>> for the third time in history a president has been tried and acquitted by the u.s. senate in an impeachment trial,president donald john trump found not guilty on both articles of impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction of congress, both failing to get the required 67 votes , two thirds of the senate. those present and voting one article one there was one republican, mitt romney who voted guilty on that count . here in the next few minutes, we expect to hear from the majority leader mitch mcconnell and also from senator schumer. as you can see, the senate is still in session. they are in a quorum call. we also expect possible comments from president trump sometimethis afternoon . we will make every effort to bring those to you live and have them available on the c-span networks as they come down. live coverage of theu.s. senate here on c-span2 . some of you are probably wondering what's left to be said after listening to this for the last two or three weeks. as you know i'm occasionally rather parsimonious at times with comments and i thought it best to wait until this is behind us before having a more open discussion with all of you about what we've just witnessed. now, let me start by saying i don't think any of you doubt that this was the most partisan of exercises. we all fully remembered and it's been said numerous times, the speaker said roughly a year ago you shouldn't go forward with an impeachment if it was not bipartisan. i've watched it very carefully over the years, our leadership positionoverlapped and even before then , we were working together on appropriation bills back in the early days. i'm pretty sure she didn't want to do this . but the fact that she was pulled into this direction against what appeared to be her political instincts a year ago underscores that this was a purely political exercise. now, having been dragged into something she instinctively felt was a mistake, and the second impulse was let's get this over with asquickly as possible . get it out of here, get it over in the otherbody and let them deal with it . so that's why you had an abbreviated, truncated rush job over in the house. but even during that abbreviated period, it was pretty clear that they are amassed a significant body of evidence from witnesses which you heard them argue about over here frequently. had they provided with us in the house record testimony from 13 witnesses, deposition from 17 witnesses, then of course we had added on top of that 180 questions that we would witness 193 witnesses, video clips and 28,000 pages of evidence. so i asked my staff to count up the number of times we heard from the house managers during their presentations, how many times it was already proven. there were 60 times, 60 in which house managers said during their presentation to us that the case was either proven or proof, 60 times. there were 33 more times when one or more of the house managers said the evidence was overwhelming. so where did the nonsense about witnesses come from ? i have a pretty good idea. after this early political exercise (house, it came over to the senate and there was a lot of pull data taken, how are we going to sell this to senators? how are we going to sell it to the american people even though we already have all of this testimony and all of these witnesses, what polls well ? why course, if you ask the average citizen whether they think there ought to be witnesses in the trial , you're going to get an answer that you want. so the speaker i gather decided to sit on the impeachment papers after arguing that this was a matter of great urgency and the president needed to be removed from office as soonas possible . sit on them for a month to laughably think that somehow gave me leverage to concede their principal political argument which was this is all about witnesses over here on our side . well, that brought one of those rare smiles to my face which you witnessed and which i was perplexed by the strategy that was being deployed. i finally when it became obvious to everyone it was an absurd position, democratic senators sent the papers over and some of our own members were saying it before they get slapped back into line that the papers came over and we know full well this was all going to be about witnesses . i said to my colleagues in december in anticipation of the impeachment that their strategy would be to get it out of the house quickly and to leave it in the senateand leslie . endlessly. so that we would have that wrapped around our axle indefinitely. and my suspicion was that wasn't so much about president trump but rather about taking the senate and my counterpart senator schumer pretty much admitted it to all of you that said this waswhat it was all about . it was about taking the senate and about trying to bog us down in this and trying to get my guys to have a lot of tough votes. so i'm proud of my colleagues for seeing through that, for knowing that even though you ask a typical voter should there be witnesses in the trial there would say sure, there ought to be witnesses but it was really about not the president, we all knew it was not going to be removed from office but about trying to take the senate and so i'm proud of my members for resisting the temptation to go down that path, for also preventing what the second strategy was, it was pretty clear that democrats if they couldn't win this one and to embarrass the chief justice and try to drag him into this maelstrom and the way that could have been done was with a 50-50 vote whether he would have been accused had he chosen not to rule which of course i can't imagine he would have but it's pretty clear that would have drag the supreme court right into the middle of the maelstrom as well so we've reached the conclusion, i think this is a thoroughly political exercise from the beginning to the end . and the final irony of it all is the speaker was right in the beginning. because here we are today in a position tojudge the political impact of this . was it all started about politics and did it end about politics. the president has his highest approval rating since he's been in office. i can tell you as a poll watcher whose looking at polls in senate races, every one of our people, every one of them is in better shape today than they were before the impeachment trial started so i'm not sitting here predicting what will be the biggest issue in november but i cantell you this , i can tell you that right now, this is a political loserfor them . they initiated it, they thought this was a great idea and at least for the short term , it has been a colossal political mistake. >> several of your members have been critical of the president's conduct and one of them of course today said he would vote to convict the president, mitt romney did. why is it okay for the president to ask a foreign country to investigate a political rival ? >> i've been responding to you for years and you know that what i'm here to talk about today is the political impact of this . we completed it, we've listened to their arguments, we voted and it's in the rearview mirror and i think what's appropriate now is the way since it all began for political reasons, to weigh the political impact of it and i think it's pretty clear what i've already said is where we are right now. >> is there room in the republican party for somebody who votes for the president's conviction? >> i was surprised and disappointed but i still think that we had great teamwork on this and i think we're in a good position going into our senate races and the presidential race with regardto this issue. there may be plenty of other issues between now and november but i think we are in good shape right now . >> son of pelosi's representatives are talking about next steps,subpoenaing john bolton. is there a price to pay if they don't move on after impeachment ? >> you know, i've watched these impeachments, these investigations over the years by both sides. i really think the american people are more likely to focus at this point and for the rest of the year on what kind of shape as the country in? how are you feeling about things? are you better offas president reagan put it, are you better off now than you were four years ago ? i think the investigations will go on, that's what congress does. we've done it when we were in the majority and there was a democratic president . iwouldn't expect that to stop . i think in the end it's not likely to have much of an impact on any of theraces. the presidential or the senate races . >> donald trump junior said he's calling for mitt romney to be expelled from the republican party. is there any chance mitt romney is expelled as a result of his votes ? >> i was surprised and disappointed but we have much work to do for the american people . and i think senator romney hasbeen largely supportive of most everything we've tried to accomplish . >> what is this reluctance to engage on the president's conduct, is it acceptable for the president to ask for investigation on the bidens? >> i'm sure you are paying close attention but that's what we've been talking about for the last three weeks. >> obviously you and chuck schumer have a lot of disagreement about how the trial should go so how would you characterize your relationship with the minority leader coming out of this? >> i think the relationship is fine but adopting the clinton rules didn't serve his purpose. so let's go back to what he was trying to achieve, he was very forthright about it. we had a discussion before we began in the trial. he wanted to guarantee at least some number of witnesses before we started. i felt that our best interest and the best interests of the country was served by listening to the arguments and going through the questioning period before we got to the question of witnesses because we might or might not conclude at that point that we needed any witnesses because we had a mountain of evidence headed our way as they referred to repeatedly which was the best argument against additional witnesses. how many times that they have to say the case was conclusive ? what was proven or approved or overwhelming? when you listen to those kinds of apartments being made by the managers, you scratch your head and say really? do we need to hear more? that was the difference. we weren't angry about it, he was trying to achieve an outcome that he thoughthelped him win the senate . i felt that the clinton president made more sense not only for the country but for us. david . >> can you talk more about why it was so important not to hear witnesses to make sure the president was acquitted. [inaudible] and how fear of the republican base may have make help that happen. >> obviously i had hoped that the results in the senate would be similar or exactly the same as a result of the house and i think the message there is no do partisan impeachments . which you remember is what the speaker said and she was initially correct about it when she said sometimes it's not. we don't want this to become routine. we looked at a number of things the founders said when they put impeachment in the constitution and they really were concerned about it becoming a kind of routine effort based on policy differences. or personality differences. sound familiar? the main thing that drove andrew johnson to impeachment is they just didn't like him. sound familiar? that's the kind of thing that seems to me the founders did not want to happen. that we get in a routine of doing this all the time because we had a policy difference or a personality difference . >> .. can you talk a little bit about the senate agenda going forward and if there's animosity between the speaker and the president at last night state of the union speech. you think this congress can really accomplish anything legislatively with this white house? >> my biggest problem is with this house of representatives. as you all know we are pretty different in approach is to america's problems between the house and the senate. i think we have a chance to do some more business. i certainly hope so. we are looking at infrastructure. we are looking at land and water conservation. barry even in the midst of the election some things that i think we can do together and even though several of you have completely bought into the notion that we are somehow totally dysfunctional, i would point you back to the end of last year. there were a number of dramatic bipartisan accomplishments in the overall spending bills at the end of the year. admittedly they did move across the floor independently but in that will work huge numbers of priorities for both sides and those only get negotiated on a bipartisan basis so i don't buy the notion that the congress is dysfunctional. we have some big differences. i mean look at what the house passed and we do have some big differences but we will get some more work done for the mac and people. on things that we can agree on and if they don't settle all of this in november and decide they want to lead the country going forward. >> back in the back. >> the resolution to extend the deadline for the ninth amendment. to ratify a constitutional amendment. is that something you might be putting on the floor? >> to ratify what? >> the equal rights amendment. >> oh i haven't thought about that. i'm personally not a supporter that i hadn't thought about it. [inaudible] will the republican party go after the bite is after the impeachment? >> look i don't tell the committee chairman what to look at. one of you suggested earlier the house is probably in investigatory business. i can only suggest that the senate could choose to do that as well but we don't have a dictatorship over in the senate and i don't trust the committee chairman as to what to take a look at. >> so you have avoided answering the question several times including twice today. >> would you like to make it a third time? >> a difficult vote in the political environments perfectly reasonable to ask if it's appropriate. >> yeah i think that's what we have just dealt with for three weeks. three weeks we have listened. we have voted. we have passed a number of internal meetings to discuss all of this that you ended up knowing a good deal about in writing about. it's time to move on. this decision has been made and as far as i'm concerned it's in the rearview mirror and the consequences of it in terms of the future are up to the voters of the country to decide who they want to lead the government for the next four and in our case six years. i'm going to take one more. >> when you make of the house voted bipartisan against impeachment and the senate was the opposite. >> yeah i think there are pretty clear party lines both ways. i think that's what you can take out of it. pretty much party line in both chambers. thanks a lot everybody. [background sounds] majority leader mitch mcconnell and his first substantive comments to reporters in 21 days. the length of the trump impeachment trial which is wrapped up with an acquittal of president trump article i the vote 48-52, article ii the obstruction of congress charged 47-53. it would have taken 67 votes two-thirds of the senate to convict president trump. he becomes the third president to be tried and acquitted in the a page for trial by the u.s. senate by descendents of southern quorum call now. we are waiting to hear from the democratic leader. chuck schumer. we will take you to the news conference what happens. obviously if the senator comes to the floor to speak that takes precedence and people go to the senate floor has he been doing here on c-span2 since 1986. also when to stand we are getting at least a written statement from the president and perhaps even on camera. we'll keep you posted about that >> mr. president. >> majority leader. i consent that the quorum call p. dispense with. i move to proceed to executive session for the consideration of calendar 562. >> the question is on the motion. >> those opposed aye. those opposed nay. the ayes have it. the clerk will report the nomination. the nomination of the judiciary andrew lynn pressure of alabama to the united states circuit judge for the 11th circuit. i sent the cloture motion to the desk. >> the clerk will report the cloture motion. the cloture motion we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate to hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination to the united states circuit judge for the 11th circuit signed by 17 senators as follows. >> the names will be way for a move to proceed to legislative session. >> the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed no no. the ayes appear to have it, that goes. you have a. the motion is agreed to by move to proceed to executive session to consideration of calendar 653. >> all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it that motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. >> the nomination to judiciary joshua kendrick of alaska to united states district judge for the state of alaska. i send the cloture motion to the desk. >> the clerk will report the cloture motion. >> we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate to hereby move to bring to close a close as that of the nomination of joshua kendrick of alaska to united states district judge for the district of alaska signed by 17 senators. sad i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names the way. >> the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it revee ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to do. i move to proceed to executive session for the consideration of calendar 565. >> the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. that motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. >> the nomination of the judiciary matthew thomas shell of missouri to the united states district judge for the eastern district of missouri. >> i sent the cloture motion to the desk. >> the clerk will report the cloture motion. >> cloture motion we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 the standing rules of the senate to hereby move to bring to close debate on the nomination of matthew thomas shell of missouri to united states district judge for the eastern missouri could ask unanimous the reading of the names the way. i move to proceed to legislative session. >> question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it that motion is agreed to. the mood to proceed to executive session for the consideration of calendar 461. >> the question is on the motion all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes to have it tree that motion is agreed to. >> the nomination of the judiciary john gerald neff of illinois to the united states district judge for the northern district of illinois. i sent the cloture motion to the desk. >> the clerk will report the cloture notion. cloture motion we the undersigned senators in accordance with provisions of rule 22 the standing rules of the senate by move to bring to close the nomination of jonathan neff of illinois for the fifth district of bill nye sent by 17 senators as follows. i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the move to proceed to legislative session. >> all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes to have it the motion is agreed to. i move to proceed to executive session for consideration of calendar 535. >> the questions on the motion. all those in favor say yea. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it the ayes have it the motion is agreed to. >> the judiciary phillip m. holborn of new york to the united states district