tv Senate Impeachment Trial Reaction CSPAN January 27, 2020 12:38pm-1:06pm EST
bos credibility when he testifies and make their own judgment. but you say we're going to blind ourselves from the witnesses so clearly relevant testimony to one of the central most serious allegations against the president, idol see how you could have a fair trial with wit testimony like that. thank you. >> one more question. >> thank you, guys. [inaudible conversations] >> c-span, your unfiltered view of government. created by cable in 1979 and brought to you today by your television provider. >> good afternoon, everyone. we are about 20 minutes away
from the top of the hour. when king eastern time when the senate will resume the impeachment trial against president trump. the president's defense team took almost two hours on saturday for their for the opeg arguments. they will continue today. they have 22 hours and five minutes left in their time. they have 24 hours over three days time so we're expecting them to talk today and give their opening arguments and continue into tuesday as well. whether or not the president's lawyers address a "new york times" story this morning written by maggie haberman and michael schmidt, many of you are aware of it, where they say john bolton is upcoming book reveals that the president allegedly had a conversation with the former national security adviser where he tied military aid to ukraine to investigations into the
bidens. has this shifted anybody's opinion, republican senators, for one, but whether not they should call witnesses? susan collins republican of made up for reelection in 2020 put the statement out. from the beginning i have said that in fairness to both parties the decision on whether or not to call witnesses should be made after both the house managers and the president attorneys have that opportunity to present their cases. i've are said i was likely to vote to call witnesses just as i did in the 1999 clinton tropic the reports that john bolton spoke strengthen the case for witnesses and have prompted a member -- number of conversations among my colleagues. mitt romney republican of utah was also being watched and whether not he would vote with the democrats to call for witnesses like john bolton. he told reporters today that this revelation by the "new york times" makes it a stronger case that he would vote for witnesses.
the president today earlier today addressed the "new york times" story when he greeted the israeli prime minister at the white house. here's what he had to say. >> mr. president, , what is your response to bolton making -- increasing chances he could be called to tesla. >> as i have seen the transcript but nothing was ever said to john bolton but i've not seen the manuscript. i guess he's writing a book. i have seen that. >> president earlier today briefly addressing this "new york times" story again written by maggie haberman and michael schmidt with headline trump tied ukraine a to increase he sought. now the minority leader chuck schumer along with democratic senator jamie baldwin and went to talk about and of today's proceedings. this is what time are no delete had to say about the "new york times" story.
>> and now, according to the "new york times," ambassador bolton wrote in his book that he was ordered by the president to continue freezing assistance until ukraine announced the political investigations the president was taking, including the investigation into the bidens. this is stunning. it goes right to the heart of the charges against the president. ambassador bolton essentially confirms the president committed the offenses charged in the first article of impeachment. it boils down to one thing. we have a witness with first-hand evidence of the president's actions for which he is on trial. he is ready and willing to testify. how can senate republicans not vote to call that witness and request his documents?
anyone, anyone who says the house case lacks eyewitnesses and then votes to prevent eyewitnesses from testifying is talking out of both sides of their mouth. also, according to the report, several sections of mr. bones book further implicate mr. mulvaney. previously mr. mulvaney denied ever being on the phone when the president spoke to rudy giuliani. mr. bolton writes that mr. mulvaney was on the phone with rudy and the president was discussing the removal of ambassador yovanovitch. mr. bolton is book is for the evidence that a large number of people were quote in the loop on this scheme, as ambassador sondland said, and now they are all covering up. so it seems like not only is there more evidence that the president held the aid off to
get a political gain, and investigation, but there seems to be a giant cover-up among so many of the leading people in the white house who knew about it and said nothing about it, let alone try to stop it. if there was ever even a shred of logic left to not hear witnesses and review the documents, mr. bolton's book just erased it. ambassador bolton was manuscript was sent to the white house over a month ago. the president ordered everyone with first-hand knowledge of his actions not to testify in the impeachment inquiry. where -- all stirring a white house coverup in the face. it is so clear what's going on here. i don't need to spell it out for you. if senate republicans are not going to vote to call mr. bolton and mr. mulvaney and the other witnesses now, if they are not
going to ask for notes and e-mails, they are going to be part of the cover-up, too. because we have this out in the open. it's up to four senate republicans, just four senate republicans to ensure that john bolton, mick mulvaney, mr. blair and mr. duffey testify in the senate trial. it's up to four republicans to get the documents that surrounded their actions in those days. one final point. of course the president denied ambassador bolton is account in us is a late-night tweets. already republicans, already some republicans are saying this is just a he said he said affair. just a matter of conflicting accounts. i would remind everyone, between president trump and ambassador
bolton, only one of them is willing to testify in the senate under oath. only mr. bolton is willing to swear that he is telling the truth. >> minority leader chuck schumer from earlier this morning responding, reacting to the "new york times" front-page story, money to ukraine tied inquiries. that is according to john bolton the former national security adviser upcoming book. republican senators also held a news conference ahead of today's proceedings. which gets underway in less than 15 minutes. the white house defense team will continue with their opening argument. the republican senators or mike braun of indiana, john barrasso of wyoming. here's what senator braun had to say about the "new york times" story. >> i odyssey we got some new information that is hit the scene and i will cut to the chase. it really doesn't change anything in terms of the
process. we knew that the discussion of witnesses would be here soon and i think every senator that i know has said that they will cross that bridge when they get to it. each has a different opinion probably of how important that's going to be. we will emphasize that to date, accepting what we heard last night that the case has been weak, built on kind of a circumstantial platform. there was actually and when i was walking off a one day there was no aid actually delivered. the wasn't beading, no pressure, no investigation. i think the president has already acknowledged that what bolton is contending in his book promo is not the case. i think what it's done has taken already a hot topic and add some fuel to the fire. and for me and from a place like indiana, it still goes back to
the origination of how this occurred, wanting to malign the president from when, you know, before he was even inaugurated. and a lot of that plays into every different senators calculation of what to do. for myself i always wanted the process to be fair and they think it's going to be that way. it will be interesting to see what other senators think after we have our lunch in which get started earlier than normal. john. >> well, there's a so-called blockbuster report in today's "new york times." it's a story about selected leaks from a book that you can order, preorder on amazon.com from john bolton. to me the facts of the case remained the same. there is nothing new here to what the house managers have been saying. it's interest because i believe the president team did a great job on saturday.
a wonderful job presenting the case and i'm looking for to hearing on them today and tomorrow. the president's the president'so do on saturday was truly undermine the case of the democrats and undermine the credibility of adam schiff. as i said last friday right here, i think there's going to be something new coming out every day, very so much what we saw in the kavanaugh trial. new information, , old informatn told in a different way to inflame emotions and influence the outcome. let's take a breath, listen to the president's lawyers today in the case that they present. we're going to get to the specific question of witnesses on friday. we have two more days of hearings for the president's team. we have 16 hours of questioning by the senators, and voting begins in iowa on monday.
this coming -- elections are on the ballot. do you have enough information, deeply senators have enough information to make an informed decision at this point? and a public said yes, they have enough information that we will be asked that question on friday. i would say at this point just take a breath, listen to what we hear from the president's defense team today and tomorrow, listen to the questions and let the voters decide the outcome of who should be the president. >> both of you made the argument nothing has changed. but it has changed. it change the titles of of the republican colleagues. can you talk about the conversations you had with your colleagues? the ground seemed to be shifting and are you prepared for this go past potentially next week longer than expected? >> so after the last session i did speak to some, grappling
with the issue. yes, it probably will make a dynamic different. i think it is clear that the question of what is was going to come up anyway, and a think in this case it may move the needle in one direction or another. and for the people that still are thinking that the foundation of how it originated, what we've heard so far. every senator will have a different opinion of how important that is what i'm not going to deny it's going to change the decibel level and probably the intensity of which we go about talking to witnesses, which will be on friday. >> the interesting thing to me is chuck schumer comes up your analysis i just need four republicans. ladies and gentlemen, that's not about witnesses. he needs four republicans to be the majority leader of the said it. it is his magic number. that's his focus. he has no from the beginning he was double cord have an opportunity to actually remove president trump from office or remove president trump from the
ballot. his goal as clearly stated is to become the majority leader, not remove the president. >> republican senators mike braun and john barrasso from this morning responding to the "new york times" story. you also are from the minority leader saying because of this "new york times" story than that i want to hear from john bolton but they want to reform mick mulvaney as well. inside the near times reporting this morning they say according to mr. bolton, he said after the president's july phone call with the president of ukraine he raised with attorney general william barr his concerns about mr. giuliani who is pursuing a shadow ukraine policy encouraged by the president and mr. bolton told mr. barr the president mentioned him on the call. mr. barr denied he learned the call from mr. bolton. the chessie pharma has said he learned about it only in mid august. the acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney was present for at least one phone call
where the president and mr. giuliani discussed the ambassador, mr. bolton road. mr. holding has told associates he was always step with the president spoke with his lawyer to protect their attorney-client privilege. mr. mulvaney's attorney has put out a statement saying this. the latest story from the "new york times" called it with the book launch has more to do with publicity than the truth. john bolton never told mick mulvaney of any concerns around purported august conversation with the president nor did mr. mulvane ever have a conversation with the president or anyone else indicating ukrainian military aid was withheld in exchange for ukrainian investigation of burisma, the bible for the 2016 election. mr. mulvaney has no recollection of any conversation with mr. giuliani is simply have totally described in mr. bowles manuscript or as a was mr. mulvaney's practice to confuse himself from conversation between the the president and s personal counsel to reserve any attorney-client privilege.
that from bob driscoll attorney for mick mulvaney. now, around 12:30 p.m. eastern eastern time the house managers ahead of the proceedings in about eight minutes, they came to the microphones to also give the reaction to the "new york times" story. here's what they had to say led by adam schiff. >> good afternoon. just want to make a couple of comments about the bolton revelations, and then answer one or two question. we are running a little late so we'll keep it to that. the last 24 hours, john bolton bolton not all is prepared to testify, but that based on his manuscript and testimony would
include a direct conversation with the president of the united states where the president made it clear he was conditioning military aid on political investigations or material that he wanted from ukraine, makes it all the more clear why you can't have a trial, a meaningful time without witnesses and you certainly can't have one without john bolton. i am, you know, please that the senators are reconsidering, some that had i think questions about the utility witness testimony. they appear to be reconsidering and i think that's very positive. positive. because this witness obviously has such relevant information to shed on the most egregious of all of the charges in the articles of impeachment, and that is that the president of united states withheld hundreds and billions of dollar of military aid to an ally of war to help secure that nations help
to cheat in the next election. now, let me make one of the point very clear. we already have testimony on this key pernicious charge against the president, and that testimony has been consistent and uniform and uncontested. when the president's counsel says as they did on the senate floor that there's no direct evidence the president ever told someone he was conditioning the aid on these investigations, that's just not correct. he told mick mulvaney and mick mulvaney admitted it publicly saying that he had discussed this dnc server issue with the president and that was part of the reason they held up the money. so the president's own chief of staff has already admitted to discussing this with the president. what's more, ambassador sondland spoke to the president on september 7 and while the president denied a quid pro quo he then went on to explain to sondland's the was, in fact, a
quid pro quo over the aide. that is come zielinski had to go to the mic to answer these, announce these investigations. and, of course, all the other circumstance evidence, the fact of the legitimate reason for holding the aide, the fact that all the nice kitty staff all of his advisers and other secretaries were urging that it be released, the uncontradicted evidence is the simplest 2+2=4. nevertheless, the president's lawyers sought to contest this charge. and now that they have, they cannot dispute the relevance and the importance of john bowles testimony. so ought to come in, test went under oath. senators should not wait until march 17 when the book comes after they should demand this information while it would still be pertinent to the decision. >> republican argue if you so
relevant and so forth then you should push harder for it over on the house side. knowing what you know now and what you're seeing in the supporting about the book do you regret not doing? >> no, because what that arguments about you and bear in mind we did use that approach with other witnesses like don mcgahn. it is now more than nine months since we subpoenaed don mcgahn and we are nowhere near the court decision. so when people say why didn't you go to court to insist and fight and go through the district court and court of appeals and supreme court, we would still have that question unresolved a year from now. it's really an argument to say that the president should be able to unilaterally decide whether and when he can be impeached. given that he was attempting and has been attempting continue to attempt to cheat in the next election, we did not feel we could wait. it's not a question for john bolton. why he wasn't willing to testify when we invited him to testify in the house. >> why didn't he? >> i don't know but i think you
should answer that question but is whatever reason he was unwilling to come before the the house. he is willing to come before the senate. the senators should not turn away from this very relevant evidence. >> have your staff any conversation with bolton or -- >> i want to give others a chance. >> has he given a reason -- [inaudible] >> it's not a question of whether i trust john bolton or the republican senators or the democratic senators. he should be placed under oath, and this is why we think the testimony should be public. it should be live. let the american people along with the senators evaluate john bones credibility when he testifies and make their own judgment. but to say that we apply ourselves from a witness who are so clearly relevant testimony to one of the central most serious allegations against the
president, i don't see how you could have a fair trial without testimony like that. thank you. >> adam schiff from earlier this morning. notice jerry nadler the chair of the judiciary committee was not with his fellow house managers. his wife is battling cancer and he put out a statement saying he is in new york with her today and will be missing the senate trial. the chief justice is in the building. proceedings will start any minute. live coverage here on c-span2. .. >>
[inaudible conversation] the senate trial against president trump is getting underway here. you can see the counsel for both sides have made their way to their tables and at the bottom of your left-hand screen, it's hard to see right now but former independent counsel can starr is in the senate well talking to the house manager's side of the table. we are waiting for the chief justice entered the chamber. you will see all senators rise when he does that. he will take the chair and the gavel in today's proceedings.
while we wait for the chief justice and senators to make their way into the chamber and begin today's proceedings, we are expecting that opening arguments for the president's team gets underway and goes a similar way that they did for the house managers. the majority leader mitch mcconnell let the white house counsel go for 3 to 4 hours before they take a break. while we wait for this to start we want to show you earlier today house republicans are serving as part of the president's defense team going before the cameras and reporters to talk . >> why don't we take our seats?