law. He's CO author of to end a presidency. The power of impeachment professor tribe from your or op-ed pieces apparently to the House of Representatives ears W- is this where you hoped we would be at this stage after passing the articles of impeachment. Exactly I hope that my op. Ed would encourage dialogue generated by the fact that for the first time we have a majority leader who is going to be essentially the foreman of the jury and who promises to have his fingers crossed when he takes the oath breath and I wanted not to leave that situation as as it stood I wanted to shake it up a little and I think this has done that as you see what's unfolded so far. Where do you think this is going what would you do? You have a suggestion now to Nancy. Pelosi about how to pursued Nazi. Pelosi is a far better politician than I could ever be. So I'm hesitant to make any suggestion and and if I had one I wouldn't do it on air but I do think that she's handled it. Just brilliantly as has Schumer I mean I think even though what the the majority leader said this morning was nonsense and he didn't discuss any of the facts. It was pretty hard act to follow because to somebody who hasn't been in. The weeds may have sounded ended reasonable. But I think Chuck Schumer really was up to the occasion and what he said made a lot of sense. What are they afraid of? You know if they think carcases so weak and I say our case. Because I'm very much in favor of these articles of impeachment. Then why don't they want Bolton and Mulvaney to testify even even the President says he wants people to testify. He wants a trial. So let's have a trial. You've written a book about impeachment. You listen to Mitch. McConnell saying thing and other Republicans on the House floor yesterday saying these are the weakest articles of impeachment that have ever been brought to the House of Representatives Having and look at all the other articles of impeachment that have come to and through the House representatives How would you characterize these two articles of impeachment? I think honestly they are the strongest certainly stronger than the ones involving Andrew Johnson where he was accused of violating the tenure of Office Act Act which was unconstitutional and struck down by the Supreme Court certainly stronger than the ones involving Bill Clinton which involved a sexual affair lying about our sexual affair but not misusing the powers of the presidency which is what the whole impeachment power was about not not violating his oath of office although technically sure he committed perjury but he wasn't endangering the nation and if you look at what Nixon six and did it was really kind of tiny stuff compared to this he didn't endanger the security of the country by basically shaking down and vulnerable ally in order to help an adversary. That's involved not only in messing around with our elections but that is authoring huge huge versions of cyber warfare. I mean we really don't know what Putin is going to do to the infrastructure of this country and he's basically basically being invited to turn off our lights. Turn off our power you know if you can turn off voting machines and he showed you can do that and Estonia and perhaps sitting thirteen American states. Who knows what he'll do? But we've got a president WHO's somehow in thrall to Vladimir Putin scary. It's dangerous to all of us. Let's listen to what Chuck Schumer told Rachel Motto in the last hour. All we need is for Republican. Senators decide with us to get fifty one. Because I I have all forty seven. All forty seven Democrats are totally on board with. And if the McConnell doesn't come to an agreement you don't have that many powers as minority leader the power I do have to force vote and we will Fort Force vote on all the witnesses and all the documents and my guess is those Republican colleagues to. I want to vote against witnesses and documents because they know how bad it looks back home professor tribe that as I said to Rachel that sounded it to me like he intends to force a vote a series of votes as would be the standard kind of strategic practice on something like this in the Senate. Here's the vote On a Mick Mulvaney. Here's the vote on John Bolton and and possibly hours of argument about why we should hear from John Bolton before we then have that that vote and then similarly with all the documents he might want to enter uh so that could be a maybe a week of procedure right there. I think it's very important because there are no good arguments against hearing from Bolton there are no arguments at all against hearing for Mulvaney and so I'd be interested in hearing you know what kinds of process objections are made. When they are invited to hear the very witnesses that have the first hand evidence that they want? I mean the evidence supporting the impeachment articles was extremely strong but some of the is could be dotted. Some of the not could be crossed. There are no reasons not to hear from these people. They were in the room when it happened. And I'd be amazed if people like Susan Collins and Murkowski and Cory Gardner and Romney can stand up and say in a way that that makes any sense at all. No we shouldn't here from these witnesses this I don't think their own constituents in the case of those who are up for reelection they're gonNA stand for it. They're not gonNA Sanford and we've seen as you said at the opening opening something like two-thirds I think it was the end of Rachel. Show two thirds of the of the Republicans are in favor of hearing witnesses after trial is. I WanNa read something that Tom Daschle and Trent Lott of the published in October actually in the Washington Post they were the Senate Senate leaders Democrat Republican Senate leaders for the Bill Clinton impeachment trial and the was not a moment not a moment of procedural disagreement between them They wrote they co wrote this piece saying while we were committed to do impartial justice as our impeachment trial of required we had very different perspectives on key questions as did our caucus and indeed those differences remained throughout the trial and the final vote but from the outset of our negotiations. We both understood. How vitally important important was to rise above those differences in order to conduct a trial that would inspire confidence of the public and withstand the unsparing scrutiny of history and the one in personal note? I would add to that professor at the time since I worked in in the Senate in the nineties with all these people that is what everyone in the in. The Senate expected both told them to do there. Wasn't anyone in the Senate right arguing that no no no we should be fighting this out in the even the procedural agreement should be fought out in in a partisan way you know those were the days it seems to me that even though there are a Lotta people who hated Bill Clinton and there have been a lot of people who hate every president at least then we were living on the same planet at least then even the people who supported Clinton and didn't want to see a trial that would besmirches name and risk removing and people like Tom Daschle thought that the country was important the constitution when was important it was important to take our oath seriously. Nobody in those days would have dreamed of saying. I'm not going to be impartial. I don't care that I'm MM swearing an oath to be impartial now. You know we're not naive. We realize that people have points of view but if any Democrat were to say I'm I'm not gonNA listen to the evidence even if it exonerates the president I'd be the first to be attacking that Democrat and there are some Democrats who've said my mind is made up a That's not right. Nobody's might be completely made up. The evidence is strong but there might be exonerating evidence after all Mulvaney might though I doubt it might have have some explanation of why the money was held up. That really was not to put pressure on Dolinsky in order to announce that he was going to investigate Biden. If there is such evidence let them bring it forward if there is not such evidence then we got to remove this guy. He's dangerous Harvard Harvard. Law Professor Laurence tribe always honor to. Have you join US really appreciate it. Thank you festival. Thanks great to be here and when we come back one of the jurors in the the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump will join us. A why is senator. Maisy Geraldo is with us. We'll get her reaction to Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard voting present on the articles of impeachment in the House last night but first a quick reminder. If you're still shopping for holiday gifts please consider kids in need of desks you can go to last word desktop. MSNBC DOT COM and donate a desk to schools in Malawi in the name of anyone on your holiday gift list and UNICEF will send that person a notification of the gift you have. I've given in their name. You can choose to contribute any amount for the purchase of a desk or to a scholarship fund for girls to attend high school in Malawi or public. High School is not free no contribution is too small. Thank you for your kindness. Hey Everyone Steve Kornacki here. We have heard explosive testimony from key witnesses in the public impeachment hearings. So what's next. As the case for impeachment then made could the president count on Republicans support in a Senate trial. And how could it affect the twenty twenty election. Will every Monday Wednesday and Friday I talked to NBC News Reporters Reporters to answer these questions and more on article two inside impeachment it's an NBC News. podcast host we break down what matters what's next and what it means for our country search. Now wherever you're listening to this podcast to subscribe for free. Thanks for listening. We have legislation approved by edibles committee that will enable us to decide how we will send over the articles of impeachment. We cannot name managers until we you see what the process is on the Senate side so far. We haven't seen anything that looks to us to. Hopefully it will be fair. That was speaker Nancy. Pelosi last night after the House of Representatives cast the historic vote to impeach President Donald Trump but what exactly constitutes a fair trial trial in the Senate. Senator Mitch. McConnell has admitted that he has no intention of acting as an impartial juror of president trump in a Senate trial. Here's what democratic currents Karen Bass said today about Mitch McConnell's role as a juror. He's basically saying they're not going to deliberate. Because he's put his foot on the scale gail he knows the outcome the impeachment processes we indict in the house and they have a trial in the Senate. You don't have the foreman of the jury deliberating liberating with the defendant. which is you know a way of describing what his role is so corrupt? And it's hypocritical. Joining us now is one of those was jurors in the trump impeachment trial. Senator Maisy Geraldo of a why. She's a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee senator. Thank you very much for joining us really appreciate evening. I I have to ask you how a Hawaii question first and that was the extraordinary vote by Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. She basically declined to vote on on the articles of impeachment. She's the only one who voted present instead of yes or no. What was your reaction to that? I take it that she couldn't in to decide whether or not it was okay for the president to shake down the president of another country for his own political ends using four hundred million in taxpayer. Money as a bribe. I guess she decided she couldn't make up her mind on that. So thefts enough said about that. How under what can you tell us about? Hawaii's reaction to the vote How is that playing Hawaii today? I'm not so sure that I I think there are some people who are critical for but at the same time she tells she does what that she does and I think we should just move on. Yeah I believe me I want to I. It's just I thought you might know something sticks out. It's very strange vote. And I'm fascinated by what our constituents might be saying about it so of your reaction to how things have proceeded today. Ah Impasse is how Mitch. McConnell now describes it between him and Senator Schumer Mitch McConnell has a way of framing things in which he really projects objects a lot and his wishes for the house articles of impeachment to be so weak is actually to the contrary but there he is going going off and notice that there's never any recognition of facing the actual act that the president of the series of events surrounding the withholding of the to Ukraine. And all that. They don't want to get to that so they're constantly talking about this that and the other thing and so you know. It's going to be up to negotiations between Chuck Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell. As to what the process and rules of the road will be so that to Speaker Pelosi can appoint her managers. I think it's perfectly reasonable on her part to wait until we know what kind end of rules we're going to have. And if we can find the four courageous Republicans to ask for the kind of witnesses that that could actually possibly exonerate the president of them. We're going to get somewhere. But short of that we would end up with probably fifty one of Republicans going one way and the Democrats wanting another kind of process yet. One of the striking things about the witnesses that Senator Schumer's asking for a new Democrats want to hear from his. You do not know what they are going to say. It is possible that John Bolton won't offer any incriminating evidence against the president at all and and that in that alone if it was just not incriminating at that point be helpful to the the president in this trial it's a fascinating thing for the Republicans to try to stop evidence when they don't even know what that evidence would be. Apparently they're afraid of the evidence and of course we already have mulvaney say quid. Pro Quo. Yeah this is how we get over it this actions by the the president and the people around him to stonewall. This has nothing to get over so I think Mitch is quite concerned about the witnesses testify. I hope that we can find some Republicans. For example I noticed that Susan Collins during the Clinton impeachment said there is very important to have witnesses so perhaps APPs. She's one of the people that can be persuaded to support. Having witnesses. Senator Amazing of Hawaii. Thank you very much for joining us type as yet. Thank you happy holidays. Thank you happy holidays to you. We're all very jealous of where you get to spend. Your holiday is lucky me. Thank you senator. And when we come back what might the the most important and influential editorial calling for the conviction and removal from office of President Trump. It comes from Christianity Hannity today which serves the Evangelical Community One of President Trump's most loyal basis the editorial describes the president as quote a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused. That's next Christianity. Today was founded in Nineteen fifty-six by Reverend Billy Graham. The magazine Rarely makes political statements twenty one years ago ago. Christianity today came out in favor of the impeachment and removal from office of President Bill Clinton and today Christianity today has published aditorial saying about the trump impeachment. The facts in this instance are unambiguous. The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass discredit one. The president's political opponents that is not only a violation of the constitution more importantly it is profoundly immoral. We are joined by Jonathan Alter and roof marcus on this and other subjects. Jonathan this is the Evangelical Basis Donald Trump strongest base Christianity. Today reaches them with much more influence in the new. Your Times does absolutely look. Why do they like trump? They know he doesn't have a religious bone in his body and that he's immoral reprobate. They like them because of the judges but but if he goes pence is president their guy they still get third judges. They still get everything on the issues and they have Somebody they consider to be a moral man man as president. Is this going to flip the Senate No. Is it possible that if it becomes a prairie fire and yet the Southern Baptist Convention and some of these other big evangelical Jellicoe groups on the same page. Then maybe one two three four. Republicans of religious conscience might vote for conviction that. That's the hope here. Ruth Marcus is this is does Christianity. Today's represent a crack in the wall. That kind of Flawless Wall of Trump Evangelical enjoyable support. Well if it represents a crack in the wall. It's a very very minor beginnings of a crack because we have I'm not seeing any erosion of the president's support among the Evangelical base which I write about this in my book about the Cavenaugh. Nominations nations supreme ambition. Jonathan's exactly right it's there for one reason because of the Supreme Court Evangelical leaders and Evangelical voters voters have been solidly with trump. But this is a remarkable and they've held their nose for so many years at everything. The President President has done. But this is a remarkable emperor has no clothes at a to`real not just the emperor has no clothes but the emperor is constitutionally unfit it and morally unfit for office not any indication so far from other evangelical leaders that they are going to follow this lead but it's very very powerful piece and Just a remarkable piece of journalism and and argumentation Another line from the Christianity today editorial to the many Eamon bellicose who continue to support Mr Trump in spite spite of his blackened moral record. We might say this. Remember who you are and whom you serve putting it in religious just terms trump. Well when there's a moral imperative then it gives a the entire conversation a new coloration and so you could see a situation where the other big evangelical organizations and the Unfortunately the circulation of this magazines not big but fourteen million members of the Southern Baptist Convention. Now I'm not suggesting that they're trending in this direction. But journalists and other people in their community can use this editor of to ask them questions to say. Why aren't we being hypocritical? If we don't go along with what's laid out in this editorial it is unjustified able on their own terms for them to be supporting Donald trump is morally indefensible. All in their terms and maybe a moral imperative can start to take hold. These things can move very quickly. I'm not pollyannaish about this. I'm not saying you know this is going to change the ANJELICA world. Or there's going to be a schism but this crack could get bigger as as next ear wears on and just generically What the editorial represents is a an influential publication of with a important part of the trump? Ace that is basically saying Face the reality face. The reality of WHO. This president is That's a contagion that Donald Trump cannot let loose if more areas areas in the Republican support and his base support start saying. Let's really face. The reality of WHO this person is. That's a big problem for Donald Trump. It could be one of the things I thought was most compelling about this editorial which which is a piece of intellectual honesty. We have not seen from other parts of the president's base or from elsewhere among his ordinary supporters. Quarters is the argument that look. We supported the impeachment and removal of President Clinton Twenty one years ago because we I thought he had lied to the American lied and was morally unfit to serve and it can't be that we supported Clinton's impeachment and removal then don't support trump's impeachment and removal now that kind of intellectual consistency has been essentially absent among Republican senators who voted in support of Clinton's impeachment and removal the fifth the fourteen of serving at the time of gutted interview. I'm being told that the Democratic presidential debate has just come to an end. Hi everyone it's Lawrence O'Donnell thanks for listening now. I want to invite you to talk to us here at MSNBC NBC. We'd like to know more about you. And the topics you'd be interested in hearing about as we launch new podcasts text. PODCAST two six six eight six six six and we'll text you link to a short survey again text. The word podcast two six six eight six six standard text messaging rates rates may apply. Of course your input matters and we're looking forward to hearing from you.
Iran update plus a deep dive in Senate races: Courtney Kube, Brad Todd & JB Poersch
"Let's face it. Most New Year's resolutions are hard to keep get more exercise. Save more money. Here's a resolution that's easy to keep. Don't waste time going to the post office. You use stamps dot com instead. STAMPS DOT COM brings all the services of the post office to you PLUS STAMPS DOT com. Gives you something you can't get at the post office. Big discounts discounts on postage like five cents off every first class stamp and up to forty percents off priority mail print official. US posted from your computer for any letter package or class of male wants. Your meal is ready just handed to your mail carrier or drop it in a mailbox. No wonder over seven hundred thousand. Small businesses already used stamps dot com. You can get a special special offer that includes a four week. Trial Plus Free Postage and digital scale with no long term commitments and no risk had stamps dot com. Click on the microphone at the top of the homepage and type in code. NBC Stamps Dot Com Promo Code NBC STAMPS DOT Com. Never go to the post office again. Good afternoon from Washington. I'm Chuck Todd and this is the Chuck Todd Cast. We've been talking a lot about the presidential race for months now so later in this podcast room talk about a bunch of other political races. That's right the Senate Senate Matt Leans read this year. There's some competitive states that could cause the map to flip it's fascinating there's a lot of right now. It's sixty seven races that are truly in play. It could get up to a dozen. All depends in in many ways what happens with the Democratic presidential race. Oh we're GONNA have a lot of fun. Doing good. Old fashioned should political junkies stuff on Senate races. That's later J. B. Purse for the Democrats Brad Todd for the Republicans and it is if you're junkie you're gonNA love it but first Washington we are dominated here by the what I call. The three is right now. Impeachment Iran and Iowa and obviously Iran is the dominating story here Given what has happened and what may not happen so after a week of escalating tensions with Iran president trump appears to be de escalating tensions. A A bit on the heels of the news that Iran fired onto Iraqi military bases but did so in a way not to cause any casualties president trump announced the United States. At least for now doesn't plan to respond with with more military force but there are going to be new sanctions on Iran's economy so join me now's NBC. News is Pentagon correspondent and national security correspondent. Nicki I coordinate. Hi Chuck thanks for having me. So let's start with what the president didn't actually say president did not say he wasn't going to to respond militarily anymore but he didn't say he was and he and he certainly seemed to identify any decided to say it appears that Iran is standing down and and he's that seemed to be his way of sending that the Pentagon is it. Is that what they believe that Iran is standing down so they believe that they're they're standing down the conventional threat from Iran. So it's it's not gotten a lot of attention because it's just been such a flurry of activity information. That's been flowing since these strikes for started started at five thirty. PM Eastern time on Tuesday evening. Iran responding with their conventional military is very unorthodox. Last time they I used to Mitchell military against the United States. I've actually been asking that same question. So they they have responded with believe it or not. They've taken to strike similar to this inside of Syria in the last several years against Isis. Believe it or not. So I mean so if there's any question about their capabilities and specifically their capabilities to strike with precision MHM that right there. In addition to the Saudi Aramco strike only a couple of months ago that all proves that they have the ability to strike with precision with these ballistic missiles. They miss their missile. Capability is actually only only gotten better specifically the short range just in the last several years so the fact that they responded conventionally is that is a big deal here it is clear clear. Sign that Iran wanted to send signals both domestic and it was for the international world and the US to see that they can and will respond but it was interesting. What message were they trying to send by? Going going out of their way they award won the Iraqi government before they were going to go on to their soil. They essentially gave the United States. Plenty of heads adds up to secure everything. They were basically putting the onus of casualties on the United States not themselves in an odd way. What message are they trying to send to the International Committee that? Hey we're just trying to defend ourselves and we're not escalating. What what message with were? They said that they don't escalate. They don't want a war. I mean one thing about the president's maximum maximum pressure campaign that Kennedy is working in Iran is the economic impact so Iran cannot afford a war right now. Not only do they not have the military capability to go up head to head with the United States and when you talk about to conventional militaries but they can't afford it would break the country a break their economy which is already in a very tenuous place so You know it. I think the next step here. The Pentagon people have breathed a little sigh of relief at because there was some a lot of concern yesterday. I mean everyone was on a hair trigger at the Pentagon. Yesterday there was no question. They were expecting an attack yesterday Now that it's happened we're getting a little bit of a better percents of what exactly they were looking at. They were seeing ballistic missiles. Move around in western Iran. That's not super uncommon. And they'll do that and not comparison. This feels like it's similar to what we did in Syria. Yes which is it's more of a symbolic attack it was not meant inflict real damage exactly and that is proof that Iran doesn't WANNA start a war here here what's what's fascinating about. That is Iran's in a way. Looks like they're measured in their response. In a way that you could make an argument. The trump administration was not taking out cost them Sulejmani who is a very a leader of an organization and of militias. All over for the world candidly who do have blood on their hands. And there's no question this was a bad guy okay but the US taking him out had the potential to be an absolute salute. Tinderbox there was there was a very real potential people with that. It's still not a tinderbox so and I think this is something you were trying to explain to me before we started which is just because Iran officially is done responding militarily that Iran's proxies might be might be upset with Iran's call it a muted response the fact that Iran didn't in in their in their view inflict bloodshed on the United States. So so the big the three big threats right now. I mean Iran Big Iran. The regime still could and most likely will carry out some cyber attacks and intrusions infiltrations. Whatever it is? They're good at that and they do it all the time. So is it in a direct response to call them Sola. Money isn't response to the you know the sanctions and whatnot. Who knows but beyond that? There's there's eight eater nine very serious strong militia. Groups Shia backed Schimmel Alicia groups that are backed by Iran. Some of the more the the ones that are a little bit more extreme. There's a decent chance there's a good chance. Actually that they will not see this as a strong enough response and then they will want to lash out now. If in fact there are angry at Iran about the possibilities they could lash out and do whatever they want and not even go back to bigger onto the organized exactly scarier more. HR metrics the guerrilla exactly. Because at least with Iran in the ayatollah and Kennedy in Qasim Salani they would look things from more of a strategic perspective than what some of these militia groups might do. Let me go back to the president's remarks I thought the most glaring omission in his remarks was any sort of olive branch to the Iraqi government. Yeah yeah it was a stunning omission to me. It sort of to me seemed to be a diplomatic mistake and my my my my sort of call an analytical view but it seemed to be a diplomatic doc or at least certainly a whiff i. I've actually been shocked about the entire administration response since the parliament voted that the US military they wanted the military to leave. We can't can't get a solid answer on exactly what the steps are here. Was this memo. What do you make of it? What's happened here? I mean I'll say I know this is a memo that apparently a draft memo of of how we would begin the process with the Iraqi government started to circulate in Iraq and yet we're not saying whoops yes hoops so general general steel as the head of the task force in Iraq so so everything incitement military inside of Iraq. He has a really good relationship. With General Joel Mir. WHO's in a way sort of his counterpart as much as you could have inside of Baghdad? They work very closely together. I spent about a week there with them and and a lot of time with the both of them in October and he general Sealy is a a very. He's very deferential. To the fact as are many American military frankly to the fact that the US there at the invitation of the Iraqi government from it and he does not want so when the Iraqi parliament makes a decision like this and then there's conversations with the Iraqi Prime Minister general silly is trying to be deferential to the fact that listen we have. He's he's always trying to coordinate to make sure there's there's there's no daylight between the two sides they they literally work in the saint this tiny little building on union three together so you you know poorly worded possibly but he was just informing them of the fact that there's going to be more helicopter noise because troops there there. It was about some MM troops leaving. The procedure is what you're saying. He was trying to inform them of procedure assault somewhat but some some of them were troops. That are leaving because the costume Selemani death meant that they suspended the counter isis and the training mission so some of those troops left what is the strategic the long term. What is the concern in the Pentagon that essentially that while I mean I think the president is going to say? Hey look I made Iran link. I got Sola Montana made overrun blink. But if in six months we're leaving Iraq and we have no our presence in Iraq. Then did Iran accomplished. I mean it seems to me. Iran's measured response was all about continuing to try to create a pressure campaign to get the United States out of Iraq MHM that that is the ultimate we know that's their ultimate objective and it seems like in that sense that's working what's so fascinating is Qasim Sulaimaniya. One of his big goals was always to get the US to leave Iraq and now it seems that his death may actually speed up that process so that so then what will be the long term. I'm like this is what I'm curious. What will we look back on? Is it in five years. We'll look back and Sulejmani will say boy that triggered out of Iraq which is what got the rise of Isis and then to I don't no no I mean like is that the scenarios that some of your sources are worried about so but remember president trump wants most troops out of Iraq. or He did. I mean he's sort of all over the place Americans the the other day when he was talking about. We're not GONNA leave and we'll slap sanctions on Iraq if they kick us out and we paid for this base which we all assume al-Assad the base. Actually that was attacked last night. A but for years we listen to him say he was pulling the use out of endless wars. And and you know kindle when I when I was there at some of these these outposts in Iraq they we're preparing for the eventuality that they were going to be told to leave. It's not a surprise that there is an effort to consolidate we're being chased out yes and and the US another thing and it's because president trump has said so many things attention this kind of got lost but the fact that the the US would not stay in in a sovereign nation if the government the government was telling the US to leave and so the notion that president trump would say all of a sudden that he doesn't WanNa go does. It just doesn't make any sense. The reality polity is if in fact this Iran you know the big around versus big. US military if that situation the tensions of cooled down a bit and it's going to be more of a symmetric warfare. That's been going on for a long time. We will see a decrease of US troops in Iraq. Final question for you. How's the how's the Pentagon and I say this loosely? How are they handling all of the coverage that indicates Pompeii overruns all national security? Out of that play over there so you know. I wouldn't want to get into anyone's feelings or motivations I would point out that just recently. We're seeing a lot more of secretary. Asper he briefed on. No no I mean I can count. I think Secretary Mattis in his entire time at the Pentagon. Yeah I think he was in the briefing room three total times in his entire time there whereas as we had secretary asper on camera in the briefing room this week by himself the same day that Mike Pompeo appre appeared in the State Department briefing and also. There's just a lot. There's a lot more interest in talking to the media on the record true. So is that because he wants to make sure that he ever. He knows that everyone knows that he's in charge of national security. I that's that's a good question. I'd love to ask him. I think most people assume it's my pump of these days. I think Mike Pompeo has the presidency on the assassination Robert. O'Brien sort of Mike pompeo recommendation in by understanding and Secretary Spurs a West Point A West Point They both went to West Point class. Yes I think so close to eighty four I I wanna say Mike Pompeo pop powerful Secretary State perhaps in our lifetime. I that's actually a narrative who knew and Henry Kissinger is still alive. How you like that? Hey as a narrative that I'm watching. How does that relationship? Jim Pompeo an expert develop over time and evolve. Pentagon's a powerful place. I'll be interested to see how differential FERENCI Mr Esperance's cubes always good to have an thank you so much. Thank positive actually let me take a quick break when we write back as I promised up. Top Senate Senate race for junkies conversation. Brad Todd J. B. per schefter quick break. You're listening to the chuck. Todd Casper from meet the press. Willie geist here this week. On the Sunday sit down. PODCAST I sit down with rapper. Actress Comedian Aquafina to talk about her huge year with roles in crazy rich Asians and oceans eight. Get the podcast now for free wherever you download yours and as I promised at the top stop. We're going to go deep and For All EU junkies out there on Senate races and I got two people with me that have probably been involved with more Senate races than any other due to human beings alive in Washington. DC right now The GBI per she's president of Senate majority pack that is the SUPERPAC solely designated And designed assigned to elect Democrats to the Senate and then I also have Republican ad maker Brad. Todd he's cofounder of on message. He works for a ton of these Republican senators. I I want to say you at least a third of the Republican conference you've helped elect these days quite a third to get in there Yeah we're getting there getting there and JP you were before you did this. You were executive executive director that the SEC for three struggle days did you do three straight cycle six ten. Why why why do you hate yourself so much to work at the committee three cycle? Uh It's a fight for democracy and J. B. Brad. I think you guys have interacted a few times. Just you guys have professional respect old up a little old school hotline conversation we WanNa have here so the Senate stop talking here in a few months though you basic. Let's do some basic numbers here Senate. How in play is the Senate in your opinion and Brad? You're the incumbent partying so I'll let you make the case. I how how endangered is the Republican majority Jordan. Your mind I I don't think the Republican Senate majorities endanger are in fact. I think the house is more in danger than the Senate. I wasn't sure that sounds like political spin. I didn't think that's what was going to happen when the cycle began but in the house what happens you have in. The house is vulnerable off because recruitment on the Republican side has been great and all. The retirements retirements are mostly in safe Republican seats. But as is normal the cycle before reapportionment takes place people realize that the cycle after you lose the majority they get. They've the lost majority they're not subcommittee chairman anymore. And there's a new map coming in new constituents so it's just a very natural time to have a lot of retirement and you typically have them in safe Republican seats because those are the people people who probably have risen to be chairman subcommittee and so it's a I think the Senate the thing that's changed most in the Senate is the fact that you've seen Georgia Georgia where Democrats had had roe aspirations for racist pop on the map. They haven't and I think Kelly lawful. It's going to be quite a strong well-funded candidates so Georgia looks like a money. PIT even into trouble for Democrats. I think secondarily John James in Michigan for the second quarter in a row just outrage Gary Peters in a race that's a dead heat and polling and and so I think rather than having only Alabama to defend 'em cressner have Alabama Michigan and then maybe something else later. Maybe I want to get to that later. I got a couple of. It's interesting acting that you right now but just to democratic. I think that's right. Yeah Okay J. B. Respond. Well the the evidence for the Senate being in plight which which obviously I think it is is a generic ballot advantage for Democrats which arguably isn't as large as wasn't eighteen when it was eight nine points but but looks like a six point advantage and then clearly. The map suggests that Democrats are defending less MEM- well we have to defend in Alabama Maybe Michigan New Hampshire. I don't see Michigan quite as competitive yet as as Brad does I think most of the actions going to be with Republicans Point Defense I think Cory Gardner is in trouble in Colorado. I Don I income at you mentioned you mentioned him before Susan Collins Well if I look at numbers including our own internal numbers Colorado is a place where Gardner starts in the hall. That's unusual for an incumbent. Part might be that he's running against In all L. Likelihood a well known Democratic Governor Hickenlooper has to go through a primary but he's a A strong favourite in that primary today and But I put main there as a competitive race along with North Carolina along with Colorado along with Arizona. SONAL those Ford is start. I don't think Senator Produce GonNa get off. Easy in Georgia I think I was going to be another place that's going it'll be competitive. It's notable to me that you sit laughlin that you mentioned the one Georgia Seton at the other. Well the only thing about the law floor seat is remember. It's a jungle primary got November so that actually could dump depending on what happens in November play out to January. So that may or may not have a little more time behind She's an unknown quantity even in our own party. And you know I I certainly want to Right that race off I I don't think we have clarity. And who the candidates are going to be not. We're not even clear that we're not going to see more Republican traffic in that seat. Let's talk about off impeachment and in how I feel like frankly I heard an argument I could tell in the back of your head a little bit Brad that you think impeachment might my play well for the Republicans in particularly in house races. I think I've seen Geoff. Garin pass around democratic polling. That indicates impeach him. I play well for Democratic senators I I look at it. I feel like we don't know yet. Really which side we don't fully know yet impeachments GonNa play but jd your sense and then and then breath well where we are right now in the process is the show has moved to the Senate. And what is intriguing in here is whether Mitch McConnell who ironically up this cycle an and you did not mention on your target limited McConnell who is going to get a real race who's against a well funded and Or real candidate an arguably a tough state and Kentucky. Are you going to have donors who insist on on spending money and Mitch McConnell even if Mitch McConnell is not available. I think that you're gonNA CNN me McGrath a candidate that's really well funded. They may go dollar for dollar in that state and I don't think there's going to be a concern about your date has enough it. Would it surprise me if our vomits mitts later rather than sooner. Because I think you're looking at a well-funded leader and a well-funded opposition impeachment plays any salaries you know. I mean regard. I've I've been on. The Gardner is absolutely I've been on. MVP daily with you. How many times this cycle and every time I get asked this question I it was about muller than it was about some other crazy Roese theory and then it became about the actual impeachment process in my argument? Always back to you is wait till it happens in the Senate wait till the trial happens and then tell me where the American people are after the trial was happening in the Senate. And then I'll tell you what the political impact of it is Thus far I don't think anything that's happened in the whole impeachment process dating back to the pre impeachment Muller Investigation Gatien which was which was in sort of anti impeachment if you will. I don't think anything that has happened. Has Changed the minds of swing. Voters regarding Senate races. Is there anything thing left. That could change their minds. I don't know we'll see but today. I see no impact on on Senate ballots on generic ballots Senate races. I just don't see it. I do think it's it's developed a nice argument against Republican Democratic House. Freshmen that they didn't do X.. Whatever X. is it's important to your district maybe two MCA maybe some infrastructure project? She promised to do X. he promised to do X. But they did impeachment and so it's the back half of a leading edge argument in the house. I don't see it as impact in the Senate yet but there's time let's go to you presidential coattails in the Senate races Cory Gardner to win this one bread. You take this to win. Cory Gardner it's GonNa have to win people that are going to vote against Donald Trump. That's probably more so than in any other. Some of a Republican incumbent collins are probably about the same number fair enough. Susan Collins could benefit from a third party candidacy. That could help her. But there's instant runoffs in Maine so you saw them on the second fair enough but what does that messaging look like. Well I think first off the thing to understand voter then understand about Colorado is is. It's it's not as the Blue Training Ryan Colorado is unmistakable. But it's not it's way overplayed here in Washington Darrell Glenn Got Forty six percent of the vote in in in in two thousand sixteen presidential year with trip president trump on the ballot out and he ran as many TV ads in Colorado. As you and I did which is zero? Michael Bennett tried hard. Spend a ton of money Barely cracked fifty and so the Democrats. No uh-huh question. Their floor is higher than Republicans floor in Colorado but never cracked ceilings. Pretty hard. And so does Cory Gardner have to do what Scott Brown did and in in two thousand twelve and running nine points ahead of his presidential nominee. Nowy does not not at all. Does he have to run. As far heads Joe Manchin or Heidi heitkamp had to run or or John had to run not not at all. So I think that Corey trump's going to end up in the mid forties in Colorado. I think perhaps maybe even forty six. It'd be it'd be. I wouldn't be surprised. Court has thrown a couple point of them. Let me go the opposite way. How import on? How important is the presidential top of the ticket J. B. on the Democratic Socratic side in order to put certain Senate races in play? I don't think we know that yet. I don't think we know whether whether or not to see this cycle. That's almost entirely about Donald Trump. How is it I mean how was this is not going to be about Donald because you get a chance to voice your opinion on Donald Trump on the top line on the ballot? No I understand that. Oh so what you're saying. Is the hot house the whole campaign environment not for the president. Donald Right and your question to me was. How did these individual candidates whether it matters? Not You know one. I don't know the answer to that too. I'm not sure it does. Do you let me ask you this way. Do you think you can win. Georgia's Senate night without voters who voted for Donald Trump What in eighteen A lot of the magic wasn't turn out. It was was about trump voters have moved towards Democrats. And you know the numbers. I'm looking at twenty. That's still HAP- which you're counting but I'm counting on but you think people mike like cast a ballot for trump and then vote for democratic Senate candidate. I think we're seeing that that's possible. Maybe even likely in some states already you know I think one thing. We're not factoring is the Gary Johnson. Vote for instance in Colorado Gary Johnson's top five states. We think there is going to be a strong libertarian. I don't think that the libertarian nominee. This time whoever it may be will beating where close to where Gary Lincoln Chafee by the way is the guy who just recently recently announced that he was going to run for most of these Republicans on the Senate bouts they just merely have to get some Gary Johnson voters. They don't have to get Hillary Clinton voters. Voters who voted for Gary Johnson. Thought Hillary Clinton was too far. Well if you thought she was too far left wait until you see what the Democrats have in store for you this time so I think that's sort of an unstated factors. We handicapped the impact of the presidential race. Look I think the challenge for Cory Gardner which is likely the challenge for Susan Collins. The challenge for Even Tom Tillerson in a mixed. Sally Joni Ernst in Iowa. Is this idea that Ernst and Cory Gardner good examples of candidates set made their brand when they were running Being Independent Him Putting their states I am being somebody. Some kind of voice that was going to shake things up in DC The problem all of them have is that voters pretty clearly mood have the mindset that Republican incumbents are are just following the wine and the president and that's reasonably deep seated right now and the definition of independence going into the twenty twenty cycle for Republican. Incumbents is going to be how do you differ from the president that how do you push off. Where where is the process even to come back to impeachment impeachment? You know a danger for them in the process. That's where we are right now. Establishing what this looks like is. They're they're taking for granted I think voters have this expectation that in the Senate we're going to see witnesses. We only see testimony all of a sudden Republicans are gonNA say now. We're going to do any of that. There's going to be a price. I think the two things here if this is a race about these republican come to do well by their states. That's a rice. Republicans skains love in these states. Did Hillary Clinton carried you know of Cour- Gardeners Rice's about did he get the Aurora. Va Center finally finished. Yes did he move the bureau of Land Management's headquarters from DC to Colorado. Yes yes the land water conservation funded across party lines to get that. Let me yes. I would love that campaign right but let me ask you guys both this question. Can you run a campaign. That isn't that is devoid of Donald Trump and breakthrough. No well I might answer to that question with a question is donald trump already baked in the cake in the Senate races so now. Now you're you're you're it's an interesting interesting. I think that it's definitely had an impact on recruitment. Though I think you look at Montana where Democrats had high hopes to run against Steve Dane's estate for they just want to Senate race. They were unable to recruit anyone there and I were there. Democratic recruiter are weak. They're trying to build a case around but they're weeks. They have one candidate who would be really strong with Chuck Schumer Her sloshing C team. Yeah and North Carolina North Carolina Enos which one Cunningham was not the Democrats first choice at all or their second or their third or fourth fourth and in Georgia. Two seats neither race yet has a marquee name. So I think you're seeing the states where Donald Trump carried democrat. Recruitment is really suffered. Let me ask you this this way. The odds that you can have one thousand nine hundred moment for you where you just had this big sort of okay. Every you know. There's a theory. There's a thesis that trump is that. There's a version of that right. It's close close close late break and all of a sudden and and it and it has a trickle down effect in. It's what happened. In eighty all of a sudden it went from a close race to landslides twelve Senate races get picked up by the come in party or do you. Fear the shocking flip. That happened in two thousand twelve. When nobody thought Democrats gaining Senate Senate seats it was all about whether they can hold their majority gained Senate seats and trump all of a sudden out of nowhere? We'll pick up a new Hampshire Michigan. And you guys are going God all we got was Colorado to tonette one or a net minus one. Now what are the odds of either. A what is your mindset of. What's more likely? Well let let me make Brad's argument for a little bit. That thing that we have to be mindful of his Senate Democrats is is in sixteen with very little exception Senate Democrats perform behind the presidential line And the presidential candidate at that time Hillary Clinton which meant that in places like Pennsylvania. Vania were Wisconsin. We were arguably caught in the wake European and So that's Brad's argument that in Michigan Chicken. In that they're so wake that trump wins his state that he won before and makes it harder for Gary Peters First Term Senator who won his first race by thirteen points But that's not what we're seeing in the data that assumes that the president is getting the benefit of the doubt MHM and what's more likely here is that I think Democrats Look like a A more or reason. Stopgap to whatever happens in the presidential whether it's a win for the present under Brad what's that line where you can distances chef with trump without getting him to attack you. You have to support the president's agenda on policy matters I I think that's that's the question. The Republican electorate has to believe that you support the president on policy matters and they have to be convinced that you're not helping the Democrats undermine his presidency. They're willing to let you criticize. And most Republican voters have some criticism of the president just as most Democrats. I'm sure had criticisms of Barack Obama. Republicans have have have their own reservations about their own presence to just like Democrats so voters will tolerate you. Criticizing the president. What they won't tolerate you doing is helping the Democrats stop? What he's trying trying to accomplish? Interesting I let go back to a job just talked about with the Great Lakes states. I think that understanding Michigan in light of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin is. It's actually pretty accurate in the great revolt with Salena Zito our book and we spent a lot of time in those five states. Yeah that's right. And those to Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. We're both very similar Senate races in two thousand sixteen You had Republican incumbent to largely been written off by a lot of people in town Pat Toomey and Ron Johnson And in and both cases Johnson and toomey outperformed trump in the suburbs of Milwaukee in Philadelphia by a lot by lot and trump outperformed them in the rural parts of the state in Wisconsin. It's northern Wisconsin Western Wisconsin and in Pennsylvania's basically everything not pittsburghers Philly and in fact Hillary Clinton Katie McGinty Dante ran the Democrat nominee for Senate Pennsylvania ran ahead of Hillary Clinton in every county smaller than two hundred thousand people. And so you saw this rural surge for trump. That didn't it carried to me but didn't quite give him the boost of trump And in Wisconsin the same thing Ron Johnson underperformed trump in the western part of the state. But he over performed him in the suburbs A big sixty four thousand dollar question handicapping. All these races for both sides this year is what happens with that dynamic this year because my theory theory is that the Donald Trump and the republican senate nominees are going to get about the same votes in the rural parts of those states this time because Democrats have a plane run ahead ahead of head of him in the suburbs anymore. That's a question but Democrats aren't trying to win the votes in the The working class type boats in the rural parts. They are trying to win those suburban voters. Odors I is he right about this world well even play off his easel here. Waiting out the way Brad. Slated out to that assumes that they got all the votes they need in rural and urban areas and in and a lot of these states and Let's use the example of Michigan. That's that's probably not the case I've already suggested the two things the Democrats win in the Senate In part because I do expect back terrific turnouts nationally and secondly. I think that you'll see what you saw in eighteen. I think you'll Z.. trump voters flip and vote for Senate. They're all right. I want to go on a real fun here and we'll go do a little race by race. Step one last question sort of big picture money. Ah Presidential Years. The demand of presidential cash can have a have a squeezed effect on your Senate candidates Donald Trump's vacuum of money Having some impact or not yet well I think I have to give Democrats credit. Here may Democrats literally could send a two word email out and if it said stop trump people would send money. Trump has been a very good financial windfall for the Democrats. And so. That's why I think when you look at an incumbent like Gary Peters who's not raising money I I think that's an alarm bell for Democrats you know he's got out. Raised two quarters in a row I think that that when a Democrat doesn't raise money that's the biggest amount of the news Under Republican side I don't know that Donald Trump's fundraising success has harmed us down ballot fundraising but I will acknowledge that things that are for president trump are the best fundraising things you have. Yes that's that's that's a fact you're sort of stuck he has if you go if you wanNA raise some money. You have to do it in his wake I think they have to almost agree. That's right but the real dynamic here is that they have revolutionized the way online fundraising has has happened and trump has mastered as well. The trump team has has equalled them. It's it's our job in Senate races to catch up to trump in the Democrats are J. B. Democratico into your money. I'm I'm surprised how well Democratic Fund fundraising and. It's been in the Senate already look at Hickenlooper. have an advantage over. Cory Gardner already look at especially Mark Kelly in Arizona. Dog Dog last two quarters because she usually the three of us know that that usually challengers are going to be engaged races. Their money usually gets better than the year of the election and were still a little less than a year. Out at Democrats are gaining advantages in several states. I tell us something. Thanks I will say this in our hyper polarized politics. Money isn't going to be the reason. Either side wins or loses control of the Senate or whatever maybe it will. We'll could there be a tactical decision. You don't finance in shearer but right like money is not well dictate their very few Senate races that don't win because of money In in this era I mean I can. I can name a couple. You know I mean Michael Bennett might have lost in sixteen if the if the Republican nominee had had money. Jean and Shane might have you have Scott. Brown had a little bit more money. Maybe he'd be changed but there's not many right. It's it's it's very very much. The rare exception fair Debbie. Yeah I think that's fair but uh-huh as I said I think it tells us something of note. The Democrats are doing as well as they are so early. Let's take a quick pause there. We'll be right back with more of the Chuck Todd. Hey It's Chris as you know sometimes it's good to just take a step back from the day to day onslaught of news and take a broader broader. Look at the issues. That's what I'm doing each week. My podcast why is this happening. We're exploring topics ranging from school segregation to climate change. Well the way that I think of it is climate change will be to the twentieth century. What mcgarity west of the nineteenth century? It'll be the central subject of questions about economic justice. Everything you care about in the world will be affected by climate and digging deep with guests uniquely qualified to analyze issues from mass incarceration to race relations as you know for the first time in our history at the national level whites are on the verge of losing their majority majority status in twenty years. And I think it's no coincidence that our politics are getting more tribal. Join me for wise's happening new episodes every Tuesday. Wherever you get your podcasts? I quickly in the sun but we touched on Arizona little bit just really fast. Martha mcsally GonNa have a primary challenge of note that that that she we need to worry about I don't expect so You feel really good about Mark Kelly. Is he going to have a challenge from the left. That is problematic. No with an expect that I haven't surprised to see even the polling Kelleher small lead already. Yeah that's that's encouraging to. My guests is close to Senate race in the country's Arizona. On Your if if you had to guess today it's the last one we're gonNA know because the way they do out there so don't feel like it will feel like the closest race in the country because it's the last one we'll call arguably probably criminal the way the way that happened. I'M GONNA I'M GONNA move west to east starting in the Sun Belt New Mexico J. B. Very popular weatherman. It's known statewide lied. Obviously New Mexico's a quirky state. It isn't as blue as we in Washington think it is it's still pretty democratic You at all concerned in an open race that the that the Republican could find a popular Guy Dot Donald trump loss the Mexico by eight points last cycle that Sarah Two thousand sixteen. That's that's a tough margin. Democratic candidates have been pretty strong in the Senate. I think we're GONNA be fine in New Mexico. John cornyn biggest problem. Donald trump more less than it is a Democrat canton Texas. John Cornyn doesn't have problems on the no. It doesn't have a problem of any kind Democrats always wax poetic about Texas going right now. It is moving Yeah kids probably will see the day when Texas is a Thai rice. I suspect without someone named Ted Cruz. The Look I don't think Republicans expected Texas to be as competitive The Democrats lost that race by two and a half points last cycle. I think but let's Texas has changed. Democrats did a great job on turn run out in Texas you can look Congressional district. There were congressional districts in two thousand eighteen when we're Democrats had a brought the total vote up higher than the presidential year in a midterm arm so kudos to Democrats for their. TURN OUT TO RECREATE HEAD TRUCE IN DONALD TRUMP. Were kind of a a mixed that were perfect for that look Texas. His is a seventy two percent urban metropolitan state and as demography is changing in Texas Democratic. Chances are getting better Kansas. This is this about Kris Kovacs nominee. You have a chance if he's not you know he gives us a much better. Chance of winning. Is this what this game's about our POMPEO You know I heard this about Kansas last time when Pat Roberts was on the ballot and I I think Kansas reliably Republican in the Senate because the issues that Drive Rob Senate race it is worth noting it has been. I believe. Nineteen thirty six is the last time a Democrat won a Senate seat in Kansas. Alf Landon landslide. Then yeah we have a brand new democratic governor that they can win. The governor's race absolutely Republicans can win. Rhode Island Governor's race to our Massachusetts one Alabama Toughest Republican opponent for for for for him is it. Jeff Sessions Gbi It's probably sessions. It's it's probably sessions. Can you get through the primary bread. I think jeff sessions will be the nominee and I run up and I also. I don't big field so oh yeah. I don't know his name but the president likes the football coach. Well I think a Miami Line coach this is. Let's let's be honest though of all Senate races up this time of the entire three nearly three dozen of them. There's this race is the most likely to flip and then a mile back. There's the next one and we could argue what the next next one is but this race is going to go Republican. George we've done enough of Per Se it's interesting what you brought. They have the correct quirky runoff rules to. I'm that sort of drive. I think everybody crazy in that second seat in that front North Carolina Tillis dodged his primary challengers. Yes the Garland Tucker was a businessman who was running. He did not file filing has closed there a couple of Unknown names on the ballots. Thom Tillis will be the nominee cal. Cunningham is the is the is the likely Democrat. Erica Smith I think you can't count out Gabi. Can you win in North Carolina without carrying the state in the presidential. Yes I think we can. I think the data's really encouraging you're GONNA you're GonNa Watch a coin flip of a race in North Carolina hair. This this is Remember this is the that has a history of flipping anyway and tell us his a one termer. I expect a really competitive rates. North Carolina's GonNa be the one of the three closest the presidential states in the country. That's my one of my like under the radar. Think we're GONNA come back. Oh Jesus I you know the thing about North Carolina to me. That's most interesting. Is the swing voter in North Carolina. Donald trump at the suburban swing voter. Donald Trump does better there with that swing voter in the suburbs and he does in most other states southern suburbs and generally does slightly better. That's that's true but there's something north. Carolina is a pretty good fit for president trump and again it's not a state where either party racks up landslides when they went. You know it's a fifty to forty eight fifty three forty seven state no matter what if you also look back at two thousand and sixteen there was closer correlation between Richard Burs vote in Donald Trump's. Vote then there wasn't any other Senate race. This is not a state where I think you'll see a lot of separation And I think the president is favored to carry it. And I think Thom Tillis is favor Kerry reason why I agree with you. Is what happened in eighteen gene and this suburbs Texas the suburbs Arizona. A whole bunch of places where we picked up house seats last cycle. You're going to see in Raleigh at And Edna Charlotte skipped over a state but but Tillis was stronger in in the suburbs of Charlotte then then most Republicans have been. I mean that was his. That was instead. You're going to see better. Democratic number South Carolina. I throw it out here for this reason. I don't expect Lindsey Graham to lose. I expect Lindsey Graham that the closest Senate race of his career maybe even more so in his first race. I just only because the demographic changes in Georgia North Carolina aren't skipping over Charleston at odd paper North Carolina's more competitive competitive in South Carolina. I won't disagree with what you just said. You'll see more competitive racer. This is something. That's different Democrats are good a bunch of money in that race that that'd be like Tuck it. I'm sure it drives Democrats operatives crazy. There's a phenomenon in their party. where their donors especially online donors love hopeless cases and and they and they waste tens of millions of dollars? They can't win donors Dutch do oh that is not attributing the guy who's running against the AFC and how much money the hand or the the person who I'll take the over under South Carolina some of that crazy guy running against CEOS having more donors than we do know that may be why they're don't waste more so they have more of them. Let me go to quickly. New Hampshire. I've heard him make a case in New Hampshire. New Hampshire's New Hampshire. It's quirky it's weird and it's it's always close right. Yeah it and you would think that it could close its sub. Fortunately it's not where it starts it. It appears to be And I hate to use his phrase but but a clown car candidates that are running on the Republican side. They're gonNA start far back in. It's probably too far ketchup. Catch Corey Lewandowski. Legal in New Hampshire. Brad how close were you to filing in Tennessee way far away. Yes that wasn't gonNA has continents. It's a way not going to happen. I can rule out twenty twenty four as well. If you'd like me to never never never never say that about Louis. Douse got out for a reason. Onto wise decision. There's an Iowa phenomenon that happens every four years if one can't if one party is dominating the state just by going because of the Caucasus and we've seen seen this happen before when Obama was running for reelection democratic numbers in general cratered in Iowa. And we're we're seeing some evidence of the reverse but not nearly the same amount as we saw the twelve but in general has the caucus campaign made Ernst more vulnerable. Just because you have so much democratic. We're certainly going to be a lot of democratic. Newly minted democratic door knockers state right the the infrastructure is going to be there And I but I also think that it swing voters in Iowa also really long look at some really looney left Democrats running for president and I think that will move. The Democrat brand further left their problem in Iowa has not not been in. Recent years is not been lack of infrastructure a lack of money. It's a small state with political activists. It's been the fact that Democrats don't appeal to rural voters. This is one of my favorite topics. Because you gotta ask yourself at the point today in Iowa that looks like both the Senate and the presidential races going to be close and I went yet I to ask ask myself. Well why would it be different than Indiana Kansas Nebraska. I think there's two or three things at play. There is no doubt to me that the caucus is going to help inspire more Democrats gory. Are- or or more independence Be inspired to vote democratic But I think there's some other things going at play here real quickly I dictate Konami matters in in In Iowa it's not terrific in terms of both the egg and manufacturing in that state. I think it makes it different than some of the surrounding. I'M I. I don't think I've left the state off. That isn't of interest. There's some primaries I'm interested in Liz. Cheney she can run for the Senate Brad I think she wants to. I think she'll being Richard. If we'RE GONNA have a new Kennedy in the Senate Kennedy Marquis. Are you glad you don't have to win that race. Jay Be glad to uh-huh sit in the chair here and Being Observer Marquis out either though obviously I it's going to be a fascinating. You see that as more of a divide ride on generational grounds ideological or almost like you know Union groups versus ninety. I mean how is that dividing up there it'll be. AFC It'll be a fascinating race. You know it's not likely that that that young Kennedy's can get to the left of Marquis Given where mark and and I expected to be competitive and I wanted to certainly wouldn't rule marquee. Well I'm bummed. That isn't as a political junkie. I don't get to get get into some of these partisan primaries in the Senate side because they'd be a lot of fun. Liz Cheney Joe Kennedy. I mean we're getting Chinese and Kennedy's in the Senate or at least you might call a fun collector Lexi. You often have to deal with it. Brad Todd J. Person. We're going to do this again. Thanks for I have a feeling around convention time we'll be the next time to check in When the do that With you guys. That'll be a lot of fun and we'll up. Hold you accountable for all the crazy prediction. You guys me fair enough guys. You've been listening to the Chuck Todd cast from meet the press. Today's episode was produced by Justice Green Ryan Brown and Liz Braun Kayser. John Raises our producer. Matt Rivera's our senior producer. Steve Lik Tai is the head of podcasts. News and our theme music is composed by spoke media. You can catch meet the press daily on MSNBC every day at five or the big show every Sunday morning and you WanNa Watch thanks for listening and until we upload again the JESUITS from dateline. Do you need your true crime fix on the go. They line episodes are now available in podcasts. You can listen in the car or on the beach or wherever the summer takes. Yes you mysteries with a twist from dateline subscribe now so you don't miss an episode.
How the Senate Could Act on Gun Violence
"Tired of spending hundreds of dollars prescription glasses visits any today at xeni dot com slash c._n._n. And and welcome to the point august. I'm lauren then ski co author of the point. I'm here to cut through the political spin to bring you the news you need to know. Congress is often blamed for its inaction on laws around gun violence that blame becomes even louder when lawmakers are on recess for the entire month of august meaning. They're are on break at home in their districts. In the wake of this weekend's mass shootings a chorus of democrats and some republicans called on senate majority leader mitch mcconnell donald to reconvene the senate to act on legislation a bill had passed the house with bipartisan support earlier this year and subsequently stalled in the senate senate that bill would require background checks on all firearm sales in the country senate minority leader chuck schumer and new york republican congressman peter king he even held a press conference today calling on mcconnell to reconvene to pass the background check bill bringing senators back to washington during the august recess or for scrapping it altogether is not unprecedented just last year in two thousand eighteen mcconnell cancelled the august recess and it's three weeks built in vacation saying that the senate still had work to get done with passing government funding bills in approving trump nominees to various positions but it's not likely the senate will come back to session to vote vote on this background. Check bill for starters. Mcconnell's team has made clear the majority leader is serious about a process on gun legislation something something that is bipartisan and bicameral meaning both parties and both the senate and house are involved and for what it's worth a process does not guarantee anything actually gets passed which all does not sound good for the background check bill expect more conversation around supporting states with existing red flag gun laws and potentially incentivizing their expansion all of which we talked about in the monday podcast republicans have an opening to lean into these red flag laws in part because trump himself has voiced support for them albeit relatively vaguely and to add injury to the entire process literally mcconnell fractured his shoulder older over the weekend and is currently recovering at home in kentucky which brings us to the point a louder chorus calling for action on gun violence legislation is bringing attention but very likely will not bring the senate back into session this august to act and that's the point for august sixth twenty nineteen. Thank you for listening for more updates throughout the week including our sunday night campaign edition subscribe to the point newsletter at c._n._n. Dot com slash point. If you like the audio briefing you can get an uncle home or amazon backup or subscribe on stitcher or apple podcasts or your favorite podcast app to you never miss an.
White House team calls impeachment process a "charade", urges Senate GOP to dismiss case against Trump quickly; First vote on trial rules and witnesses expected tomorrow; Trump lawyer criticized for shifting stance in impeachment; Senate releases text of
"Happening now charade president. Trump's legal team submits a lengthy brief to the Senate lasting the articles of impeachment calling them. Invalid Suray the process deeply flawed and urging senators to reject the case quickly committed. One of the president's most high profile lawyers is forced to defend spend themselves on whether a crime is necessary for impeachment. He didn't think it was when Bill Clinton was impeached in eastern poll. About half of Americans. It's now say the Senate should vote to convict president trump and remove him from office in our exclusive new CNN poll. That's just been released and Senate rules. We're looking at the arcane rules of presidential impeachment trial governing what senators can and can't do during the preceding that starts tomorrow. I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in the situation room on the eve of President Trump's historic restorick. Trial is lawyers are calling on senators to swiftly reject the two impeachment articles the house filed against him in a brief submitted to the Senate they call the case Flimsy Lindsay in the process of charade meanwhile Haas Democrats are responding to this. Weekend's White House impeachment brief saying that President Trump's assertion that the impeachment articles those are constitutionally. Invalid is chilling and Dead Wrong and Democrats are angry that the resolution detailing the trial procedures has not yet been released. A spokesman for the majority leader Mitch. McConnell is declining to comment or explain why. He hasn't unveiled the proposal yet today. Both the house impeachment managers and president. Trump's lawyers did a walk through the Senate Chamber to see the physical arrangements for will be only the third presidential impeachment pitchman trial in American history. We'll talk about that. And more with Congressman Gerry Connolly. He's a member of the Foreign Affairs Oversight Committees and our correspondents and analysts are also also standing by first. Let's go to our chief. White House correspondent Jim. Acosta is already in Davos Switzerland where the president is heading tonight. Jim On this. The eve of of this truly historic trial for trump is about to leave the country. That's the president will be trying to escape his impeachment trial when he arrives here. In Switzerland for the World Economic Forum in Davos Mr Trump's legal team is already urging Senate Republicans to quickly dismiss the case against the president who has been asking associates in recent days. Why is this happening to me before his impeachment trial is even begun in the Senate? The president is seeking the ruling of case dismissed. One hundred ten page memo blasted off by the President's defense team. Mr Trump's attorneys write. All of this is a dangerous. Perversion of the Constitution that the Senate should swiftly and roundly condemn and this will be the argument from the President's defense team that There this is an impeachment. Teach me that is fundamentally and constitutionally flawed never in our history. has there been an impeachment of a president without even an allegation that a crime was committed. Fragments lawyers go on to argue that it was just fine for Mr Trump to ask the leader of Ukraine to investigate former vice president. Joe Biden during their July twenty fifth phone call adding it it also would have been legitimate to mention the Biden burris. Mo- fair all but making the case that it's okay for a president to welcome foreign interference in an election. As Mr Trump trump did in front of the cameras and by the way likewise China should start an investigation into the by. Because what happened in the China is just about as bad as what happened with With Ukraine over the weekend at his Florida resort a source close to the White House. I was told CNN. Mr Trump was asking friends. Why are they doing this to me is allies are trying to assure him he should receive a speedy trial? That's over in a couple of weeks. His his mood is to go to the state of the union with this behind him and talk about what he wants to do for the next rest of two thousand twenty forty wants to do for the next four years. He is very very much comfortable with the idea. This is going to turn out well for him. But sources tell C. N. N. one of the president's high profile attorneys Alan Dershowitz needed some convincing to sign under the trial team. That included a phone call from Mr Trump to Dershowitz his wife. Dershowitz is on the defensive himself. Changing his story on whether a crime is is necessary for a president to be impeached. Compare what he said during. The Clinton impeachment certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the the office of President and who abuses trust and who poses a great danger to our liberty. You don't need a technical crime to what Dershowitz is saying now. No I haven't changed. I'd say you don't be technical but you need criminal type behavior. That's the position I've taken over time. Democrats aren't buying any of it. In Mr Trump's case there is ample evidence Overwhelming evidence any jury would convict three minutes flat that the president betrayed his country by Breaking the law one. Top Democrat is warning. That portions of the intelligence community are holding onto some evidence that could damage the president the NSA in particular was is withholding what are potentially relevant documents to our oversight responsibilities on Ukraine but also withholding documents potentially relevant that the senators might wanna see during the trial that is deeply concerning and there are signs that the CIA may be on the same tragic course now. The president's advisors wanted Mr Trump to take this trip to Switzerland so the public still season as doing his job and doing portions of his duties like the speech. You'll be delivering at the World Economic Omic Forum here in Davos tomorrow but sources who have spoken to the president in recent days. Say He is distracted by this upcoming impeachment trial and then he's been telling people around him he still. Oh can't believe this is happening to wolf. Jim Acosta in Davos Switzerland for us. Thank you let's go to Capitol Hill Right now. Congressional correspondent Phil Mattingly joining US fill. Oh both houses managers and the President's legal team they've been up on Capitol Hill today preparing for the trial. What are you learning? First of all about how tomorrow we'll kick off that's right. Both sides getting walk-throughs today from the Senate floor and also recognition at twenty hours from this moment. The Senate will have officially gaveled into session to consider in earnest. Only the third impeachment of president in the course of the United States history. Now here's what we know up to this point. What will be happening at this moment? Starting at about one PM Tomorrow Laura Senate Majority Leader Mitch. McConnell will introduce his organizing resolution essentially the rules of the road for at least the first portion of the trial once he introduces that resolution Russian. Both the house managers and the President's defense team will each have an hour to debate or argue for or against the merits of that resolution after that completes Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. We'll have an opportunity to offer amendments to that resolution of Wolf. This is crucial because it will be the first opportunity for the US Senate to consider and vote on the idea of subpoena witnesses and documents now. Schumer and Democrats have made clear from the outset. They want in this. Initial resolution subpoenas for documents and witnesses McConnell well has rejected it at every turn and has lined up all fifty three Senate Republicans behind his idea to consider that later in the trial so we expect those votes to fail however we do you expect those votes to occur at the outset of the trial. Still there is a lot we don't know about what's actually going to happen tomorrow. Keep in mind. We still haven't seen the initial organizing resolution from Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell now behind the scenes it's worth noting this McConnell even though he declared several weeks ago that every single Republican was behind him on that resolution has been working a lot intensely. I'm told with moderates on one side conservatives on another trying to make sure that the entire conference stays together on what the final language looks like language. McConnell has said repeatedly will be very similar to the rules of the road for the nineteen ninety nine Senate impeachment trial so we're still waiting to see what that actual resolution Lucien looks like and Democrats have made very clear the fact that it is not public yet the fact that they have not seen it in fact wolf. I'm told Senate. Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and McConnell have spoken at all all about this nor have their staffs leading to a lot of uncertainty. Going into the day. One thing to keep in mind wolf. Senators cannot speak on the floor during a Senate impeachment trial however they do have the option of deliberating. If they decide they want to deliberate it would take fifty one votes and Wolf that would essentially shut the senate down. It would take place in closed session. We don't know whether or not that will occur but it certainly an option one of the many things were still trying to figure out as well. We know the trial is starting tomorrow. We know the resolution will be voted on tomorrow. We know. Oh amendments will be considered tomorrow. There's still a level of fluidity here. That just simply hasn't changed yet. Unlikely won't until we hear from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tomorrow afternoon. We'll love be covering every step of the way Phil Mattingly up on Capitol Hill. Thank you. Let's get some more on all of this Democratic Congressman Gerry Connolly. Virginia's joining us. He's a member of the foreign affairs. The oversight committee's congressman. Thanks so much for joining us of the one hundred and ten behavior of the one hundred ten page memo defending the president calls the case as against them and I'm quoting now a dangerous perversion of the constitution. What's your response to the president's legal I think that's projection. I think the dangerous pro- You know a precedent here is the president's behavior and the enabling behavior here of his advocates in the Senate and the house Donald Trump is a clear and present threat to the constitutional form of government. And that's why he was impeached. The president's attorneys also argue was in the national interest their words for him to ask the Ukrainians to investigate the two thousand sixteen election. Hushing House impeachment managers the seven of them rebut VAT argument. I don't think that's a difficult one for the American people to understand or to have the managers rebuts the idea that it was necessary and useful to us. National Security to withhold military aid duly authorized appropriated by by the Congress to a country that siege from Russian militias and Russia military in the eastern part of its borders In order to get political dirt on on a prospective political opponent is not yet the nominee. Even I think perverts justice and abuses the office in a way that some precedent it I think that's very clear to the American people. I think that's why your own pulse owes Strong support I think for proceeding and for even convicting and removing this president from office now small majority is is in favor of convicting and removing him from office. We'll have more on that poll later. But we do you. You believe carnival when you go ahead make your point. I remember in August. That number was thirty six percent so that number while it may be a small. Aw majority it significantly grown in just a few months do you believe congressman that The Republicans ultimately will agree to allow witnesses during the course I of the trial. I think not doing that makes them look like they are whitewashing this whole affair and and just going through the motions of trial and that opens them up to the criticism that it was a sham trial and they were rigged jury. I think it's in their own interest. Have witnesses witnesses that were not available to the house when we were doing depositions but do you worry that might open opportunity for Republicans to call witnesses like like Hunter Biden for example. I think I think that's a concern but and I think it's a diversion Franklin distraction action because there have been No founded allegations that have been corroborated with respect to a hundred biden or or vice US President Biden And I think it's a distraction from the real issue at hand. The behavior of this president and his administration was going to say congressman. And you know that if the Democrats can call witnesses like John Bolton or Mick Mulvaney for example the Republicans are going to want Hunter Biden and they may want the whistle blower. They want the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Adam Schiff you know. The president has repeatedly said he wants to hear from them Yes and A number of his supporters in the Senate have called for that as well The Republicans will have to negotiate with the Democrats on. What if any witnesses called? I personally believed that the case given to the Senate by the House is ironclad I think it provides prima facie evidence of abuse of office obstruction of Congress us as charged and he ought to be found guilty. I don't think you need witnesses. But I do think would would be helpful in augmenting. The testimony and the documents admits provided the Senate by the House. Interesting the intelligence committee chairman. Adam Schiff He's the lead impeachment manager. Is You know he says that the NSA National Security Agency Z.. Is Withholding potentially relevant documents on the Ukraine scandal. Do you believe the. NSA is hiding damaging information about the president's conduct. I have no knowledge of that Wolf but I certainly trust Adam Schiff as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee I don't think he'd say that Without Foundation without reason that is very troubling We can't have our intelligence agencies withholding key documents key evidence during an impeachment process That's one of the most somber constitutional functions of the legislative branch can engage in it obviously jeopardizes the executive active namely the president and we need the cooperation of every agency of the federal government in this process. Well you've been in Congress for a while I do you plan on getting your hands on those documents That's GonNa that that's a longer question wolf off. I mean as as you know I believe we ought to be reviving what's called inherent contempt in which Congress enforces its own demands for documents and witnesses. Answer Pena's Unfortunately there's not enough time to remedy that pro- Problem Right now. This will have to be litigated and almost certainly not not result Before the impeachment is adjudicated. Well we'll see if you get those documents. Jerry Conley the congressman. Thanks so much for joining us. My pleasure wolf still ahead. We'll have more on today's filing by the trump defense team arguing. The president has done nothing wrong and doesn't deserve to be removed from office plus more on the mood over at the White House and amid reports the president is asking associates. Why is this happening to me? They're on the wrong side of history apart. That's me Daniel Radcliffe Steve Bruce Semi Dirk Ages. A miracle work. -nology Commute January twenty eighth at ten thirty nine thirty central on CBS. We're expecting fireworks tomorrow when the US Senate needs to debate the rules and the procedures for president. Trump's impeachment trial. Let's bring in our experts to discuss. What's what's going on Chris? Cillizza one thing that's going hang on. The Democrats are pretty angry right now that the Senate Majority Leader Mitch. McConnell still hasn't released the actual text of his resolution what he wants to see see unfold. Oh Yeah I think one of the big contrast that will see at least at the start of the trial when we compared to Clinton was remember. The Clinton impeachment rules were worked out by nature of a compromise compromise between the two party leaders so it was one hundred zero approval. That's not what's happening here. And it's not what's going to happen here. As a result I think what Mitch McConnell is doing this holding the rules rules. That will govern that I vote. The opening rules Very tightly why because he feels confident he has fifty one votes. He said that week and a half ago and he doesn't doesn't feel particularly inclined to let Democrats pick apart anything that is either in it or not in it. He knows they're going to do at once without any way. This is the first step of what will be a obviously. It's on its face. It's a partisan process given what happened in the house but this will not be the first time that we talk about. Democrats being very frustrated at tactic. Mitch McConnell's employees. Well I think that and correct me if I'm wrong since you know everything about this. But but during the Clinton impeachment you had effectively the same number of hours but it was spread over more days. And if Mitch McConnell wants twelve hours straight what I would argue is that the Republicans feel. It's okay it's just goes on until the middle of the night. Nobody'll be watching. So that's Kinda in a better and I would think that the Democrats would say we're not gonNA deal if Ruben. You're the Senate parliamentarian for a long time but walkers Chris through why you think steph majority leader is delaying releasing the text of his resolution. That would govern the course of the trial. Mitch McConnell doesn't need the Democrats in any way shape or form during this procedure. Impeachment trials are a majority rule situation which is unusual in the Senate. The Minority Party in the Senate has leverage outside of these trials. There's always the filibuster. The minority has leverage. They have privileges they have none of that in in an impeachment trial. This is a majority rule situation. All these orders these these resolutions are covered by a two hour limitation. Not of debate as we understand understand it but of arguments the parties argue the Senate has remained silent. So the the Democrats really have very few cards to play here and Mitch McConnell. Donald really doesn't need him in them at all. Republicans who say twelve hours is too much and we'd like to break this up a little bit. I mean that that's not impossible. He needs he needs a majority in the question is how does he keep troops in line. Elliott this is. This is the the the White House Trial Memorandum the President Donald J trump and the president's attorneys all signed it. They say this whole process of their words is a dangerous perversion of the. US Constitution Institution. So well if I was talking to a senior democratic aide a little bit earlier who referred to that is the world's longest tweet one hundred page long tweet or whatever because what it does rehash allows the argument some of them quite legally suspect about why the president ought to be impeached. So number one. The big thing is there's no crime so it's not an impeachable offense now. I think we'll talk about that a little bit later under. So let's set that aside. The big thing though is the president's powers under article two of the Constitution entitled the President to engage in in all of this behavior. And what's what's been made clear. Frankly over two hundred forty. Four years of the nation's history is that the president doesn't have unlimited power just on the base of being president didn't ought not entitle one to engage in an unlawful manner and it can't be a sword Anna Shield for misconduct and so the framers were ultimately most concerned. If if you read the federals papers with number one corruption number two foreign interference in our elections. Those were really the two things that seem to drive the federalist papers and what was behind the constitution. So Awada that they're playing a little fast and loose with the law wolf everything Elliot said. In addition to that. This should not be surprising. Surprising that this is the trump approach because what is donald trump's approach to everything to which is either charged with or accused of never. Did it actually actually not only did I not do it. The people who are accusing me did I mean this is. He only knows full frontal assault at all times right constant constant forward motion consular SYMANTEC context. So the the fact that this is not a terribly nuance start. Legal argument should not surprise us. I still think we have to remember. Donald Trump always place for that outside audience. He's not playing. He's he thinks he's fine in the not worried about Senate he's worried about how people publicly perceive it and that's why you're hearing this bunk about. There's no there's no crime crime well but the General Accountability Office said Yes. There was a crime but conveniently. The president's attorneys are single. You can't that's not admissible admissible effectively because it happened after the house brought over. It's voted on impeachment. So of course you have have to be able to talk about something because the General Accountability Office says it is illegal. Nothing you have to have committed a crime but if you're looking for a crime there it is everybody standby. There's there's a lot more we need to discuss. We're getting more information coming into the situation room. We'll be right back. Hey UNCHRISTIAN ludlow and I'm candace Parker. We've got a new podcast properly called low and Parker on our show you'll hear our takes on the NBA league that we both eat sleep and breathe greet every day listening in on the League's most plugged invoices in kristen and not to mention getting the perspective from two-time WNBA MVP and one of the most decorated graded athletes to ever play the game in Kansas. We talked to some of our friends from around the game pop culture and more search for lead low and Parker and subscribe today. We're back with our experts are in analyst Elliott I want to play some clips for you The one of the President's attorneys Alan Dershowitz the Harvard a law professor emeritus. He said one thing. Twenty one twenty two years ago about impeachment another thing Sunday on state of the Union and a third thing today. I want you to listen to certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of President and who abuses trust. I and who poses a great danger to our liberty. You don't need a technical crime. The framers intended for impeachable conduct only to be criminal like conduct or conduct that is prohibited by the Criminal Law. You need criminal type behavior kin to treason and bribery. It doesn't have to be technical prime because at the time the framers wrote on there was no criminal code. What do you think it sounds very? I voted for it before I was against it. But look here's the thing if you notice the way either framing the way they're talking about this. This would be the first time. A president was impeached for something. That wasn't a crime let alone the fact that through American history and dozens of federal judges and secretaries of war and so on have been impeached for fences that were not crimes and they don't get to have it both ways where they split up. There is the play by the way that you're toxic right. You know he does if you want to twist. The lawn misrepresented the American people. What the constitutional standard was so if you've read federal sixty five? They talk about the distinction between Alexander. Hamilton the distinction between courts. And what courts do what the Senate does why the Impeachment House with the Senate. Because they're not trying find out. What do you think? Well I'm processed guy but I know from from history that people like judge pickering where were impeached for being drunk and according to his family just crazy so I don't believe it needs to be a prosecutable crime so it doesn't matter what we believed. The simple fact is Old these dozens of people actually have been impeached successful. Well let me read. Let me read an excerpt from federal paper sixty five which I happen at the half. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which perceive from the misconduct of public men or in other words from the abuse or violation of of some public. Trust right I don't understand Alan Dershowitz because this is situational ethics. It seems to me you do you believe one thing and you say very definitively that it doesn't have to be a crime and then you say it has to be a crime. This isn't like like the constitution has changed. The constitution has not changed. The constitution remains the same. So the way he is interpreting it is completely completely different. He's done eighty and the only reason I can see is that he's in a different situation right now. A with with Donald Trump by the way Dershowitz has distanced himself from the actual defense and the president trying to have it both ways. They are to saying well I I I. I didn't read the brief. I wasn't a part of the brief. All I'm doing is arguing the constitution except he's the constitution both ways he's GonNa make that case we're told on Friday assuming it goes a scheduled right exactly and again if you look at that. Federal is papers quote. It's about the public trust. That is what the framers that is. What Hamilton was obsessed with we were getting away from kings and corruption When they when they founded the government here and so the idea that now this all needs to be about criminal which which weren't the Criminal Code hadn't even been written constitution which let me show you our new poll that just came out among other things we asked this question question? Should the Senate trial include testimony from new witnesses. Sixty nine percents yes. Twenty six percent said no should the Senate trial include testimony from from new witnesses among Democrats eighty six percent yes independence sixty nine percent. Yes but look at this. Among Republicans forty eight percent said yes. Yeah I mean. It's the hardest point that Mitch McConnell will half to sell There's a reason that we already have four. Republican senators at least making overtures that they would be in favor of witnesses because in any situation. If there was new information or New People to hear from I think your logic rational mind would say well. Yeah I mean it makes sense for we make a big momentous decision which did from the that's the. That's the piece that I think is going to be the most difficult from McConnell if they are trying to make this thing begin middle and end by February fourth the state of the union with witnesses. It's very hard to see how that happened. So the question now is I think there's fifty one votes are witnesses. The question is rich. Witnesses are there fifty one votes for on the one hand John Bolton and on the other end Hunter Biden are there fifty volts John Bolton and no one hundred. That's the issue I think there's more than fifty one votes for the idea of witnesses but the devil as the big. Yeah the big number is this one. Should Senate vote to remove trump from office. Gloria slight majority fifty one percent American public according to the CNN poll says yes forty five percent say no right and this number we used to. We used to just ask the question. Should he be impeached and removed from office. Well now he's been impeached so we know that so the public is now asking whether he should be removed. So it's a it's a slightly different question from the one we have asked in the past and that's a big number and I think the public public is not in a rush. The public wants to seem witnesses. The Senate Republicans are in a rush. The Senate Majority Leader Mitch. McConnell Liz interrupt she wants to get this done by the state of the Union. The public is just wants to see witnesses as in most trials and so there the public is saying. Look you got to be fair. Maybe they one hundred two we. We don't know but the public is is using a logic that says when you have a trial y'all have see some more suspect if the Democrats get witnesses. The Republicans will get witnesses as well and this could then go on and make it much much longer. Remember the Clinton Clinton the Clinton impeachment trial weeks. which is we're talking about two weeks before the state of the Union? If you're running for President Democrat guys is no matter how President trump subpoena trial turns out a new book argues. He's fundamentally changing the presidency and corrupting the. US justices the one of the co-authors CNN national security and legal analyst Susan Hennessy. She's standing by live. We'll discuss right after we have breaking news up on Capitol Hill. Let's quickly go to see that Phil Mattingly Phil I take it. The Senate Majority Leader has just released the resolution that he'll introduced tomorrow Wolf. He hasn't released publicly but has obtained a copy of that resolution a four page resolution. That essentially is the initial rules of the road for the Senate trial that will start in earnest tomorrow on a pick out a couple of things that are of interest to me remember. The majority leader made very clear. He felt these rules would be very very similar to the nine hundred ninety nine impeachment impeachment trial rules but there are a couple of exceptions here that I'm keying in on at the moment. The first is the idea that the two presentations between the house managers and the President's council presidents defense esteem will like the Clinton rules twenty four be given twenty four hours to make those presentations however like we've reported over the course of the last couple of days. Those presentations will have have to be made within two days. Essentially they'll have twenty four hours. They will have essentially two sessions to be able to make those twenty four hours count now. Both sides can yield back if they want to you any of their time but that twenty four hours will have to be presented over the course of two days convincing a time schedule. That during the Clinton trial took several more days than that. The other thing I'm peeing on is is the language related to witnesses wolf behind the scenes. Over the course of the last several weeks Senator Susan Collins in the lead along with Senator Lisa Murkowski and the Mara Alexander have been working very specifically with majority leader. McConnell on language related to witness is essentially trying to secure an up or down vote as to whether or not the Senate will consider subpoenas for witnesses and documents now based on the one thousand nine hundred nine rules any senator could offer a resolution to try and call a witness a simple majority vote was all it would take take. They did not have this specific language in that one thousand nine hundred resolution. I'm keeping an eye on it here because it might have wide ranging implications and we're still just reading through the language right now but essentially at the end of the two presentations between the house. Managers in the White House. Defense team would come sixteen hours of questions by the United States Senate senators. Each senator could ask questions if they wanted to over a period of sixteen hours that is also what they did in one thousand nine hundred nine but it is after that where there is new language here in one thousand nine hundred nine. They had an option for a motion to dismiss that is no longer in the resolution something. Republicans telegraphed was coming saying there was no support for a motion to dismiss. They wanted to take this all the way through to a vote on whether to acquit in. Its place is language related to the idea of the Senate taking an upper down vote as to whether or not to hear from witnesses and subpoenaed documents what this would do is was after the Senate questions. After the sixteen hours of Senate questions the Senate would then move to four hours of arguments over whether or not to hear from witnesses and subpoenaed documents at the completion. Leashes of that four hours the Senate would then decide by Yays or nays whether it and I'm quoting here. Shelby in order to consider and debate under impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses. Now the interesting part of that is that is essentially the language that the moderates in the Senate the same moderates Republican moderates. The Democrats have been keying on trying to bring over to their side to secure fifty one votes to make witnesses and subpoenas for documents a possibility. This is what they've been fighting for in this in the resolution. I think the big question now is if that motion as does not get a majority if it essentially fails in the United States Senate. What does that mean about the ability for other senators to offer resolutions? Would that be considered considered outside the realm of the trial rule. Still working to get some clarity on that. However based on this language after that four hours of arguments on the idea of witnesses the United State Senate will have an opportunity on upper down vote? Simple majority rules to decide whether or not to move forward on considering subpoenas for witnesses and documents now wolf if they due decide to consider the option of witnesses and documents in that upper down vote it also makes clear here that any witness that subpoenaed would be deposed before the United States Senate before they would actually come testify. Members of both parties would have an opportunity to witness that deposition before any of that information is actually introduced in the trial a little bit in the weeds here but I I think these are both important things to keep an eye on. There are key differences from the nineteen ninety nine resolution and what these differences will mean going forward obviously a condensed presentation timetable for the House. Managers and for the White House's defense team and then a very clear extremely important up or down vote on whether or not to hear from witnesses and documents that would come after through the first two stages of the trial that is locked in based on this resolution. We're still waiting. Senate majority leader. McConnell is actually in his office right now wait to see if he has anything to say when he departs the capital or later tonight but this is the resolution. Everybody's been waiting for. We now have all four pages of it this will dictate the opening stages of the trial. This is what will be voted on likely tomorrow By the Senate in terms of what will actually happen next and Wolf. It's worth noting. This is what Democrats we'll try and amend tomorrow Chuck Schumer the Democratic leader making clear. He will offer at least one. I'm probably more amendments to make changes to this but the moderates the moderate Republicans got the language they wanted in here as it relates to witnesses. What that means if it is adopted by the Senate or if it fails I think a big question? People are going to have to figure out as we start to work through the process of this trial wolf. It gets a little complicated but I just want to be precise phil on this. So the opening arguments by the house managers and the opening argument from the White House attorneys. They will each have. What twelve hours but they have to do that in one day? Each is that right so they will each have twenty four hours total so a total of forty eight hours but they will only begin two days to use those twenty four hours so in the Clinton Clinton trial they were each given twenty four hours for. They were given more days to actually utilize that twenty four hours. I think it broke down to something between six to eight hours per day stretched over a couple of a couple more days gays than just to and I think what what's happening here is they're limiting the number of days in which that twenty four hours can be used during those presentations and coach Democrats have heard about this idea. They are opposed to this. The idea. Is they say this will essentially force a lot of this to be happening in the middle of the night to some degree. Given the fact the trial starts each day at one pm but this is what the resolution says again it will take fifty one votes. It's to lock this into place tomorrow. But if all Senate Republicans stay together and they have made clear their behind Senate Majority Leader Mitch. McConnell in that endeavor and obviously the moderate Republicans getting their language guage on witnesses into this resolution should make that pretty much a sure thing at this point in time. This should be the way that this trial goes. Depending on those votes on the floor and again to reiterate eight Wolf Democrats can't amendable language. Democrats will try and change this language tomorrow but they would need Republicans to join them at least four to be able to do so and at least at this point in time those four Republicans at this stage in the trial very beginning simply don't exist. We'll see if that changes the resolution is out but I would say one other thing. I think this is important to keep in mind. McConnell has been working a lot assiduously with his members over the course of the last couple of weeks to make sure that they were in line to make sure what he said a couple of weeks ago all fifty three Republicans are with him on this to make sure they stayed that way. So it's a pretty fair to assume this language wasn't going to be finalized. Input out unless McConnell was confident. Fifty three Republican senators were with him. But we'll have to wait and see what their reaction and obviously with the Democrats reaction is and the hours and days ahead. We'll so I got I want. I want to be precise on day. One of the house managers opening opening arguments against the president. Why should be convicted and removed from office day? One they'll they'll do it potentially twelve hours day two and twelve hours if they started one. PM they would go at least for one am both days and then the White House lawyers would have two days to do the same thing that's essentially the case they can be able to split is is my understanding based on my initial read of this they can split there twenty four hours over the course of two days however they would want to do it and of course they have the option to yield back some of that time if they want to. They don't have to use all twenty four hours but they were given a Max twenty four hours and they would have to do that over the course of two days. The assumption the running assumption of course of the last couple of days wolf. Since we heard that this was a possibility disability was it would be done in two twelve hour segments by each side so essentially four segments in total but each side is going to have to decide how exactly they want to utilize the twenty four hours. They're given for their presentations. Are Stand by Gloria. What do you think? Well I think that Mitch McConnell is clearly trying to condense the calendar to get this done on the state of the Union which is what the president has requests which is February fourth which is February fourth. I also believe that there might have been some kind of trade off on that here with the moderates who clearly got what they wanted in this. which is the potential for allowing for witnesses who would be deposed? I which is what happened. during the Clinton trial there is no motion to dismiss in this which everybody kind of agreed would never pass anyway? But that doesn't preclude somebody buddy from raising a motion to dismiss. If they wanted to. So I think you can kind of see the trade off that was made here among Republicans. It's however it's really wild as we were saying to each other to think that the Senate is going to sit there for twelve hours a a lot of this taking place way into the wee hours of the morning just to get this done to keep up with some schedule. All that has been invented by the White House so the president can have a state of the Union address Without you know without being in the middle of this however if if there are witnesses you'll never get this done by the state anyway. So I'm looking Mitch. McConnell has gone all in on the notion that this is going to be the same as the Clinton impeachment that that was sort sort of the standard of fairness here this. This fails plenty plainly by my own own standard forcing the presentation of the of the house managers case in twelve marathon hours. That are gonNA stretch well into the middle of the night. The American people are going to understand. Exactly what is going on here. Which is that Mitch? McConnell is hoping to exhaust the house managers to exhaust the Senate such that whenever it actually gets to the point that they have the choice to maybe call witnesses. There'll be incentive. He's also racing against and they're witnesses not their information that might come out and they'll you remember the Bill Clinton impeachment trial in the Senate twenty one years ago they also have twenty four hours each side but over four days as opposed to over two days it was a much more humane schedule. This will test the guidelines that they published the have senators remain in their seats for for the entire duration of the trial. They expect them to be there until the wee hours the assumption is that no. They won't be there until the wee hours and that the managers will give up. Basically these guys is. You'RE GONNA BE TIRED IF THEY'RE GONNA have to stay up to one or two or three in the morning. A lot of these senators and I know a lot of them. They're not used to that. I'm getting tired just reading it but look this is a remarkable document to receive eighteen hours before a major one of the three presidential impeachments in American history. And I think sort of at the core of this and Phil talking about this. Is these four or five vulnerable. Senate Republicans the question McConnell's sole goal is protecting his Senate majority and in some way he has seen seen that they are protected with what they've crafted here. Now it'll be interesting to see. What kind of leash they have to vote on witnesses in a manner that bucks the party or so on but really Susan Collins? Cory Gardner Joni Earns Martha mcsally. Although we we saw some funny business week but really they are at the center of this and I think this document pigs for their protect. What is the reason other than trying to push this through? Shove this through get it over. With what other reason is there to do things in twelve hour. Increments it's it's literally thumbing his. It's clear that the Senate majority wants this all done wrapped up by the state of the Union February. The report like Mitch. McConnell has made clear from the outset Mrs not about fact-finding this is not about the impartial administration of Justice. No matter what they said when they held their hand up for the supreme the chief justice of the Supreme Court just last week. This is about getting it over with as quickly as possible. Because they already know that. The argument here and the argument that we saw in the president's presidents briefs are the president. Didn't do it. And so what if he did and they understand that that is going to be an ugly argument for the president to watch that play out in parallel with the very very strong case. Where the Senate parliament during what do you think well? I'm not here to speculate on people's motives I do think this creates a rather strange Physical Oh endurance test. I'd be surprised if the senator stick around. I do know from my own personal perspective that the staff has to stick around And so I look at this and think to myself off this. This is going to be a tough haul. It doesn't seem serious to me. I mean it seems a summing or whatever you want to say it seems to me that Mitch McConnell is essentially saying that Democrats yes. Okay you asked for it here it is here it is and here it. Is We see in this resolution that the Senate majority leader will be introducing with the rules for for this Senate impeachment trial much more on the breaking news right after this. Are you interested in learning how enterprise scale companies drive organic traffic to increase their online visibility than download the voices of search podcast from the heart of Silicon Valley Research Metrics Inc.. CEO Jordan Cooney as he delivers actionable insights to how to use data to navigate. The ever changing landscape of Google Apple Pin the voices of search podcast arm search search engine marketers and business analysts with the latest news and insights. They need to get the ever changing landscape of search engine optimization and content are are you ready to learn how to use search data find strategic insights about your competition and your industry as a whole and search for voices of search wherever you download your podcasts. That's three simple words voices of search to learn the secrets of search engine and content marketing.
The Chief, the Senate, and the Trial
"I'm Jeffrey Rosen. President and CEO of the National Constitution Center and welcome to we the people a weekly show of constitutional original debate. The National Constitution Center is a nonpartisan nonprofit chartered by Congress to increase awareness and understanding of the constitution among among the American people. The Senate of the United States is on the verge of holding the impeachment trial of president trump and presiding over. That trial will be chief justice. John Roberts to talk about the chief justice's role in the impeachment trial and the history of chief justices and presidential impeachments impeachments. We're joined by two of America's leading experts on impeachment and on the Constitution. Kenneth Starr is of counsel at the Linear Law Firm. Judge Dr has argued thirty six cases before the US Supreme Court he served as Solicitor General of the United States as a circuit judge for the DC circuit and as independent counsel during the Clinton Presidency from nineteen ninety. Four to one thousand nine hundred ninety nine Ken. Thank you so much for joining my pleasure. Thank you and Joan biskupic is a CNN legal analyst who has covered the Supreme Court for Twenty five years. She's previously been an editor in charge for legal affairs. Is it Reuters and a Supreme Court correspondent for The Washington Post and USA Today her most recent book. That chief is a biography of chief. Justice John Roberts Joan. It's wonderful to have you with us. Thank you Jeff. Let's jump right in Joan. What is the most contested question? Chief Justice does Roberts is likely to decide in the upcoming trial of president trump. And how the chief likely to decide it. Well as things stand it could be a question. Having to do with witnesses and evidence given the Dispute Between House Democrats and Senate Republicans at this time as you know his his one responsibility in the constitution. Is that he presides when the president is subject to an impeachment trial but that's all the constitution says and under Senate rules it's actually a very limited role. He's not sitting as a judge. He's not soon as a juror. He's sitting in as a presiding officer her and according to the Senate rules he does not have a vote but he can be asked to decide questions of evidence whether it's relevant or material so one of the house managers as they're they're called when they bring over. The articles of impeachment could try A to put to the chief some question about witnesses now in one thousand nine hundred ninety nine when Real William Rehnquist was in the chair. Those questions about witnesses were worked out by the Senate majority and I would think given the tensions that are brewing. Now that Senate Majority Leader Mitch. McConnell McConnell is going to try to control that question and the Chief Justice John Roberts would be happy to have him control it and finally Jeff if he does does make any kind of determination on witnesses or evidence per the nineteen eighty-six rules he can be overturned by majority of the Senate Senate. Because the bottom line is that this is the Senate's show. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Senate has the sole responsibility to decide whether whether president is convicted or acquitted. And John Roberts will be sitting up there on that data's trying to make sure the proceedings run well but not taking a heavy hand can. Do you agree with Joan that the chief is unlikely to make rulings that he knows might be overruled by a majority of the Senate and when it comes to witnesses could could you imagine Senate Democrats asking chief to compel witnesses after the majority has decided not to hold them in him making a substantive ruling or not. Yes I I think he will make a conscious effort to number one follow history and tradition and so Jonas absolutely right the Clinton model of and Chief Justice Rehnquist. For whom Chief Justice John. Roberts clerked Almost a half century ago The less is is going to be his model and intern. Chief justice rank was used as his model chief justice salmon p chase during the only prior air impeachment that made it to the United States Senate of sitting president in the trial of Andrew Johnson. I I would agree with with the thrust of what Jones sad with perhaps a bit of a tweak and the tweak would be because of his sense that this is the Senate Senate sold power. He should not be making any decision. I'm projecting here the chief would save himself. I count on make any decision that might have a substantive effect an outcome on the substantive judgment of acquittal Or of guilty. This is for the Senate. It's the prerogative of the Senate and thus we know from the Clinton impeachment final point And this is exactly Jones point it was the Senate that worked it out now there. There was cheerful agreement. There were one hundred senators going in in contrast to what is likely to be the case. Now who Agreed no witnesses going in then when the issue emerged again on into the trial after the impeachment managers there's had presented and the president's able lawyers had presented then it was put to a vote and the vote was overwhelmingly seventy two thirty something thing like that overwhelmingly. We do not want life witnesses depositions and so the other thing is that the chief will be aware that there's going to be a lot of negotiation going on between the house managers and the Senate leadership within the Senate itself and his job is to stay above the fray You both mentioned the Clinton Trial and Joan. You just wrote a fascinating article for CNN.com. Based on your study of the files of Chief Justice Rehnquist the peace was called how the last chief justice has handled an impeachment trial of the president of the United States among many fascinating nuggets. You found that Senator Harkin had sent a letter to Rehnquist asking him to adopt limits limits on the house managers questioning a potential witnesses and chief justice rehnquist begged off. Tell us more about that incident and about other things you learned from the Rehnquist files. Yes it was. It was quite a fine because The the actual records from that Impeachment trial are under seal for about fifty years but in Rehnquist personal final files out at the Stanford campus in the Hoover Institution. I was able to find his correspondence while he was presiding over the trial and and As both of you know Bill Rehnquist whatever you thought him on on the law he did have that whimsical side. So of course. He showed up in black robe that was decked out in gold stripes that he had affixed to his robe to his sleeves years earlier inspired by a character in Gilbert and Sullivan's Lancy Fancy and he also quoted from LANC- when he wrote to people to say how it how it went. He said I did nothing in particular and did it very well but but going to the substance of things I found in his in his files. You're exactly right that at one point when he was encouraged to actually I make more of a substantive ruling to intercede he said He did not want to and he said he would claim authority. Only when it's exercise was clearly warranted and the one time probably the the most notable ruling a beyond what was already prearranged When rink think win Chief Justice Rehnquist was dealing with the house managers in the senators head to do with The house managers kept referring in their arguments to the senators as jurors and that was another time when Democrats objected saying they shouldn't be calling us mere jurors and Chief Justice Rehnquist agreed. He sided with them saying that the Senate is not simply a jury in this matter. It's a court in this case. So Oh he he was trying to win. It was timed intercede. He did at other times. He stepped back. But Jeff. You know what it's like across the street three to the Supreme Court. There are no cameras allowed over there. The justices do most of their work in enclosed chambers. So when William Rehnquist it came to preside it was the first time that he was in such a prominent spotlight and he got so many letters from people ranging from things having to do with politics and his voice on the law to the fact that he would stand up intermittently during the proceedings to exercises bad back so so people writing in from all corners of the country to tell them how to fix his back problem. Many thanks for those wonderful tidbits and for the great expressions of concern by fellow back suffers. The quotation is great. We the people listeners. I have to confess I am a fan. It's a it's a private vice that I I have. So here's the homework for the week. The line that rank was was quoting comes from I- ALANTHEA's John said I'm going to read you. The two stands. And if you can write in with the final stanzas to me then I'll send you a a copy of my book conversations with our G here. It goes when Wellington thrashed Bonaparte as every child can tell. The House appears throughout the war. Did nothing in particular and did did it very well. So tell me what comes next and you get the book Okay Ken. You had a central role in the impeachment of President Clinton as the independent counsel and you watched chief justice. Rehnquist presided carefully. What struck you about his performance? What moments jumped? And what do you think. We're his most important substantive rulings I think he had read and Hamilton's federalist seventy eight even though this was not a classic judicial role of Colonel Hamilton said in describing the federal judiciary again. This is an extraordinary unusual role for the chief justice of the United States. That this is to be the least dangerous branch where where power or will is exercised elsewhere but only judgment so I think that Chief Justice Rehnquist steeped as he was in and the trial of President Johnson and aware that President Johnson trial was obviously enormously acrimonious. Ramona's there were eleven articles of impeachment. The reconstruction of the South was at issue and as a serious. If if advocate student of history mystery Chief Justice Rehnquist had to be aware and perhaps his files show this that chief justice chase came under considerable criticism schism after the fact that he was somehow nudging the Senate along in favor of acquittal. Well that would be to Chief Justice Roberts now unconscionable how can I conduct myself so that no fear minded person can say. I was putting a thumb on the scales. And of course that's important for any judge in a judicial capacity to be fair minded and open minded and to listen with respect and so forth so I think there will be this sense. The less the the quip from Gilbert and Sullivan that Chief Justice Rehnquist so colorfully articulated embraced in this context. Is I need to do very little. And refer matters back to the Senate. This is a matter this entrusted to the judgment of the Senate. I think we may hear that over and over again if as I expect. There's a lot of acrimony and a failure to agree as they're happily. There was not that Eh profound profound failure to the contrary during Clinton As the more we learn about the Clinton impeachment the more we know that there was as though the atmosphere was very acrimony is there was an enormous amount of harmony among the all one hundred senators there was not this deep partisan in divine a striking difference indeed Joan what could be surprising about The kind of questions Chief Justice Justice Roberts might be asked to rule on you could imagine questions of executive privilege that some senators might try to take up to the Supreme Court in the middle of the trial if it lasted more than on a couple of days of how could the chief rule on or sidestep those questions. And what are the curveballs. He might face sure. In fact I ah just to close the loop on the reference to the impeachment trial of president. Johnson When chief justice chase presided I believe that Chief Justice Chase broke ties among senators twice but that was that was very controversial and the rule since then definitely do not give if the presiding officer any power of vote. So that's just a comment on the fact that yes chief. Justice Rehnquist probably thought that Chief justice is chase had gone a little bit too far senators at the time were quite torn on that but now jeff you raise an excellent question because you already hear here at the talk over. Someone like John Bolton who knows presumably know so much about went down. What went down with the Ukrainian phone call in dealings of president trump? Would he be called to testify. He's saying that he he would. He would be willing to testify in the Senate. Of course. There's great controversy over whether they would call them. And and whether president trump would object but say president trump then tried to assert executive privilege that you know. That isn't a question that could be resolved. Probably within the Senate impeachment venue but I think it would be a it. It definitely unprecedented invented to have this side question. Then to go up to the Supreme Court on Executive Privilege while the Senate trial was underway. And I want to remind and Our listeners of What I like to refer to as the other Nixon case not the definitive thousand nine hundred seventy four Nixon case on executive privilege but at the nineteen ninety-three Supreme Court case of Nixon versus United States? which involved a federal judge by the name of Walter Nixon who had been impeached by the house and then was undergoing a Senate trial and judge? Nixon was complaining about the way the Senate was taking evidence saying. You're the Senate was just using a committee mitty rather than having all one hundred senators Take all the Evidence to be heard and he took his case to the US Supreme Court and and said you know Supreme Court you should tell the Senate how it must properly run an impeachment trial and the Senate. I mean pardon meet the Supreme Court in a majority opinion by chief. Justice William Rehnquist said no The the the Senate has the sole responsibility responsibility on whether president is convicted or acquitted and the sole responsibility for how it runs. Its trial and we're not going to intervene now. Someone could say hey. Someone could assert some sort of argument that said well but it would just challenge all sense of fairness for the Senate to run a trial without witnesses. I don't think that's going to be an argument. That would have traction at the Supreme Court. But but you don't know we're in such a strange unpredictable time but that is the kind of question Jeff that could tie up things If Senate Majority Leader Mitch. McConnell doesn't doesn't doesn't wield a pretty heavy hand here and I I have a feeling He'll certainly try. Many thanks for telling the people listeners about the Walter Nixon Nixon case which is the central one In that case there were concurring opinions by Justice suitor and white who suggested that if the Senate flipped a coin. An impeachment trial really refused to hold any trial at all. Possibly there might be some judicial review assured of that no Ken. Can you imagine any situation in which a trial would be so abbreviated like a motion to dismiss on the first day without going through any testimony at all that might spark judicial challenge along those lines. That basically didn't Kaunda's how does a Senate trial or not. It might spark a judicial challenge. But I think that the challenge would be dismissed and would not eventually be addressed on the substance or on the merits by the Supreme Court. And I think the music as it were of the Walter Nixon case is very much to the effect. We're simply not going to interfere. We being the Supreme Court of the judiciary were generally with the prerogatives of the Senate and so to bring that back to the invocation vacation of executive privilege I believe the chief justice of the United States. John Roberts will say we have an assertion of executive accurate privilege of what say and turns it back over to the Senate. The Senate may feel free to go into executive session or to debate it Because that that is such a substantive determination might prediction. I may be wrong. Is that the chief. Justice would not rule on it would refer to the Senate for resolution very very interesting suggestion that it would be. The Senate itself would rule on executive privilege exercising its power to make substantive constitutional decisions. John any chief justice Rehnquist enquist was a scholar of impeachment. He wrote a well received book on the Chase and Johnson impeachments. A chief justice Roberts is a scholar of history. He reads biographies of other chiefs. Any sense of how. He is preparing for the trial. You know I think that's exactly right. That he he he. He has a student of history before he turned to law at at Harvard. He thought he would get a PhD in history. And I presume his intrigue right now by the historic nature of. What's about to happen you know only the third? US President subjected to a Senate impeachment trial. But you know. The Supreme Court already has a very packed calendar of controversial cases to be heard in twenty twenty. So I think he's going to to try to be as prepared as possible work with the rules. You know John. Roberts is incredibly rule oriented and chief justice rehnquist found himself turning to the parliamentarian in the Senate nonstop back in one thousand nine hundred nine. And I'm sure John Roberts is already trying to get up to speed on just the kinds of rules that will shape this trial also to familiarize himself with the senators themselves. The last time he cared specifically who is in the Senate was in two thousand five when he was nominated needed to be chief justice. And I'm sure he was aware of every single senator then but It's been fifteen years and things have changed so he's going to. He's going to want to know you you don't who's there in the chamber when they all are raid at those wooden desks before him So I think a lot of preparation a lot of homework in that regard and and you know he's lucky because some of the AIDS who were part around back in one thousand nine hundred ninety nine and helped chief justice rehnquist are still in the orbit orbit of the Federal Judiciary so he can tap into people for advice. Can you've expressed skepticism. Both about the substance of the articles of impeachment against President trump trump as well as about the procedure by which they were voted during the Clinton impeachment. Was the impeachment better served by your report which laid laid out the factual findings comprehensively. And what if anything could be done at this point to cure whatever defects you see in the procedural or substantive articles. Well the one advantage if there was one and the prior proceeding during the Clinton is that the evidence was all before with the Senate some it obviously was not in the public domain but an enormous amount too many bewildering and distressing distressing amount was in the public domain and the standard that we followed in the process of completing the report and then submitting all all of the supplemental information in the like was this needs to be proven this being perjury and obstruction of justice. Really not just beyond a reasonable doubt beyond any doubt whatsoever ever And so I think there was a sense that the facts have been established. Now what do we glean or what. We conclude from those facts X.. And that was part of the power that I think that the one hundred senators the insight they brought to bear. We don't want anymore witnesses. We've seen enough. We've heard enough enough. We have enough Let's move to the argument phase. It contrast briefly we of course have a record that in my judgment is really quite thin with Obviously witnesses such as John Bolton who have not been heard from and we can get into. Why is that? Why could to have gone a bit slower more deliberately on the part of the House etc navigators quickly a political dispute as well as illegal procedural dispute? But here's here's the fundamental point. The record going to the United States Senate is relatively thin with a number of unanswered questions that it seems to me gives rise to a reasonable articulation of well. We need to fill out the record and of course the response my final point is excuse me that was really the job of the House of Representatives. We're here to try the case on the basis of these articles that is I mean. We're going to be reaching Dan. Calling and witnesses who the house didn't see fit to call in the first instance so it quickly becomes as we know a political battle. Joan there is A sense that this impeachment is more partisan than all the ones that have come before even though they were pretty partisan to. There's likely to be very little. If any partisan crossover Roberts is acutely concerned about The nonpartisan legitimacy of the judiciary. What can he do to preserve that in the middle of this? Most partisan of all all settings well you know. The premise of your question is exactly right. That John Roberts gives very few public speeches but when he does he has a singular message and that's to shield the court reputation and its integrity. And you know just last fall. He said when you live in a politically polarized environment people tend to see everything you do in those terms including the supreme court however it's acting including him as chief justice and he you know he asserted that the court will continue you. Decide cases according to the constitution and Laws without fear or favor. And we're all aware and I'm sure your listeners are aware of how he issued D- a rebuke to president trump at that Look last Your November when he said you know there are no Obama. Judges there are no trunk judges. WELL THAT'S A. That's a hard thing to assert when when Washington so polarized in the court itself office polarized with five Republican appointees who vote mostly conservative in for Democratic appointees. Most vote mostly liberal. So he's going to pro WPRO wanted project impartiality and fairness anyway he can and I think the hardest part for him Could probably come on the witnesses. Mrs Just to remind everyone. There were three witnesses who the Senate heard from in nineteen ninety nine but it was videotaped testimony and it was something worked out between and The majority and minority leaders and and in fact William Rehnquist wrote to former Oregon Senator Marquette field. I'm saying I have been introduced to the ways of the Senate in a big way since Servino live witnesses though. There's been very little for the presiding officer to do but it is interesting to see the Senate at work and he later even said you know it was quite culture shock to go from the very structured world of the Supreme Court across the street to what he said was the free-form for lack of better word Approach from the US Senate. So I I think that the chief is going to be on guard for questions involving these witnesses and evidence and and do what he can Dan to sidestep those. But I think he's. He's already he also is acknowledging that he has to be ready for just about anything in this in this atmosphere and for those of us who were around in one thousand nine hundred ninety nine and you can obviously play the key role there. But I was covering it when I was working for the Washington Post at the time and I would have never thought that twenty years in twenty one years into the future. I would think that something all the more controversial Virgil and polarized was about to unfold. Nor I haven't followed it to Ken. You did play a central role in the in the last impeachment trial based on your experience. Variance what advice would you give to the senators who are deciding whether or not to hear witnesses but think that the house did a poor job. How should they resolve the most contested questions of the trial that they will soon face well? Notwithstanding the deep partisan nature of impeachment the founding generation ration- understood that there would be a partisan shop and deeply so warned against Undo of passion carrying the day and so forth I would say that even in this deeply divided acrimonious time. The oath that you're about to take and we'll have taken a calls upon upon you to be quote impartial so my advice which is so counter cultural to Washington generally but especially to the political branches more specifically is do your best to not make too many substantive comments are pejorative majority of comments outside of the Chamber There's nothing that prevents United States senator from Going out and saying Hang was being presented his garbage or what's being done is terrible etcetera that that is going to especially early on in the trial or the presentations. -tations is going to strike. Fear minded person as Gosh. That sounds pretty partial. And you're just took an oath to be impartial hard to do but I think none the less that should be the goal that would be my advice to my senator and I said well wait. I'm up for reelection or whatever I'd say well all I can do is advise you to the nature of your obligation under the constitution. You just took an oath to be an impartial. Adjudicator of this most fundamental question in our democracy and Joan based based on your study of Chief Justice Roberts in your in your great biography the chief and also of your study of the of the Clinton impeachment trial. What advice would you give to the chief leaf about pitfalls to avoid and benefits to gain well far from me to advise the chief justice of the United States but I know that he will likely follow the lead of his mentor. Bill Rehnquist in a couple ways. Not just in terms of how he presides but in terms of what he brings over there. It's right across the street and he'll he'll likely be driven over. Just as chief. Justice Rehnquist was driven over to a a nice easy easy entrance to go in without a lot of fanfare but chief justice rehnquist brought a briefcase full of court papers and some playing cards words and plenty of occupy himself because if we know anything about the US Senate it goes into recess nonstop. And that's what happened so many times times back in one thousand nine hundred nine. This was a five week trial but if you took all the time that they were actually you know meeting in public would definitely would not stretch that far far because they constantly have to. Have you know what they say. Let's have a quorum call while they worked out things behind the scenes so ringquist who was so so such a model of efficiency and always on the clock always had something to do on the side and and if he couldn't if he couldn't preoccupy himself with the cases is that the justices were hearing in that January sitting he'd pull out a set of cards and play poker. Do you know if Chief Justice Robert Chooses a laptop. Can he do some telecommuting from he writes out his when he's drafting is opinions. He writes in Longhand because of court. Security I'm not sure how a how much they're going to want to. How much telecommuting goes? But I would think just again for efficiency sake. He'll have enough materials with him. He does a lot of his is reading. Also still in a hard form copy form Oh and here's the other thing just It's he is A. He has taken advantage of some some of the modern devices of our world. But he as I said he's still writing on a legal pad with a pen but he's I consider him a very young chief justice this when he was appointed in two thousand five he was only fifty and the youngest chief. Justice in two hundred years But he's in the middle of all this he'll be just turning sixty five January January twenty seventh. So he'll he'll he'll he'll bridge cat of the two worlds of the court and the Senate and And the old fashioned work of the the Supreme Court and trying to nonetheless keep busy with the number of devices and AIDS. He brings with him. Wonderful we'll all we the people listeners. I'm sure we'll join me in wishing him a happy birthday. January twenty seventh final final thoughts can what what. What are you most looking for in this trial based on your experience with the last one? And what homework would you give to we the people listeners particularly illuminating book or article or artifacts that you think might teach them something. They didn't already know about impeachment. Yes I think one of the most fascinating books in addition to the chief But more specifically on impeachment is David Stewart's magnificent everson history of the impeachment trial in the name of the book is simply impeachment With long subtitle it also provides a very intriguing intriguing introduction to the personalities at the time. And frankly the corruption at the time because it's widely believed by historians who've studied this including David Stewart that corruption was in fact part of that particular saga which was so bitter. I do hope that notwithstanding a an acrimonious start that senators McConnell and Schumer representing their respective caucuses will be able to find common in ground on these pesky procedural issues. I'm not optimistic. It is a hope rather than an expectation But that I think is so critical. Can we agree as again was done under Clinton and I think what had been done under Nixon remember. Speaking of a bipartisan approach. Over four hundred members of the House of Representatives voted in favor of the impeachment inquiry of Richard Nixon. Thirty one democrats voted in favor of the impeachment inquiry Into Bill Clinton here. Of course were off as I say in the twenty first century the first of a presidential impeachments in this century may be the last. We're off to a very poor start with acrimony on both sides and finger pointing in the light to the chief justice I would say and I associated result Went Joan very forbid for me to give advice to the chief Chelsea United States. But if I were caught you must give him some advice. I would say stay above the fray and give every appearance that you are not arrogating power to yourself but even perhaps to a fault. You're deferring to to the views of the United States Senate just a quick very last word Joan in addition to your wonderful the chief and your other great books on Justices O'Connor and sort of my own Scalia. What book would you recommend people listeners to learn more about impeachment? Wow was there. There've been a series of really good books on impeachment out recently. There's a new book impeachment by Brenda Wine Apple. Michael Gerhardt has another version of his book. Impeachment Out He advised senators during the Clinton impeachment. So there's a lot of good material out there From all quarters including the interesting one of Neal Katyal that's out recently on just the whole the you know more of a political case for impeachment but I think your listeners can can uneasily get a goodbye bibliography of political and historical reading on impeachment. Thank you so much joined US Kubik and and Kenneth Starr for an illuminating civil and historically informed discussion of the chief justice and the impeachment trial to come. It's always an honor in a pleasure to have both of you can thank you so much for joining. Thank you Jeff Q.. Today show was engineered by Dave stotts and produced bye. Jacqui McDermott research was provided by. Lana Oric and the constitutional content team homework of the week. You heard it here with the people friends. What is the next line in Gilbert Servants Ireland? The after the House of Lords throughout the war did nothing in particular ended. Very well if you send it to me. Jay Rosen at Constitution Center DOT ORG. I will send you a copy copy of conversations with RPG. That's how much. I Love Gilbert and Sullivan. Please review subscribe to we the people on Apple podcasts and recommend the show to friends colleagues or anyone everywhere who's hungry for a weekly dose of constitutional debate and always remember that the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit. We rely on the generosity of people from across the country who are inspired inspired by our nonpartisan mission of Constitutional Education Mate. You can support the mission by becoming a member at Constitution Center DOT ORG forward slash membership or give a donation of any amount to support our work including podcast at Constitution Center Dot Org forward slash donate on behalf of the National Constitution Center. I'm Jeffrey Rosen
"Ladies and gentlemen. You're listening to qualify with your host own affairs. You took a break from this. Yes yeah now. It's back. It's great because I really liked your show. I love doing it. I really love doing Senate. Hey dear listeners when I first started this podcast. I didn't think that many people would be interested but turns is out. Some some guys are and I love you so much for that. Please join me for new episodes every Monday. Listen on Apple podcasts array ever you listen to podcasts
U.S. Senate tells members to avoid Zoom over data security concerns
"You're listening to the news on Africa. Business Radio at this hour Senate has spilled its members to not use zooms videoconferencing APP. Due to data security consents. The Financial Times reported on Thursday even company attempt to stem global backlash against it's fast-growing APP. Senate says have an to find them all tendencies platform to use for multiplication adding that the Senate had stopped short of officially banning zoom video. Communications Inc sevice. The use of assume has sought after political parties. Cooperate offices schools. The nation's and millions across the board started working from home after lockdown through enforce to slow the spread of the coronavirus and that was the news that his time Enough Business Radio. You can continue to listen life nine at. Www Dot Africa business rigid. It's come over a mobile APP. Gin Do thank you for listening.
US Senate rejects witnesses in impeachment trial.
"Coming up on five minute news. It's rejects witnesses. In trump trial ensuring equitable Britain leaves the European Union and leaps into into the unknown and US RAMPS UP Anti Corona virus meshes at the border as impact spreads it Saturday Saturday February. One I'm Anthony Davis The US Senate narrowly rejected democratic demands to summon witnesses for Donald Trump's impeachment trial yesterday all but ensuring trump's acquittal fill in just the third such trial to face a president in US history but senators considered pushing off final voting on his fate to next week the votes on allowing new witnesses was defeated. Fifty one forty nine on a near Party line vote. Republican Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of UTAH. voted along with the Democrats witnesses. But that was not enough despite the Democrats singular focus on hearing you testimony. The Republican majority brush. Pass those demands to make this the first impeachment trial without witnesses even new revelations from former National Security Adviser John Bolton did not not swayed. Gop Senators who said they'd had enough that means the eventual outcome for trump will be an acquittal in name only said Representative Val demings Cummings House prosecuted during the final debate. Some called it a cover-up Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer Cold Friday nights results at tragedy tragedy on a very large scale protests chance reverberated against the walls of the capital left Parnassus attorney pendle letter to Senate Senate Majority Leader Mitch. McConnell detailing what his testimony would add to the impeachment trial in the letter. Joseph Bondi tells McConnell that Parnasse an indicted indited associated trump's personal lawyer rudy. Giuliani would be able to tell the Senate information that is directly relevant to the president's impeachment inquiry specifically clean regarding his relationship with trump and Giuliani as well as his actions in Ukraine on behalf of the president as directed by Mr Giuliani Johny. The letter indicates that Secretary of State Mike pompeo former Energy Secretary Rick. Perry and several other officials within the trump administration were are aware of the pressure campaign in Ukraine that is at the center of Trump's impeachment Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer invited to attend the impeachment trial earlier in the week but because of his electric Ankle Monitor Parnassus was not allowed inside the Senate Chamber With Little Fan Fan Britain left the European Union last night after forty seven years of membership taking a leap into the unknown in an historic blow to the block. Thousands of enthusiastic brexit supporters gathered outside Britain's parliament to welcome the moments they'd longed for since Britain's fifty two to forty eight percent vote in June two thousand sixteen to walk away from the club joined in Nineteen in seventy three. The flag-waving crowd erupted in cheers as Big Ben Bond Eleven Times albeit on a recording. Parliament's Real Bell has been silenced for repes- but many Britons mourns the loss of the EU identity. And some of the passing with tearful visuals that was also sadness in Brussels as British flags were quietly removed from the blocks. Many buildings where the brexit makes person of proud nation that has reclaimed sovereignty variety or diminished presence in Europe and the world will be debated for years to come while Britain's exit is an historic moment. It Tony any marks the end of the first stage of the Brexit Saga when Britain's wake up this morning they will notice very little change the UK and the EU have given themselves. It's an eleven month transition period in which the UK will continue to follow the blocks rules to strike new agreements on trade security and a host of other areas. A you commission president Abdallah von Delaying lamented that as the Sun rises tomorrow a new chapter for our Union of twenty-seven seven will start but she warned brexit day would mark a major loss for the UK and said the island nation was heading for a lonely existence in the United States wrapped up its response to the corona virus epidemic yesterday. Hey declaring a public health emergency and saying it would halt entry to foreign nationals. who had been to China? Within the fourteen day incubation period that measure followed on from an earlier travel advisory that warned Americans not to travel to China and angered Beijing originating. In the Chinese city of Wuhan. The flu like virus I identified earlier in January has resulted in two hundred thirteen deaths. In China. According to local health authorities Wuhan and the surrounding region of Bay are in virtual quarantine. The World Health Organization said on Thursday that the epidemic constituted a public a health emergency of international concern a designation that triggers tighter global containment measures and coordination as of Sunday. US citizens who had been in Hubay would be subject to compulsory quarantine foreign nationals aside from the immediate family of citizens and residents who had traveled old in China in the last fourteen days would be denied entry. A you can subscribe type two five minute news with your preferred podcast APP. Ask Your Smart Speaker or enable five minute news as your Amazon Alexa. FLASH BRIEFING SCALE VISIT US online at five minute dot knees five minute. News is an independent production covering politics inequality health health and climate delivering unbiased verified and truthful World News daily.
How Chief Justice Roberts May Preside Over Senate Impeachment
"Hey there it's the NPR politics podcast. I'm Tamer Keith. I cover the White House. Ron elving editor correspondent. I'm Nina Totenberg mark and I covered the Supreme Court. And for those of you wondering why. This isn't our weekly roundup. It's because another group of our team is in Chicago recording. It live on stage and that will be in your podcast feeds on Saturday afternoon. So in lieu of our regular weekly round up we are going to talk about impeachment. But we're going to talk about history. We're GONNA talk about how it works and we have to of NPR's greatest legal minds here to talk about S. Nina. Are you of two minds. Nobody Ron you edited Nina for a long time so I think that counts and I actually actually really my first month at. NPR was the trial of Bill Clinton in the Senate in his impeachment proceedings. And I was co anchoring those impeachment proceedings for for NPR for NPR. Okay so there's still a lot of stuff that we don't know about how this Senate impeachment trial is going to work. We know that the houses impeach the president resident. We know there's a lot of disagreement before we get into this Ron just the basics. How does a Senate impeachment trial work? What does does this look like? The Senate convenes and the senators sit at their desks and they listen to the proceedings as the rules have decided those proceedings proceedings will proceed. And we don't know the roles but it's going to be unusual in that you almost never see all the senators in the chamber at the same time time. Even when they're voting they kind of come and go and so it is an echo chamber most of the time is the cave of the winds as some people but in this instance it's going to look more like a classroom. I'm with a lot of overgrown grade school. Children Boys and girls sitting in their places with bright shiny faces and being very serious and being presided over by chief justice. Just John Roberts and that's because the constitution says that the chief justice shall preside over the Senate trial of president. Okay so that is is not normal. The chief justice of the United States does not typically step foot in the Senate chamber but there he will be so this sounds sounds like a really important role presiding over this trial will it could be but in modern history it has not been. We've had three Senate Senate impeachment trials in our history. The first was Andrew Johnson In eighteen sixty eight and the chief justice then was perfectly willing to tip the scales sales a little bit if he could. But it didn't quite work. Andrew Johnson by one vote was not convicted and removed from office remained in office for the rest of his tenure elected. Tenure on your but we didn't have another impeachment trial until Bill Clinton's nineteen ninety nine and then chief justice William Rehnquist did preside and we know that you know I it says in the Constitution. You're going to preside and we're all going to see the chief justice up there right. They're above everybody else. Zomba this day type thing where he will sit with a gavel but we also know that if past is prologue in modern times is not going to have much power. And he's not gonNA WANNA have much power chief justice rehnquist had this driven home for him rather precisely when he asked. Ask the Senate Sergeant at Arms James Ziglar how he would turn on his microphone. He asked me well. How do I turn my microphone and I looked at him and said you? Don't we control that and I looked at the video yesterday I looked at it and very often. He begins to speak and his microphone is not on. So Ron. There's this word presiding you know I have images that are conjured in my mind like on law and order where the the judge determines. There's an objection. No sustained judge Judy. We have in my mind the other end of the spectrum. The we have the idea that a judge rules in that judge's courtroom and that is generally speaking the way things work in the judicial system. But this is a very special title case and the rules are clearly being made by the politicians the senators by the people who are on the floor and not by the judge who is really leave their only to make judgments with respect to rules of evidence perhaps but even then those rules are going to be set by the senators because because the Senate in it by simple majority can overrule any decision by the chief justice so they set the rules at the beginning and at the end okay but so practically practically on a day to day basis what is the chief justice of the United States going to be doing in the Senate Chamber. He's going to be keeping order. The senators are actually not supposed to speak in nineteen ninety nine. There were a couple of times where they had objections. Those could have been overruled by a simple majority vote. After the chief justice made a decision but they were not of a magnitude that anybody would want to overrule them. And you know if at at some point chief justice Roberts were to decide that he's going to make some sort of a ruling that is significant. The Republican majority leader. You're Mitch McConnell. Would face a tough choice in sort of going up against him so there is a certain inherent but very limited power our that the chief justice ultimately could have though. I think it's not terribly likely we've talked about the role we've talked about the job but now let's talk talk about the guy who is doing the job. Chief Justice John Roberts Nina. He's been on the court for about fifteen years. You've been covering him that whole time. He's he's a very smart very conservative. Very buttoned down but charming guy and he has a very interesting relationship with the the president of the United States Donald Trump because trump during his campaign blasted robbers for being a disgrace a disaster after a nightmare all because he had cast the deciding vote upholding the mandate in Obamacare and notwithstanding outstanding. That you know he occasionally will switch sides in vote with the courts more liberal justices but I would say you could count on less than one hand the number of times that has happened so to have him castigated that way is really a commentary on our times and the relationship the two men have and then then you know our president likes to tweet. His comments about lower court. Federal judges have frequently been very derogatory. And and he characterizes them as Obama judges or Clinton judges democratic judges or so-called judges if he doesn't like what they did. And finally you got to Roberts and he issued a statement saying we don't have Obama judges we don't have Bush judges. We don't have trump judges what we have our people people who work very hard trying to do the jobs they're supposed to do. Yeah it run. It seems like he has been trying and it is definitely not an easy thing to do to try to say no oh the judicial branch is is not part of the politics branch and it is difficult because people have increasingly seen the courts as political. They they see the judges as being the servants of one party or the other so at some point during this trial Roberts could be called upon to make a decision that the the president of the United States may or may not like there could be tweets. There could be complaints from others that he's favoring the president or not like does this process help his cause of trying to make the court above it all not any way I can figure and I think he's probably GonNa try to avoid being the one who makes those decisions he might of course be faced with a situation where he simply had to make a decision in the Senate could then override him. Let's take a quick break and when we get back how this trial is likely to be different than the last one which you both covered this message. Edge comes from NPR sponsor. Worby Parker creating boutique quality. I wear worby. Parker offers eyeglasses sunglasses and now contacts including scout their very own comfortable comfortable breathable and affordable daily contact lens every worby Parker frame includes custom cut scratch resistant lenses with you. Protection and anti reflective coating at no additional cost. Try on five frames at home for free at Worby Parker Dot com slash politics. NPR's life kid wants to help you make changes actually stick this New Year from. How did you dry January so I had to start a creative habit? We've got new episodes all month to help you start the year off right new episodes so every Tuesday and Thursday. Listen and subscribe to Life Gay Planet. Money is the mountaineer economists behind the carbon tax ax. It's the baseball player. Trying to get a pay. Raise the prisoner building a blockchain out of cans of mackerel planet money from NPR VR. Listen now and were back and as I have said before there is a very small sample size here when it comes to impeachments and processes says and so quite frequently we look back on the Clinton impeachment because that is the one that we remember and both of you covered. Wow Times exchanged. This is a very different political climate. Oh my God so here in a nutshell are the differences. First of all the Republican and Democratic leaders agreed that they would work together to the point that they even had a hotline on their desks that nobody else had access to Trent Lott and Tom Daschle L. decided from the very beginning that they needed to work together and in an interview I did with the two of them. Here's lot talking about it and I said well Tom this thing whether we like it or not is sitting are lap and we've got to figure out how to do it so that's the first big difference next. They were very very determined to work out some procedures that they could all agree on and they met for hours and hours in the old Senate chamber. Where are they normally don't meet? It's mainly a tourist destination and they met behind closed doors but wait. Who is they? Is it an entire city entire entire just these two dudes out. It's the higher entire Senate baby. There's no formal record of it and Tom. Daschle said that the difference in the conversation between what they did in public versus. What they didn't private was night and day? An oddly enough it was senator Ted Kennedy. A Very Li- liberal senator from Massachusetts and Phil Gramm a very very conservative senator from Texas. Who suddenly found that? They agreed on what they thought that overall procedures should be and the two leaders looked at each other and said we might have something here. Let's do it. And they sent their staff and to write up the rules and punted a bid what they were going to do about witnesses down the road. One thing I don't understand about the Clinton impeachment was okay. They they started without agreeing on witnesses and then at some point they agreed. Yes we'll have witnesses well. The house managers were very insistent that there should be some witnesses so finally they said okay. But we're not GONNA do it the way you want in the well of the Senate with Monica Lewinsky testifying about all the lurid details of what the president's conduct was we're going to have Lewinsky and two other witnesses. You want offsite. We'll do a formal testimony will have the managers question them. They'll be people from the Senate who can question them and then the house managers as they present their case can use whatever excerpts they want video excerpts and they brought in these like jumbotron like things onto onto the Senate floor for them to do that highly unusual procedure in the Senate so at some point there the Republican sort of forced the issue. How could it work this time? This is a little different situation. Because in this case the president's Party controls the Senate it's the Republicans in charge in the Senate and the Republicans Hopkins were in charge back in nineteen ninety nine but that was Democratic president so there you had a majority who theoretically at least. We're not sympathetic to the president. Here we have a clear majority forty that is at least officially in total sympathy with the president here and we don't really have anybody breaking from that although a couple have made some sort of Interpret interpret remarks ambidextrous remarks if you will and aside from that you have a pretty strong Phalanx of Republican support for Mitch McConnell enough. So that he feels he can pull ahead so that's a little bit different situation. It was clear I think in one thousand nine hundred nine. Correct me if you have a different impression but there was. There's a kind of impatience with the whole thing on the part of many of the Republican senators in the majority in the end. Neither of the articles that came to the Senate back in nineteen ninety nine got even a majority of the vote in a majority Republican Senate. Well remember that the difference also is that the Republicans had just had their heads handed to them in an election and with the Republicans were counting adding Twenty House seats to their majority. And instead they lost half a dozen a dozen yes and also and plus of course and this is important to note there was only about thirty percent support in the polls for that impeachment proceeding thirty percent. Now you can argue addressed where the public support is for removing trump from office but some polls have headed north of fifty percent by a little bit again. This is very different and in in that interview with Lott and Daschle. Lott said there was no way that they were going to be able to remove Clinton. They knew that hat and what they wanted was to escape. This process with their dignity and with the dignity of the Senate intact one thing that stood out to me Nina from one of the stories that you've done about this is a Republican senator. John Warner from Virginia talking about just the weight of the impeachment. This is the John Warner who was eventually the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. WHO's now in his nineties uh-huh and the way he talked about it you? You had the sense that this really was a very serious matter to him and many others. We're we're in our cocoons and as time went on the significance of it was so great. I've felt that every breast I drew I had debris Korea sure myself. This is exactly how you feel. I guess the question I'm left with from that is is it such a different time. That that weightiness. Yes that that that feeling is somehow. Is it going to spring up when the Senate trial starts or is this just just pure politics now. Yeah we'll have to see but one speculates that the kind of partisanship that need has been describing is now more powerful than the sense of the Senate Senate and the overpowering we must be our own image of the Senate at. It's best that we saw in nine hundred ninety nine. We are going to leave it there eventually. We will know how this all works out but for now that's a wrap but that's not for this week. Our weekly roundup will be in your feet tomorrow when we post our live show from Chicago Chicago and we got Moore Show's coming up head on over to NPR presents dot org for more information. I'm Tamra Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Ron elving editor correspondent and I'm Nina Totenberg legal affairs correspondent for NPR. And thank you for listening to the NPR politics podcast the.
CAFE Insider 12/17: Trial by Senate
"Hey folks it's another historic week. Donald Trump is set to become the third president to be impeached in. US history without the focus shifts to the trial. The Senate expected to begin in early January. Meanwhile the Supreme Court has agreed to hear three cases involving subpoenas for president trump's tax returns and other financial documents gearing up for historic willing in June and the continued antics Rudy Giuliani. I talked about all this and more with an milligram and the cafe insider podcast each week. We break down the news and make sense of what's happening today. We're making a clip from the most recent episode available in the stay tuned feed to listen to our full conversation and access all other Kathy insider content. Try the membership pre for two weeks you can do that at cafe dot com slash insider. That's cafe dot com slash insider. Can we talk a little bit about the trial itself. Yes and the you know we're talking about who the lawyers are going to be with the prior. We'll look what we don't don't know yet because that is yet to be worked out. Maybe I wish to begin with my former boss. The Senate Minority Leader has made a written proposal based on what happened in previous is times like in during the Clinton trial where. There's a schedule that he's proposed where pre-trial housekeeping measures would be adopted on Monday January six when we get back from the holidays. Swearing airing in the Chief Justice Justice Roberts and senators the very next day January seventh. And there'd be a period of preparation on briefs legal briefs will be submitted to. There's a lot more things to read and House managed to be recognized that Thursday January ninth followed by trial. He's also proposed that the chief justice rule on subpoenas for testimony and it has mentioned a number of potential witnesses including people. You and I've talked about a bunch diva staff Mick. Mulvaney and John Bolton and there has been no response from Mitch McConnell. What do you make of that proposal so I want to even go back one step? Which is that Mitch? McConnell last week there are a couple of things that happen on less Thursday he met with pats Bologne. The White House counsel saw to Hash out the terms of the trial. How long it will last? How many hours each side would get to present? Its case whether or not there will be witnesses and then in something I found to be. I truly extraordinary. I'm going to drop the extraordinary or there. He goes on TV. And basically says everything will be lockstep with the president of the United States that essentially Lee instead of being a juror. McConnell sees himself as a defense lawyer in some ways. He's marshaling this trial and the whole thing is rigged. We'll have to make a decision about the way forward and everything I do during this. I'm coordinating with White House. Counsel there will be no difference between the president physician and our our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can where we don't have the kind of ball control on this that a typical issue for example sample comes over to the house. If I don't like it we don't dig it up. They have no choice but to take it up. But we'll be working through this process. Hopefully in a fairly short period her time in total coordination with the White House counsel's office and the people who representing the president of the Senate that to me is part of what proms uh-huh Schumer who's the majority leader in the Senate but it's part of what prompt Schumer to basically say way. We wait a minute. Let's talk about how this is done and one one of the things that I read when we were preparing was looking back to the Clinton impeachment again and of course. There's not a lot of precedent for all this but the top Senate Democrat then Tom Daschle he did obviously have conversations with the White House and I wouldn't expect the Senate majority leader not have conversations with the White House what. I don't think that they can Henin should do is to actually plan it out and game at all out together and sort of essentially Reagan. I'm going to say something country in here and I agree that in a regular trial not only do you you conform outwardly. To all these tenants of impartiality and fairness and everything else but you also make sure that that's true I think it was. It's terrible and bad for a number of reasons for Mitch. McConnell said what he said and to act the way he seems to be wanting to act on the other hand it is not as crazy as it sounds. Because I guarantee you Tom Daschle is mind was made up. I guarantee you Tom Daschle within his office because the constitution allows it was trying to every way to prevent the conviction and removal of the United States even though he's supposed to be the juror and and perhaps the top juror but he had enough self respect and enough respect for the institution. I mean. Maybe this sounds weird. Good sounds it's like you're being you're being two faced but these look there are. I don't remember how many left but as one point there were six senators who are running to actually remove trump from office by the ballot pox. no-one there is impartial. People have been making a point and I agree with the point on something a sombre as this in an ideal world I would love to. I would hope and love to live in a country where senators would put aside their political point of view and soberly deliberate over the potential misconduct of a sitting president of their own party or the opposing party and suspend. What's good for them? Politically suspend what's good for their party politically. I don't know if those people sitting in the Senate right now and and you know it it just another reason. Why keep drawing a distinction between regular criminal trials and this event but I think it is the height of cynicism to blatantly say? We're doing what the president wants. Lindsey Graham mm adopted the following language. I think he said I'm not an impartial jury. He literally said his unimpressive. Were even though as as I've said every senator has to take specific oath In addition to the one they take upon assuming office of impartiality in connection with the trial. But they're all on record for or against. I want to quibble with one thing though and just to. Ah just to go back for one. Second on Lindsey Graham. He said quote I think is an American. The best thing we can do is deep six this thing. Take the record that was prepared in the House and basing impeachment vote on if if they get enough votes use that same record to decide guilty or innocent not call a bunch of people and so he's basically saying let steep six. Let's get rid of it. Here's where I think the real problem comes up. In this case which again we're presuming. The president gets indicted. But I think that's a fair presumption here what the president has done is he. He is in control of the members of the executive branch largely who have refused to testify. He is in control of the evidence in the executive branch. The documents the emails the messages that went back and forth related and he made a decision categorically deny any access to that and so as part of the House investigation. This was not a full and complete investigation. We should talk a little bit about the failure of the house to subpoena witnesses documents. Which I think I remain convinced was a mistake and will cause issues potentially the Senate trial but putting that aside the president made clear that he would not comply unless required by a court and that he would let a gate as long as he possibly could to delay this? And so I think the the difference here with having predeceased ended. It is also that one of the president's main arguments which again is completely wrong. He had this argument not just is full immunity but also this argument that the impeachment process was not legitimate that the Democrats were politically motivated. which by the way impeachment is a political act but it was? It was a sort of absurd argument at that. The president gets to decide whether or not he complies with this or not that argument to me has found Senate because the Republicans are in control and he should be required in my view to to make those witnesses available and present documents so the problem with this sort of closed door deal between McConnell and Sloan. Is this there will be no. Oh additional evidence. It's going to be on the record that we have intentionally limited. Even though all of it was within our control it feels so prebaked in a way that it's not clear to me. I mean I think there's an internal struggle there. The president who loves drama and theater seems to Wa- I mean I think he's lying when he says he's GonNa come in and testify that's just completely. He's lack of knock it off already yeah. I don't think he's lying when he says he thinks that the longer trial might be good for him. If he's allowed to get witnesses like Hunter Biden and make a circus of the whole thing and Mitch McConnell. I think more correctly as a matter of strategy wants a shorter trial perhaps no witnesses at all. That's totally right. As a matter of Republican strategy I agree with you and the easiest way for them to get this completed. And so you know in part. McConnell is not in lockstep with what the president wants because he's trying to convince him for his own good they don't want to have witnessed it because I think it is impossible to compel witnesses that the present things would help him. Like Joe Biden Hundred Biden whatever it becomes really difficult then to say no John Bolton Etcetera Cetera and it also throws the Senate into an even more circus like atmosphere. I will say one thing with respect to what the Democrats should want. They should want witnesses to the census becomes sort of a legal argument. Like we saw in the House Judiciary Committee when you had only legal scholars testify or the members debating what what is compelling and what moves the public mind is seeing real flesh and blood. Human beings work in the government of solving. Yes like Fiona Hill. And you Vanna Vich and Lieutenant Colonel Vitamin. That's what I think. Captures the attention of the public in Briggs public sentiment to the side of the people in favor of impeachment because these are people who have really no dog in the fight that doing it against personal interest in an at risk of reputational harm and maybe occupational harm the you want the story to get told the narrative to come out if it's a bunch of senators and lawyers in house managers sort of talking John Around it's not that compelling and so if the Democrats if witnesses are good for the Democrats logic tells you of course for the Republican so. I don't know that we'll see. See any witnesses and and of course. They're witnesses both sides should be able to call witnesses. I mean the democratic manager should be able to call witnesses to prove the case again. They bear the burden of proof. And it. It feels to me that there's a fundamental fairness issue here with the idea. And I'm just GONNA put it really bluntly of the president being able to obstruct Congress and again. Yes there's lawful arguments about executive privilege but. I don't think I think that this categorical. Refusal to provide witnesses and evidence goes beyond what is a legitimate invocation of executive privilege so the president basically locks all legitimate inquiry of his administration then goes on to have a Senate proceeding only based on the evidence that the the House Democrats were able to obtain which is in my view considerable but still limited and it's not a full and accurate picture of what happened and the Senate essentially rubberstamps damps the president's ability to do this to basically not provide this information and to get away with it in some ways and so it it feels to me deeply deeply unfair as a question of where we should be in our democracy and I wanna ask you one other question. which is the following? If you could plan your own political corruption trial trial like the president is apparently doing what would it be like. Would you have music. What did you play Bruce Springsteen? Would you have cocktails would be somber. I mean there is something of thinking about like like you're sitting in a room and you get to say we'll hear the people. Here's how I would like my political corruption trial to go. You know. Would you have let any of your defendants trial help. The problem is this. The problem is that this president who is now a putative defended at a future trial or will be feels. No remorse does not concede seed. Anything never apologizes for thing and member. Bill Clinton apologized and when you do bad stuff that happens in relationships that happens at work you know maybe you screw up at work. And there's a discussion where the boss says. Well we're thinking about letting you guys look I mean it's just common sense and how human beings interact and you say well I I. I understand that I screwed that thing up but another chance I didn't mean it I'll do better. Here's all the reasons why you can trust me going forward. And it's my bad and I apologize and it will never ever happened again and then a boss might say okay. We're going to give you another chance. The problem is you do something bad. Just think about this in total in a work context. That happens every day in every business in the country and the person does something bad took an expense that they shouldn't have taken address down wherever the bad thing is that they did. And the manager and supervisor as you're saying like you know you did this thing it's a big problem and the person just denies it and says No. No no no no. I don't care I don't care I get fired that yes so it just goes to a question of how you organize the try. You could organize it around the principle of that you know what if I had to do it over again and you could even make it sort of almost as a present might do half ass right not a full throated apology but even if you said something like you know what I didn't mean anything by I do care about corruption. I could've phrased it better. Anyone any one of a million ways it's sort of in between contrition and brazenness and then people might say you know okay you bring more people over your side and then you organize your trial around that principle that you at least have that on the record and everyone is arguing about overreach of the Democrat. It seems like less overreach when you have these people claiming he didn't do what he did and then it's all great and wonderful and perfect and just read the transcript. It's just it's so deeply. Bs that it causes people. I think I think the view and impeachment would be much more favorable to the president and Republicans. I think if there was a bit more concession about agree and understand what the president of the prison is as I think the events. It's also it's also political tactic of you always play offense and not defense and it's I've seen it with other political officials and the president is sort of an extraordinary example of like one hundred percent offense. He will never ever play defense. I think of the Times in your own life that you forgive people because they they apologize. We have great conversation with our son on which is when you say. Sorry you just say sorry. There's no sorry but it's just a you know. There are times where you just have to say. I'm sorry and it goes away whereas when you sort of argue it I think about this the whole Donald trump thing. I think sometimes with our about with our son to because it's you know Congress has this legitimate authority and Donald Trump has said no. Thanks I just choose not to obey and I think all the time like what would happen as your kid did that. You know social structures only work when there are rules you know we talk about the rule of law but in our own lives you can can see that and you opt into that as part of a community and part of it I do think part I will say yeah. I'm angry. Ah Bunch at what I'm seeing in the country part of my the anger is directly attributable to the complete lack of concession to common sense on anything at all it's like you know what people do screw up now this idea that the United States and we're getting off a little tangent attacks the press when a press outlet who every day reports correctly a thousand things every every day and then makes an error and within two hours corrects. The error apologizes for it. If appropriate disciplines the person changes the practice and he says well that makes them the enemy of the people the worst people on Earth and he weaponising in freaks out about it and gets all of his supporters to freak out about it when he commits errors and lies on a daily basis. Never concedes anything ever that is a source of anger for a lot of people especially in connection with is impeachment. Yeah I'll tell you I was playing a game the other day with our little guy and and not have too many kids stories but there is something really important when you raise a child about how do you instill in them tell the truth. Play Fair there are rules. We follow all the Roy. E You know it's it's a critical thing to make our children members of the society and to opt into the norms. And you know I was thinking like it can't be that half. The country country tells their kids cheat. Lie about what happened. Oh I didn't just move that pawn or you know whatever it is. It can't be that that's what people really believe. I don't I don't I don't believe that deep down so I think there's a level of politics taking over better judgment that is troubling and I just want to read the the Clinton quote because I found it really powerful when I read it in political last week. Kyle Cheney wrote after the house. Judiciary Committee voted to approve articles of impeachment. The president strode to a White House microphone. Our phone declared quote profound remorse for his actions and begged forgiveness quote. What I want the American people to know what I want? The Congress to know is that I am profoundly sorry for aw I have done wrong in words and deeds and that was President Clinton and so to your point. That's a pretty powerful statement. Made by Clinton in one thousand nine hundred eighty before the trial began in probably probably separate apart from being the right thing to do to apologizing. You've done something wrong. It probably moved the numbers in his favor. People like you know what okay. At least you get look. That's how defendants in real. Oh cases at sentencing. I mean it happens every day. You did the bad thing. You get convicted of the bad thing. You stand up in front of the judge who is just another human being to and the difference between five. Here's an eight years or the difference. Between two years of probation is often. It often turns on on what literally the degree of contrition remorse and remorse and understanding understanding of responsibility that person expresses and literally the amount of freedom you get taken away from. You depends on that and you're conveying that and it's a simple human human principle that the president is incapable of appreciating and succumbing to and because of that because he's the emperor all of his supporters have to go along with the two All so trashing their own credibility and I think ultimately hurting the President United States. We've just been interrupted by breaking news by our crack producer. Apparently early Mitch. McConnell has just announced rejecting calls. I hope we'll be even joined. The sample of the cafe insider podcast to listen to the full episode at the Cafe Dot Com slash insider. and Try out the membership free for two weeks and if you'd like to give insiders this gift now you can said the cafe dot com slash gift to the many of you who have chosen to join the insider community. Thank you for supporting our work yeah.
McConnell and Schumer spar over Senate trial
"Don't worry it's not too late to send the perfect holiday gift this year. Omaha steaks right now. podcast listeners can still send delicious impressive. One hundred percent percent guaranteed gifts that everyone will share. Remember and love flavorful tender Omaha steaks. The gift that American families have loved for over one hundred a years. You're happy friends and family will be excited when it arrives and think of you. Every time they prepare and enjoy their amazing meals with this special podcast. He'll act now and they'll get four free Omaha. steaks burgers added to their gift that sixteen main courses plus sides and dessert for just sixty nine ninety nine go go to Omaha steaks dot com and type daily. DC in the search bar today. Hey everyone I'm David Chalian the CNN political director this is the daily DC impeachment. Watch every weeknight. We bring you the very latest reporting and analysis of this consequential moment in America. We are on the eve of history tomorrow. Barring some completely unforeseen development President Donald trump will be impeached pitched by the House of Representatives. This will trigger a Senate trial and today the leadership of both parties are fighting over what that trial trial should look like. I've got to very insightful guests to delve into this and much more in a few minutes we'll be talking with CNN. Political analysts molly ball who was also time magazines national political correspondent but I I'm joined by my tireless colleague. CNN political correspondent. Abbie Phil Babb. Welcome back to the PODCAST. Happy to be here as usual. Well thank you so I am going to play a little sound for you to hear from both Senate Majority Leader Mitch. McConnell and the Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer just to set the stage of the back and forth. We are now seeing as they Lay out there. I guess opening bids for how this this trial negotiation will go a first here is Mitch McConnell Taking on the notion that Chuck Schumer put forth that he wants to call witnesses in this trial. McConnell thinks that that is not necessary. Listen to what he said this morning. So now Senate. Democratic leader would apparently like our chamber to do House Democrats Homework for them and do you want to volunteer the Sun. It's his time and energy on a fishing expedition to see whether his own ideas could make chairman shifts sloppy work more persuasive. Then chairmanship himself bothered to make Chuck Schumer has said you know every trial has witnesses. What what we hear your McConnell doing here is saying? That is not the purview of the Senate that the house investigators the house puts together The indictment if you will impeachment mm-hmm and let their job in the Senate is not then pick up and do more investigative fact finding work. Well it's an interesting argument and because we haven't had that many impeachments you could probably make whatever argument you want about how this could go but I do think that this is part of the problem with mixing metaphors of illegal trial and an impeachment because has ultimately if you do want to use that as an analogy what the house is doing is You know is is putting forward a What they think is probable cause to charge a crime and then the actual trial which is when you hear all the potential evidence there is you might hear the width from from all the witnesses would be in the Senate but the problem is that this is a political exercise and Mitch? McConnell is essentially saying we don't want to have a trial in the first place so let's just go ahead and take what What the the House has been able to get a which is democratic house And they've decided did of for the purposes of of being expeditious to not pursue some of these witnesses in the courts they've decided to sort of put forward the evidence that they think they have so far. Uh Let's just take what they have and let's move forward with it to get this over with as quickly as possible I you know. I think it's probably decent political argument. I don't think that if you're Interested in hearing all the available evidence that there could be about this case that it's a persuasive argument from that point of you because there clearly people who have information who who are not testifying and if that information works Culpa Tori they would want to testify So I do think that that's the that's the other side of the coin that is not political but just from a common common sense perspective. I it's it's a little bit hard to to to justify what McConnell is saying here and they're not testifying because the president won't allow them to testify and he could could allow them at the person who is the subject of the impeachment. Exactly I mean you know a Mick Mulvaney works for the president of the United States. He could even say you know what I'm going to testify. I two things that do not You know do not go against the president's privilege whenever kind of privilege they wanNA claim and he could say I'm GonNa sit sit down and I'm going to answer whatever questions I can because I don't think there's anything that there is In here that would be damaging to the president's case but they're not doing that and and I do think that that that really cuts against this argument that the president did nothing wrong because if he didn't do anything wrong there would be a lot of people who'd be more than willing to say that on the record. This is the point chuck. Schumer is trying to make to the American people. He he's trying to say. Hey if Mitch. McConnell is not an onboard with calling witnesses. They must be hiding something thing. Listen to the Democratic leader here today. Impeachment trials like most trials have witnesses to have none would be an aberration. Ration- Why is the leader. Why is the president so afraid of having these witnesses? Witnesses come testify. What are they afraid? The witnesses would say. I'd like to hear leader McConnell. Come to the floor and give specific reasons. Why the four witnesses? As we've asked for shouldn't testify. Let me tell you what leader McConnell is not going to do I floor and do what Chuck Schumer is asking. But I think also so just hearing both of them today One of the starkest differences from the ninety-nine Clinton impeachment which is invoked time and again from all by all sides is is that these two leaders are publicly fighting over the parameters of this trial instead of actually sitting down together behind closed doors to work for the benefit of the total institution of the United States Senate to hammer out what a trial looks like that serves the constitutional purpose and protects the institution of the Senate. I I think we've crossed that bridge. Here I mean this is the fulfillment of where we've been headed all along. which is that this impeachment process in? The trump era is very very different. We had Mitch McConnell. Just a few days ago saying I'm coordinating with the White House to make this as essentially as beneficial unofficial to the president as possible as quickly as we can get this through the Senate we will do that and He and then you have another senator Lindsey Graham saying. I'm trying to tell you as clearly as possible that I am not going to be an impartial juror. This is the reality in the trump era. In which the impeachment process is there is no Sense that that the institution of impeachment the constitutional. An institution of the impeachment needs to be protected. And so it doesn't surprise me that there has been no sort of back. Channeling talks. Although I I would say you know in the Senate even under McConnell they have they butted added heads in public and then turned around just a few days later and and talked through things in private so I wouldn't Sorta Ruwais is sort of the way of the Senate so I would not rule out that after all of these Shenanigans that behind the scenes. There is still some working out that is done because the margins are so narrow. It only takes fifty one votes to set the rules in the Senate McConnell knows that he needs to be careful not to give the impression for some of the moderates that he is just ramming things through in a way that is damaging to the institution Before we go to break I do WANNA get to. What is happening on the House side today in advance of tomorrow's historic vote which is that The nitty gritty of the way. The House works is on display for the American in people. The rules committee meets to Take those articles of impeachment from the Judiciary Committee and set the parameters of what the debate on the floor tomorrow. Will we'll look like although to me watching. I don't know what your thoughts are but it seems like another opportunity for a Democrat from the Judiciary Committee and a Republican from the Judiciary Committee to the state the arguments that we heard last week. Exactly that that has been what What this hearing has been although I have been really struck by the change in tone on by enlarge in the rules committee which is a little bit more calm a little bit less Hysterical than some of the theatrics saw in the judiciary committee is notably a Raucous Committee. That's very very large where you had. A lot of trump defenders really being vocal about how they thought this was all a sham. But it has been a chance for everything to be laid out in You know a little bit more of an orderly way you had one person on the democratic side essentially a presenting the case and sometimes take questions from the chair of the rules committee and then one person on the Republican side laying out the case so it has been a little bit more orderly but it has not changed anything about where we are in this this process. It's also intriguing. When members of Congress themselves at the witness table Dealing with members of Congress. It's a little more collegial abby. Stay right there. We're going to bring in Molly Ball but first we've got a quick break. Remember to create an ad like this one one visit pure winning dot com slash CNN. Hi Everyone I'm poppy harlow. We're out with a new boss files episode. She ran for president was the first woman to run a fortune fifty company and a cancer survivor. Who says she is not afraid of anything anymore Carly Fiorina? She's out with a new book. Find in your way unleash your power. and highest potential she was CEO of Hewlett Packard during the dotcom boom and bus. Before being fired in what she calls a boardroom boardroom brawl she's face discrimination survived breast cancer and lived through the unimaginable loss of child. She calls herself a problem. MM Sulfur and says that's why she ran for president after running against then candidate trump in two thousand sixteen to Sheikh think he should be impeached. Now I asked her here at all boss files subscribed today. Welcome back to the daily. DC Impeachment Watch David Chalian Abby. Philip is still with me and we're excited to welcome time magazines national political correspondent end CNN political analyst. Molly Ball Molly. Welcome to the PODCAST. Thanks for having me great to be here. Thank you so I I want you to hear a little more from Mitch. McConnell on the Senate floor this morning where he suggests that. I'm curious to see if you agree with them or not that he is sensing that Democrats are beginning to scramble a little bit. Here's McConnell maybe the house is public proceedings left the Democrat leader with this time impression. They've left many above breath that from everything we can tell house. Democrats slapdash impeachment inquiry as failed to come anywhere near anywhere near the bar. For impeaching duly elected president let alone removing him or the first time in American history. And so those who have been eagerly hoping for impeachment are starting describable. Molly is that just a partisan bluster from the leader or is there also Potentially an appealing argument to the American people. And what they're hearing from Connell there and could it be both those aren't mutually exclusive. Sure in fact I think they've ven diagram overlaps almost completely between partisan bluster and arguments. You're trying to make for publicity purposes to the American people You Know Democrats feel will like no matter what they did. The Republicans were going to attack the process. Had they spent more time trying to get witnesses and put on a You know more hearings in the house. Republicans would have attacked them for dragging it out. They've been trying to do this. In his quick and precise surgical a manner as possible so the Republicans are attacking attacking them for having it be too short and so as for whether the Democrats are actually scrambling I don't get that sense We've seen a remarkable couple amount of unity among the House Democrats And so it is certainly the case that a majority of the House of Representatives as we're about to find out I feel pretty confidence saying a majority has representatives does not think that the case has not been made The even a lot of members and tough districts have signaled they do view this case as strong and as worthy of vote for impeachment. So then as we've been talking talking about there's this negotiation in the Senate and the other thing I think needs to be said is whenever either side sites precedent. That's pretty much meaningless right. The constitution doesn't really tell L.. The Senate how to do impeachment and abby was saying the the number of examples that we have to draw on only two are really just improvise visor. I don't think many people understand that every congress makes its own rules and the Senate every time. There's an impeachment makes up new rules for that impeachment. So it isn't like you know oh a criminal trial where there is an established set of statutes and procedures. They're just making this up as they go along. And that's the way it is and I do think We are kind kind of in place right now where because Republicans are running the show in the Senate. This is their time to be the victim of these process arguments humint and I. That's exactly what Chuck Schumer trying to do. He's basically taking a lot of the same arguments that were levied against Pelosi in the house and levied them against a McConnell saying we we want more transparency. We want more witnesses. We want to hear more at a lot of options for the minority that is makes the process whether it's effective effective or not. I don't know but I will say this that I do think that some of these Moderates in the Senate I Do wonder if they are going to be comfortable with an open and shut process when there are some people this is going a little bit back to what we were talking about earlier but there are some people who have made it clear like John Bolton Alton for example the former national security adviser that they do have information that is that is valuable to this process. And we've not heard from some of these these people. And so I. I do think that McConnell has to now balance some of those people moderates but also some of the retiring members members of the Senate who are Republican who are not as beholden to president trump as maybe the others who are are have to go up for reelection in two years or in or in four years six years right. There are a couple of different categories like the Lamar. Alexander fits into that last category. You were just talking about Mitt. Romney not worried about reelection action. But sort of a longtime critic of the president versus the Susan Collins. Cory Gardner Martha mcsally Thom Tillis Joni Ernst perhaps who are all up for reelection action in competitive states Molly you you mentioned the moderate House Democrats coming on and I find this fascinating because it depends on which chamber because you look to the majority party right and you see. Is this hot potato of impeachment a causing potential losses in the majority radium party That could Perhaps have a crack in their in their majority so on the house side. We look to those moderate Democrats those thirty one democrats and trump districts on the Senate side the Republican the majority we looked to those moderate Republicans up for reelection on the house side. That you mentioned with Democrats. Were you surprised at all to see the the Ben Mc Atoms of the world from Utah or Joe Cunningham from South Carolina Anthony Brindisi from a very Republican district in upstate. New York to to just get get on board with the caucus and move forward with articles of impeachment. I wasn't in here's why We have seen all year. Long Speaker. Pelosi resist resist the calls for impeachment from her more Liberal members and the reason was if she was going to do it she didn't want to do it with a fractured caucus and so she only took the step type of beginning impeachment in the first place with the knowledge that her most vulnerable members were behind it. Now the Democrats have already lost one. One member Geoff Andrew if he goes through with this switch to the Republican Party so that is a material loss. If you're thinking about counting votes in the house which Speaker Pelosi literally always always is But but you know she she wouldn't have done this in the first place if she didn't think that members like that I would go along and would not be imperilled by it and the polling that the House Democrats are seeing now is polling. That seems to show the similar to the public polling. There is a narrow public plurality for impeachment but for most voters voters. It's probably not going to be the issue. That decides their vote in a year. So whichever way you're going to vote and if anything. The Democratic Base appears more riled up about impeachment impeachment than the Republican base despite many many many Republican claims to the contrary And so a lot of these members are looking at this as a AH potentially cost lists and essentially a conscience vote and it does strike me that some of these members have already cast the important vote here. They've all on when you go on the inquiry when they voted to authorize the inquiry. They sort of put themselves in a little bit of a of a box and they already paid if they were GONNA pay a political price Christ. They've already paid a political price. And so I. I think that's probably why we're seeing maybe not as many defections as you might have expected Given in that the polling isn't some large swing in favor of impeachment nor is it some large swing against impeachment. I think it's because they already know. Once they've cast that wants vote one vote they they have already cast their lot in with the majority of the political attack. Ad Against them is going to change whether they voted for the inquiry or on the articles of impeachment. If they're just worried about that but I also think what you're saying is true about the polling because the country is so locked in and and just split on this there is not as much a political risk in going ahead and supporting impeachment. Even if you're in a tough the district because the greater risk may be a DISA- disappointing. Your base of support that you need in that district as well. Yeah I've been interested in. tamales point intensity matters here. Democrats are pretty convinced by and large trump should be impeached. I was interested in looking at Our latest poll about where that intensity is and why people think that trump should be impeached. And some some large percentage eighty five. Percents say that he should be impeached even for things that are not in the articles of impeachment so the people who support impeachment they think trump is needs to be impeached regardless. And it you do risks if you are a moderate moderate pulling the rug out from under you With Your own base. If you fail to listen to some of that sentiment and I would just point out. We've seen this movie before. Impeachment impeachment was an issue in the two thousand eighteen midterms and we had a for a while. The president going out saying you know Republicans have got to come out and vote because if you don't the Democrats are gonNA to try to impeach me And they I think they even ran a few ads on it and it basically died after about a week because I think the campaign committees figured out. It wasn't doing anything thing it wasn't working. It wasn't getting those Republicans to go out and vote and indeed The the Republicans were quite motivated in two thousand eighteen. Not Enough of them got out and voted to save the House So impeachment has already failed as a political tactic now. Number of things are different now. Obviously trump will be on the ballot in Two Thousand Twenty S. He wasn't in two thousand eighteen and impeachment. We'll have actually happened as opposed to being invoked as a sort of boogeyman. The Ukraine story didn't exist then and support for impeachment overall was much lower nationally Than it is now now right so a lot of complicating factors but that is at least one piece of evidence it seems to show. I know the house. Democrats look back at that and say okay. Well you know. Impeachment didn't decide between eighteen election's since healthcare did total so they looked forward to twenty twenty and say by the time there's a candidate up against Donald trump that person's going to be setting the narrative in that person's not going to be talking about impeachment. Every democratic accredit candidate. I met with in two thousand eighteen. We would ask about impeachment like in a off the record session or so and it would just be like they didn't want to touch it. They just wanted it to get back to healthcare and it was just not an issue that they wanted to spend time on I. I think that is I think that's a good point. Twenty thousand did see a bit of a test on that already. Abby Molly. Thank you so much for joining me on the daily Impeachment Watch and thanks to our listeners. We've got a new episode for you every weeknight so please make sure to subscribe on Apple. PODCAST stitcher Google podcasts. spotify whatever your favorite podcast APP is and while you're there leave a rating or a comment. It helps people find the show. We'll see you tomorrow. You can still send an amazing gift. This holiday season with Omaha steaks takes they'll get delicious tender stakes to share remember and love and you'll get the satisfaction of knowing you sent a special holiday gift if you act right eight now. podcast listeners can get the favored gift package for just sixty nine ninety nine go to Omaha. STEAKS DOT COM type daily. DC in the search bar. You're you're happy. Friends and family will open their door and find a cooler packed with deliciously tender filet mignon stakes plus premium meats sides in desert. They'll be excited sighted when it arrives and think of you every time they prepare and enjoy their meals Omaha. steaks is a fifth generation. American family owned company. That's been handcrafting. Incredible credible state gifts for one hundred two years and every package is unconditionally. Guaranteed so you can send this gift with complete confidence when you order right now. Now with this exclusive offer. You'll get four Omaha. steaks burgers added to your gift for free. That's sixteen main courses plus sides in desert Christmas delivery. livery options are still available but don't delay order your Omaha. steaks favored gift package for. Just sixty nine ninety nine by Typing Daily D._C.. In the search bar at Omaha steaks DOT com today.
Impeachment's Headed for the Senate
"Welcome to the point January fourteenth. I'm learned his ski. Co Author of the point. I'm here to cut through the political spin to bring you the news you need to know. They're coming Nancy. Pelosi will head to the House floor on Wednesday to transmit the articles impeachment to the Senate. The move is a long time coming a month to be specific. It also means Pelosi will name impeachment managers in the Senate trial while those still unnamed managers will prosecute the impeachment case against president. Donald trump keeping her cards close as she has throughout this process. Pelosi said Tuesday that she still will not reveal who those managers are until she goes to the floor on Wednesday. The House vote means that the Senate it will finally take its steps to begin the trial as early as Thursday as majority leader. Mitch McConnell will at last unveil. The resolution dictating the roles of the trial. He wasn't willing to take that step until Pelosi sent the articles to the Senate wants. The impeachment articles are formally sent to the Senate. The chamber is expected to to kick off the opening of its trial with these swearing in of a one hundred senators however the actual substance of the trial is not expected to begin until L.. Next week on Monday Senate Majority Leader Mitch. McConnell said Pelosi's strange gambit has achieved absolutely nothing but Democrats argue Pelosi's decision Asian to delay sending the articles of impeachment for nearly a month helped push the conversation about whether the Senate trial should have witnesses. He's wrong Pelosi said it Monday. When asked about McConnell statement that all brings us to the point. The impeachment process has dragged on much longer than anyone expected but now it his finally headed to the Senate and that is the point for January fourteenth. Twenty twenty four more updates throughout the week including our Sunday night campaign edition Subscribe Gripe to the point newsletter at CNN. Dot Com slash. Point if you like this audio briefing you can get every single weekday on Google home or Amazon Echo or subscribe tribe on stitcher or apple podcasts. Or your favorite podcast APP. So you never miss an episode Are you interested in learning. How Enterprise scale companies drive organic traffic to increase their online visibility than down the voices of search podcast from the heart of Silicon Valley research metrics CEO Jordan Kuni as he delivers actionable insights into how to use data to navigate. The ever changing landscape of Google Apple Amazon the voices of search podcast arm search engine marketers and business analyst analysts with the latest news and insights. They need to navigate the ever changing landscape of search engine optimization and content. Are you ready to learn how to use search data offense strategic insights about your competition and your industry as a whole and search for courses of search wherever you download your casts. That's three simple words. Voices of search to learn the secrets of search engine and content marketing.
Wed. 08/28 Georgia Senate Alert
"<music> welcome to the election ride home for wednesday august twenty eighth twenty nineteen. I'm your host chris higgins today. A second georgia senate seat is now on the ballot in two thousand twenty me who will be in the september debate how to watch the september debate and new polling clarify whether we were right to flip out earlier this week. Here's what but you missed today from the campaign trail this morning something truly unexpected happened. Senator johnny isakson a republican from georgia announced that he would resign from the senate this year reading quiz announcement quote after much prayer and consultation with my family and my doctors. I have made the very tough decision to leave the u._s. And at the end of this year i have informed georgia governor brian kemp today that i will resign my senate seat effective december thirty first twenty nineteen. I'm leaving a job. I love because my health challenges are taking their toll on me my family and my staff my parkinson's has been progressing and i am continuing physical therapy to recover from a fall in july in addition this week. I had surgery to remove a growth on my kidney in my forty years in elected office. I always put my constituents and my state of georgia. I with the mounting health challenges oranges. I am facing. I have concluded that i will not be able to do the job over the long term in the manner that citizens of georgia deserve it goes against every fiber of my being to leave even the middle of my senate term but i know it's the right thing to do. On behalf of my state and quote is six seventy four years old and has health issues are severe his term would normally end in twenty twenty two but this retirement means two things first governor campbell appoint a temporary replacement upon isaac retirement that means presumably a republican serves in that seat from january first twenty twenty until the general election which is when georgia law requires that seat to be filled by voters in a special actual election. This is where it gets politically interesting so you mentioned governor camp of georgia and how we spoken on this show so much about a certain georgia politician who almost most got his job like really got super close yeah that's stacey abrams who officially declined to run for president this year in order to pursue efforts to stop voter suppression at at the same time she declined to run for the other senate seat in georgia challenging david purdue so there was a great disturbance in the force this morning as suddenly every democratic attic pundits said hey wait hold up. We thought abrahams might be a good v._p. Twenty twenty ticket and she already said no on the purdue senate race in georgia but but what if she didn't what if she didn't say no to this other senate race in georgia because i mean that's totally different right well. Abrahams promptly clarified defied yet again no no way on the whole senate thing in a statement. She said that she would not be a candidate and quote that is very clear earlier so knock it off with the abrahams fantasy football stuff the reason this is such a tectonic moment even without abrahams running is that now there are more seats in the senate that are actually on the ballot in twenty twenty democrats face a serious challenge in taking the majority in that chamber but adding a seat might change that math not not much but a little and georgia might be in play and part of this comes from a wave of retirements reading from a summary in the hill by jordanian carney quote is jason is the fourth republican senator in the past year to announce that they will retire senators lamar alexander republican of tennessee mike enzi republican of wyoming and pat roberts republican of kansas who were each up for reelection in two thousand twenty have announced that they will leave the senate democratic senator. Tom udall of new mexico has also announced he will retire instead of run for reelection next year and quote okay so at the moment. The senate map has changed a bit. We don't know who's going to run for that seat but you can bet everybody in georgia. Energy is running around right now trying to figure out how to handle this. I have also included a link in the show notes to an interactive map where you can fiddle around with the contested senate seats this year and see the exact how hard it would be to get a democratic majority in that chamber next up. We now know who will be in september d._n._c. Debate now technically the d._n._c. won't make this announcement until tomorrow but i can give you a ninety percent confidence unofficial read right now because pollsters do tend to release in the morning. Not you know moments before the deadline and eleven fifty nine p._m. Tonight it's possible but unlikely the basics eighty six. It looks like ten candidates on one night so contrary to my prediction activist and former hedge fund manager. Tom star did not manage to pick up a fourth qualifying vying poll in time for september so that does not trigger a._b._c.'s rule to break the field into two nights so that means on the night of thursday september twelfth wealth. We will have ten candidates on stage for a single night of debate. They are biden booker. Huda judge castro harris <music> club h._r. A rourke sanders warren and yang. This comes after two polls released this morning one from suffolk university in u._s._a. Today the other from quinnipiac university neither of them move the needle for the closest candidates to qualify who are gabbard who needs to more polls the two percents higher and star who who like i said just needs one. The other candidate who is on the bubble there is williamson who has just one poll but like other does have the donors gillibrand and also has one poll but doesn't have the donors yet and one last note here pertinence yesterday's polling discussion yang did get three percent in the quinnipiac poll all which knocks out a previous two percent result he had this does bring his d._n._c. Sanctioned pulling average up slightly to three percent overall that puts him ahead of castro and rourke and tied with klobuchar so this is a rather undramatic finish to this particular sprint but it does set up the next one which is the grind to to get into the october debate which still has good odds of including more than ten candidates candidates have until two weeks before that next debate to get those remaining polls though we do do not yet know when that next debate is i am guessing. We'll hear that tomorrow or at least real soon an interesting historical note a._b._c. had promised is that if there were more than ten candidates there would have been some kind of event. I dare say some kind of draw this thursday to figure out who went on which night obviously there is no the need for that now we can expect the ten candidates to fan out on the stage just like they have in the past with the highest bowling folks in the middle and the lowest on the outer edges one one final side effect here. I should note that this debate will not air on friday which means it doesn't spill over into the jewish sabbath so for our observant listeners. I am glad it turned out this way all right. That's what we know and i will let you know. When we know the slightest thing about october i would say ninety five percent of the time when my phone buzzes to remind me of something i am not pleased. I am the opposite of pleased but there is is one special notification that i look forward to every day and that one comes from simple habit. It's an app that helps me take care of myself. Take a little time to de stress be be aware of my body and let go of some of the stuff. That's just bugging me. You know there are tens of thousands of five star reviews of this thing on the app store so you don't have to take it from me. Though i hope you do because i can get you a deal and if you want to try it out for free totally can but i would like you to start with the link to give you because if you do sign up it helps the show and that helps me and that makes me less stressed to. I want you to go to simple habit dot com slash ride. The first victory signed up for a paid plan there. We'll get thirty percent off now. You gotta use that link. It's the first link in the show notes again that is simple habit dot com slash ride together discount and let them know you came from this show so one last last time the first fifty listeners who go to simple habit dot com slash ride are gonna get thirty percent off and on their phone that they enjoy okay okay true story time when i graduated from high school i went down to the library and got a book on stock picking and i picked a bunch of total jokers by following this weird magical thinking strategy involving curves and the dow and all this weird stuff anyway my first five stock picks all went down the drain and there is a lesson there do some research on an actual company company rather than using some bizarre magic formula and that's where my wall street comes in my wall street does the research and they tell you about stocks they think are solid and why why you get actual facts about actual companies. My wall street helps you enter the world of investing with a trustworthy partner at your side or if you're already there and you want some excellent research this this is the tool you need so check it out election ride home listeners can access the entire my wall street app all that research four free and user for thirty days instead of the normal most seven day free trial after a full month you can stick with their expert guidance for just nine ninety nine a month so visit my wall s. T. dot com slash us ride to download the app now and get access to their market beating stock picks and expert guidance again. That link is spelled my wall s._a._t. Dot com slash josh ride all right now that we are confident about the lineup for september it is time to mark our calendars that takes place on thursday september twelfth which is just two weeks from tomorrow. It'll be held in houston texas at texas southern university which is a historically black university. Now imagine in-person tickets to that event are probably all sold out by now but if y'all in houston wanna tell me more about that do let me know for the rest of us. It'll be broadcast live on a._b._c. t._v. Stations as well as his yawn with a live spanish translation and and of course we can stream it one of the noncontroversial things that he did the cycle was require all the debates to be able without having to log into anything so i wanna say thank q. d._n._c. That is a good rule as you prepped for debate night. This is the list of streaming platforms at a._b._c. announced about a week ago a._b._c. News live the a._b._c. news dot com and website the various a._b._c. mobile apps for phones and tablets who live the a._b._c. roku channel facebook watch the a._b._c. apple t._v. app the a._b._c. the amazon fire tv app youtube apple news and twitter slash cover pretty much any modern device that can stream any kind of video and of course broadcast t._v. works to assuming you're near on a._b._c. affiliate and have an antenna and yes there will be debate bingo one night this time i'm gonna spend part of this weekend working on those cards and if you are so inclined you can play along with me at home more info on that as we get closer you and lasts up today. Let's all cast our minds way back into history all the way back to yesterday when everybody was still flipping out about that one poll from monmouth university city the quickest of recaps the poll show joe biden way down and in a dead heat with sanders and warren as discussed yesterday at great length the thing i was looking for was more more polling see whether that whole was indeed an outlier or a sign of sudden change well today we have two new polls to look at and from my initial reading yeah that monmouth poll looks like an outlier that does not mean it's bad or the we shouldn't trust monmouth. It just means this is how polls work in general the aggregate of many poles a polling average bridge gives us a better view of reality than any single snapshot all right so let's dig into one of those new polls it is by quinnipiac and the methodology i they polled one one thousand four hundred twenty two registered voters including six hundred forty eight democratic or democratic leaning voters between august twenty first and twenty six. It was a phone poll including cellphones. The overall margin of error is plus or minus three point one percentage points and the margin for these specific democratic voter subgroup is plus or minus four point <music> six percentage points now. The big question here obviously is whether the democratic primary voter preference for biden would lineup in any way like the mon- with pole and short the answer. No the outcome is a lot closer what we've seen from other recent polls among democrats and democratic leaning voters the percentages were thirty two percent for biden fifteen percent for sanders and nineteen percent for warren the margin of error there is plus or minus four point six percent in either direction for each number. No other candidate broke out of the single digits so yesterday. I asked three specific questions. I is biden still the front runner well according to this poll and today's he is u._s._a. Today slash suffolk poll and other recent polls. Yes he's not completely running away with the race but yeah that's a solid double digit lead on the next candidate it who is warren that can change but that's where we are today. The second question i asked yesterday was is it true that worn and sanders are essentially tied that is a little trickier but the answer is yeah pretty much and warren might have the edge if you look at for instance that awesome interactive data explorer made by the economists. There's z. Lincoln the show notes check it out. It's actually radd. The trans shows warranted eighteen percent on average as of yesterday with sanders at sixteen percent and warren does seem to be rising. Meanwhile sanders is either rising slower or is kind of flat depending on how you want to fit that curve so are they tied well. They're really quite close closer three to one another than they are to biden anyway. I'm gonna stick with that answer for now. The final question that i asked yesterday was why why is this the case and disappoint all of you did that answer cannot come from just one or two polls. That's why there's a whole podcast about this. We do have some interesting new data that i wanna mention though quinnipiac asked a variety of questions questions about the economy and this time there including all voters the margin of error is lower at plus or minus three point one percents points. They've been asking these same questions for years. So there is a long term trend there instead of me digging into every single question every single answer and all the trends. Let me just read the summary from quinnipiac release which does is not carry a byline quote for the first time since president trump was elected. Moore voters say that the national economy is getting worse than getting better with thirty seven percent percents saying it's getting worse thirty one percent saying it is getting better and thirty percent saying to staying the same this compares to a june eleventh nineteen poll in which twenty three percent of voters said the national economy is getting worse thirty nine percent said it is getting better and thirty-seven percent said they're staying the same when asked took the state of the nation's economy sixty one percent of voters it is excellent or good while thirty seven percent say that it is not so good or poor these these numbers while still clearly positive on the economy are the lowest excellent slash good economy numbers found by the quinnipiac university poll since april twenty eighteen and voters also say that president trump's policies are hurting the nation's economy at forty one percent while thirty seven percent say they are helping and twenty percents say that his policies make no difference and quote okay so let's wrap up the poll in for today by saying that for now it looks like the monmouth poll was probably an outlier though again time is really what tells tells here so i would like even more data to make real darn sure that we are not just suffering from confirmation bias is too easy to look at today's polls and just say outlier fire proved it but whether that is really the case will require at least a few more polls well that is it for one more of the election ride home. Oh my have been your host chris higgins. You can always find me on twitter at chrissy teigen's. It is that time of year in portland where one week it is sixty degrees and raining and the next week meaning right now it's a hundred degrees and everything is melting or on fire this morning we actually added a few more drip era gators in the garden as there are many plants that get real crispy and just just barely make it through the summer so i guess just in time right on the bright side novara gatien for that stupid tree stump so look gal. Stay hydrated. Stay cool watch out for hurricanes and run for senate in georgia as always thanks for listening and we'll talk to y'all tomorrow the.