Controlled by the Republican Party of donald trump and the Senate Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell has proposed some rules that would trigger a quick a trial lets look at what those are initially he gave them we were discussing this a moment ago he gave each side 24 hours which would be split over 2 days for their opening arguments thats now been pushed out to 3 days as i guess was saying presumably 8 hours a day witnesses cannot be called until the opening arguments and even then it will be left to a vote and whats important to remember there is that the republicans as we say are in control so they would have significant powers to block any witnesses called by the democrats this is what they wanted to do and another change to the initial rules Mitch Mcconnell will now allow transcripts from the house judiciary impeachment hearing the house hearing to be submitted mcconnell has promised that this will be a fair even handed process 1st. The senate will hear an opening presentation from the house managers 2nd we will hear from the president s council 3rd senators will be able to stick further information by posing written questions to either side through the chief justice and forth with all that information and i and the senate will consider whether we feel any additional evidence or witness witnesses are necessary to evaluate whether the house case has cleared or failed to clear the bar of overcoming the presumption of innocence and on doing a democratic election democrats not happy with this though they are accusing the republicans of rigging the impeachment trial in order to cover up Donald Trumps an edge crimes they say the proposed rules wont allow any new testimony or evidence i believe the most important decision in this case is the one you will make today the most important question is the question you must answer today will the president and the American People get a fair trial will there be a fair trial i submit that this is an even more important question than how you vote on guilt or innocence because whether we have a fair trial will determine whether you have a basis to render a fair and impartial verdict it is foundational the structure upon which every other decision you will make must rest. Well as a list was happening the white house issued a statement here is it in pots. Very trumpy in tone the democrats are in also a judge they have no case in this latest political stunt proves that the idea that the counsel to the president has to turn over protect to documents and confidential information is ludicrous and to imply he can represent the president of the United States in an impeachment proceeding is completely absurd kimberly how could a White House Correspondent with more on that the democrats are not a jerk and this life will put latest political stunt proves that can you explain to obvious kimberly what this apparent stunt is yeah its a bit new i try to make it real simple essentially the president s attorney pats a polonia the democrats have argued it cant have argue and defend the president because theres a conflict of interest officially it comes down to this as the president s you know one of his primary lawyers he was very instrumental in trying to block the documents from leaving the white house and going to capitol hill and you remember one of the articles is obstruction of congress so what this is about is essentially democrats are saying this this lawyer obstructed congress he is not only representing the president but he was complicit in all of this thats a conflict of interest he needs to be removed as you just read there in the statement the white house responding saying utter joke this is a political stunt so this remains to be seen it appears that this may be a lot of noise that ultimately that the president s attorney will be able to continue continue arguing this case but certainly democrats are trying to make the case that he shouldnt be on the floor of the senate at all so does this come down to and one of our earlier guests sort of suggested this kimberly process over substance that this is the way the republicans will attack it by going off to the process and what they feel is is and has been unfair. I think it would be safe to say at this point that both sides are guilty of that because in this particular case it would be the democrats that are making the argument about process at the end of the day much of what weve heard already in the u. S. Senate is just the reverse of the accusations that we heard by democrats so essentially this is a highly partisan exercise despite the fact that both sides will deny that they are really working for the integrity of the u. S. Constitution in the United States weve seen both sides politicize this and i think that the statement that you read out is just yet another example of that every side is trying to gain a point in all of this because at the end of the day what this is a trial but its not a typical trial in fact some of the jurors in this the senators are running to replace this president so obviously they would have a vested interest in seeing his demise so when we hear the arguments from the u. S. President s defense team this is one of the points they brought up that this is not only about trying to undo the results of the 2016 u. S. Election its about trying to have an impact on the 2020 u. S. Election ultimately at the end of the day because we do have a pretty good idea unless there are any big surprises how this is going to go that it appears the president will ultimately be acquitted that it will be the American Public that will have to weigh in but again we havent seen a whole lot of movement in terms of where americans stand they dont seem to be any more against the president or less against the president as a result of this impeachment inquiry in fact its pretty evenly split on whether or not the president should be removed from office according to yet more poll numbers. Kimberly how come im glad weve got you with us to explain all this because i think i get a bit caught in the weight sometimes with all the hear all the complications kimberly how could that White House Correspondent. Ok up to capitol hill she had her tans these days been following developments there high she had what do you take us through. And again simplest possible terms what actually happens today day one sorting out the rules that seems. Lets begin with day 0 just last night here in washington there was an uproar when Mitch Mcconnell the Senate Majority leader published what he said would be the motion for the rules of this impeachment trial in the senate and bet was uproar because under those rules the both sides both the House Democrats and the white house lawyers would only have 2 days to make their case in opening arguments over 24 hours they had 24 hours to fill over 2 days. Just seemed absurd to the democrats who said well that could be like 12 hour days in 2 days each day begins at 1 pm we could conceivably be in session on to 1 am 2 am 3 am so they said that this is ridiculous there was another reason why there was uproar there was also a suggestion that the evidence that the house had gathers over the course of their inquiries would not automatically be made available in the senate as as evidence that would be a vote on that this morning both of those have now been amended by Mitch Mcconnell now each side has 24 hours over 3 days to make their opening arguments. Eventually the all the house materials will become admissible in evidence for the senate trial so this can be looked at in many ways but but as far as the scheduling is concerned what were looking at now is the democrats beginning their opening arguments on wednesday they have been wednesday thursday friday to make their arguments. And then technically the republicans would go after them the right of the white House Counsel would go after them that could begin on friday or it could begin on saturday but they would have 3 days after that to make their case of the time frame has been elongation so thats one thing which is being welcomed here but there are several narratives here those to consider on the one hand you could say oh this is great for the democrats Mitch Mcconnell is showing some flexibility on the other hand theres a theory well that maybe this is partly because the narrative that the republicans are putting forward is the socalled moderate republicans those swing states who face challengers in the Upcoming Elections theyre the ones who said to mcconnell look you cant have these rules so they look very good no now mcconnell is very cognizant of the fact that he needs to make them look good because he needs them to win in the 2020 election so its not clear whether this was some sort of choreography in order to make the show that the more dont republicans are taking this seriously so when they go into the election they cant be accused in a swing state of just not just papering over glossing over the potential for impeachable trump all this is a sign that mcconnell is more flexible flexible than he seems given history perhaps the former is more likely she have where do we stand with regard to potential witnesses because this was another contentious point leading up in 2 days here and day one. Right so now whats going on right now is discussion about amendments that Chuck Schumer the leader of the democrats and the son of the Senate Minority leader is introducing to the its not original motion so what we have so far a structure or has introduced a motion thought more documents to be put into to be to be to be used in the trial of documents that the House Democrats were able to get their hands on documents specifically discussing the white houses dealings with president selenski a few crane for example that the deliberations about joe biden and then home to biden and so on the trumps from side is about whether ukraine interfered in the 2016 election theyre asking for documents related to a list which was to House Democrats couldnt get the Senate Democrats are saying this is a trial now we need all the evidence and we also expect Chuck Schumer to introduce amendments in order to call for more witnesses they say look there are a lot of key witnesses that the house couldnt get hold of couldnt couldnt crossexamine we want to crossexamine them now as part of this trial its almost certain that im not going to make you know going to get them at this point anyway Mitch Mcconnell has been very clear and he has the votes it would appear that any discussion of documents of witnesses will only occur all through the initial arguments take place and the crossexamination is taking place sometime next week thats when Mitch Mcconnell says well discuss more documents more witnesses until then were not going to and it seems Mitch Mcconnell has the votes for that especially since hes climbed out on the timeframe for the opening arguments so what were looking at right now is sort of theater its basically going through the motions to show that the democrats are doing all they can to hold the President Trump to account but frankly would almost certain that everything happening right now will we its a foregone conclusion the democrats will fail in these in these in these amendments to Mitch Mcconnells rules thank you she have pretends he more what she had on capitol hill a little bit late. Or as proceedings carry on meanwhile alan baron is still with us former special impeachment counsel to the u. S. House of representatives joining us from washington see actually alan as i say all of that 10 you actually tell us a little bit more about what you did in that position as special impeachment counsel the and during what time period well this is spread out over. About 20 years i was in private practice then i would come in as a special counsel. Handle the investigation and then the trial and then go back into private practice so i wasnt working in the government for that 20 year period. And you know essentially it was a lot like preparing for trial in the private sector you did your legwork of going out interviewing witnesses gathering documents putting together your trial plan. And then organizing the presentation now the one wrinkle thats very different than the private sector is that you have the impeachment managers these are the members of the house who. Participate in essence you are you their counsel but you end up doing an awful lot of the legal work because many of them although they may have law degrees havent practiced law in any meaningful way adam schiff is the large exception he is a very experienced trial lawyer and a very good trial lawyer were you involved in the clinton impeachment. I was hired dare i say it by another network n. B. C. Has an on air analyst is just wondering because because you know the comparisons come up at the moment obviously that was how many years ago was that 22 years ago that was almost 20 years yeah its a very its a very different situation now with what this president is charged with obviously and as you were saying a little bit of a feeling it was more about process it was certainly in these early stages process of a substance well in now were talking about the president and pietschmann is the republicans because when they start getting into the facts of what the president did they dont want to go there that it doesnt look good there at all so they want to talk about process that you know this wasnt fair that wasnt fair i must say this the clinton impeachment was basically it was described by one commentator as a train wreck and i think thats pretty close to accurate i mean his conduct was reprehensible but it didnt in any way involve. The government it didnt involve. Any any any foreign implications it was a shabby affair that he lied about what were dealing with here i would suggest is extremely i mean dangerous here is a president for his own private interests is holding up a nearly 400000000. 00 in a military aid to a beleaguered ally being attacked by the russians and hes saying youre not going to get it until you do a political favor for me i mean theres really no comparison this is so much more serious. So i just think the stakes are so much higher if this is allowed to stand where are we for the president. To follow mr trump its a very scary proposition but where where does it all potentially lead to and i say that in the context of the fact that while snow is an holsapple it is highly unlikely that this process will be seen through to the point where the president is actually removed that happens and he isnt removed and whats that all been for what effect does it have i think it hopefully will become a serious. Aspect of the campaign for the presidency in a few months from now. The democrats will im sure not let this die you know as if it were some ancient history they will be pressing to say that this President Trump jeopardized of the ally and American Foreign policy for his own interests by withholding money that the congress had appropriated that is unprecedented and i believe that that is the implications of what has come out or not for this proceeding because i think its almost a foregone conclusion that the Senate Republicans will not convict him but i believe it will become a serious issue and they will not be the democrats will not be appealing to the hardcore Trump Supporters nothing is going to move in but there is a large number of voters that are not hardcore Trump Supporters but who may have voted for him last time and there are the independents i think weve got a little bit of a reflection of the movement in that constituency in the votes where they were by the democrats took over the house it was a huge swing and i think that is what the democrats are counting on that when it comes to the 2020 election that constituency is up for grabs and can be persuaded on the basis of what will come out at these proceedings alan baron a pleasure talking to you thank you so much for your time on this historic day in washington. Just to put some numbers on what alan and i were talking about about this likelihood of president actually being removed this is how it would need to work a 2 thirds majority that would be 67 votes in the senate required to convict donald trump and remove him from office this is why its unlikely there are 100. 00 senators in the senate 2 from each of the 50 states the republicans have got the majority of got 53. 00 there the blue states for the democrats come to 45. 00 and then youve got the 2 yellow ones we put in theres independent senators Bernie Sanders and angus king they caucus with the democrats so that brings the democrats up to 47. 00 effectively that still means that 20 republicans would need to turn against donald trump and so far none of them have said they would. Agree with us here in the studio system professor of Political Science at texas a and m. University in doha does that weigh heavily on you when you think about this the fact that we are going through a process which we and i keep pointing out its not impossible but 20 republicans is a lot to swing over i mean generally weve been saying that its highly unlikely not impossible but unlikely i would almost go as far as say would be impossible and one of the key differences with easons for this is one of the things that weve talked about how the republicans the folks a lot of process one of the particular reasons it strikes me theyre doing this is because in the clinton impeachment is a good contrast one thing thats been mentioned by some of the republicans is that in previous you had a concrete crime you had a felony crime of perjury which people go to prison for 5 or 10 years when in this case even the democrats mentioned that well we dont have a concrete crime. That both for the general public and for public is in specifical