Series against the president. The first article, abuse of power, charges the president with soliciting a foreign power to help him cheat in the next election. Moreover, it alleges and we will prove that he sought to course ukraine into helping him cheat by withholding official acts two official acts. A meeting that the new president of ukraine desperately sought with ukraine at the white house to show the world and the russians in particular that the ukrainian president had a Good Relationship with his most important patron, the president of the united states. And even more perniciously, President Trump illegally withheld almost 400 million in taxpayerfunded military assistance to ukraine. A nation at war with our russian compel ukraine to help him cheat in the election. Astonishingly, the president s trial brief filed yesterday contends that even if this context if this is proved, there is nothing the house or senate may do about it. It is the president s apparent belief that under article two, he can do anything he wants, no matter how corrupt, outfitted in gaudy illegal clothing. Yet, when the founders wrote the impeachment clause, they have processing this kind of misconduct in mind. Conduct that abuses the power of his office for personal benefit, that undermines our National Security, that invites foreign interference in our democratic process of an election. It is the trifecta of constitutional misconduct impeachment. In article two, the president is charged with other misconduct that would have likewise alarmed the founders. Absolute complete, and obstruction of a coweekold branch of government, the congress. During the course of its impeachment investigation into the president s own this conduct. This is every bit as destructive of our Constitutional Order as the misconduct charge in the first article. If a president can obstruct his own investigation, effectively constitutioner the gives solely congress, indeed ultimateate power, the power the constitution gives to prevent president ial misconduct, then the president places himself beyond accountability, above the law. Cannot be indicted, cannot be impeached. It makes him a monarch, the very evil against which our constitution and the balance of powers it carefully laid out was designed to guard against. Shortly, the trial and these charges will begin. When it has concluded, youll be asked to make several determinations. Did the house proof that the president abused his power by seeking to coerce a foreign nation to help him cheat in the next election . And did he obstruct the congress in its investigation into his own misconduct by ordering his agencies and officers to cooperate, refused to cooperate in any way, refused to testify, answer subpoenas for documents, and through every other means. And if the house had proved its case, and we believe the evidence will not be seriously contested, you will have to answer at least one other. Ritical question does the commission of these high crimes and misdemeanors require the conviction and removal of the president . That it does, and that the constitution requires that it be so, or the power of impeachment must be deemed a relic or a casualty to partisan times, and American People left unprotected against a president who would abuse his power for the very purpose of corrupting the only other method of accountability, our elections themselves. So youll go to find the president guilty or not guilty, to find his conduct impeachable or not impeachable. You thesed submit to are not the most important decisions you will make. How can that be . How can any decision that you will make the more important than guilt or innocence and removing the president or not removing the president . I believe the most important decision in this case is the one that youll make today. The most important question is the question that you must answer today. Will the president and the American People get a fair trial . Will there be a fair trial . Even morehis is important question than how you vote on guilt or innocence because whether or not we have a fair trial will determine whether or not you have a basis to render a fair and impartial verdict. Structuredational upon which every other decision that youll make must rest. If you only get to see part of the evidence, only allow one side or the other a chance to present their full case, your verdict will be determined by the bias in the preceding. If the defendant is not allowed to do introduce evidence of his innocence, its not a fair trial. So, too, for the prosecution. If the house cannot produce doctrines or evidence, it is not a fair trial. A trial at all. Americans all over the country are watching this right now. Imagine they are on jury duty david we have been listening to the opening arguments made by pat cipollone, counsel for President Trump, and also adam schiff, the lead house manager. They are supposed to be arguing over the procedural motion for Mitch Mcconnells motion about how they will handle the trial. I will say mr. Schiff is presenting part of his opening argument. After this, there will be two hours in which the sides can argue about whether the rules are appropriate or not. They have 24 hours to present their case, it was supposed be over two days, but now we have been told that mcconnell may have changed that to three days. Then they will take questions about what will, from the to thes and be directed other side. Then they will decide, according to proposed rules, whether they for witnesses. L in the meantime, there is other news around the world that is moving the markets. A report out of cnn that the cdc is about to say there is a case of wuhan virus, the virus that started in china and has now killed four people, 250 infected. Cnn says thatth the cdc has founded in the united states. The markets are moving on the possible coronovirus being found in the u. S. Now back to adam schiff as he continues to talk in the senate. First, the resolution should allow the house managers to obtain documents that have been withheld. Last. Not the documents will inform the decision about which misses are most important to call. And when the witnesses are called, the documentary evidence will be available and must be available to question them with. Any other order makes no sense. Next, the resolution should allow house managers to call their witnesses, and then the president should be allowed to do the same, and any rebuttal witnesses. Portion ofidentiary the trial ensco scum of the parties argue the case. You delivered and render a verdict. If theres a dispute about whether a particular witness is relevant or material to the charges brought under the senate rules, the chief justice would rule on the issue of materiality. Why should this trial be different than any other trial . The short answer is it shouldnt. But leader mcconnells resolution would turn the trial process on its head. His resolution requires the house to prove its case without witnesses, documents, and only after it is done will such question be entertained with no guarantee that any witnesses or documents will be allowed even then. That process makes no sense. So what is the harm of waiting until the end of the trial, of kicking the can down the road on the question of documents and witnesses . Besides the fact that is completely backwards, trial first, then evidence, besides the fact that the documents would inform the decision on witnesses and help form their questioning. The harm is this. You will not have any of the evidence the president continues to conceal throughout most or all of the trial. Although the evidence against the president is already overwhelming, you may never know the full scope of the president s misconduct or those around him. And neither will the American People. The charges here involve involve the sacrifice of our National Security at home and abroad, and a threat to the integrity of the next election. If there are additional remedial steps to be taken david david we have been listening to adam schiff, the lead house manager, respond to have cipollone, Donald Trumps white House Counsel in the trial presided over by chief justice john roberts. They are arguing over the procedural motions, which would lay out how long both sides have to talk. This discussion about the procedural motion is due to continue for about two hours. We are back with our panel, rick davis, david o. Stewart, as well as keith ausbrook, senior managing director at guidepost, and a colleague of robert ray. Tell us your take on what we are seeing so far. Is this anything to be surprised about, arguing over the process . I think we have seen they are going to argue about everything. There is no agreement on either side, no agreement between the house and the president steam president ;s team. There is a protest of motions after this also that made you when very kinds of scheduling, schumer talking about access to the press. Activity be a lot of trying to make sure the press has access to the proceedings. , at least on the part of the senate, is the only way really the democrats have to raise issues and have that discussion. Dont forget the political dimension to this is that the public is watching. Even though they say the outcome is a foregone conclusion, how each senator speaks, how he handles it, how the team handles it is not. People will be watching for that. David david stewart, you defended an impeachment trial. One of the things that strikes me is how little control it feels like they have over the trial. Chief Justice Roberts is there. In a normal courtroom he would not say you are not talking about the procedural issues, you are talking about the merits. Thingsof the astonishing for me, and i was before a committee of senators and i was their complete lack of interest in rules of evidence and ordinary procedure. They just want to hear whatever they can hear. My favorite question that happened was, a question of a witness what was a thirdparty thinking when he told you that . Epistemologically impossible for something to answer the question. I objected, and the chair said he can answer. So he answered. This is going to be the wild west of proceedings. Lawyers who percent regular proceedings are not going to be gratified david . David what is Mitch Mcconnell trying to accomplish . He is trying to get this up and down and over so he can proceed to the normal course of activity, he wants to go home and campaign. He is not in the Election Year and it may be a tough race. All of these guys on the republican side are just watching the clock when does recess occur . Lets get out of here. That being said, one of the great things when the sergeant at arms spoke at the beginning of the process and said, entity senator that speaks can be incarcerated. That is one of the greatest rules. They should keep that all the way through the procedures. Similar to what you were saying, this is an unusual thing for these guys to go through. Chair,e sitting in their they cannot speak up at a moments notice, cannot ask to be recognized. They have to wait for the moment to interject. Honestly, it is a telling thing to see how they handle that. Once they get out of the session, theyll be in front of the media, they will want to talk to them. The follow on messaging that happens tonight, tomorrow night, after they are out of this session will be really interesting to see how both the Democratic Senators who are running for president who are captive there, and the republicans up for reelection, how are they handling this procedure. An importantes point. Typically in a jury trial where this is not you dont get access to the newspapers, dont talk about it. They will be talking to the media about what they think about the case. This is a political event. The rules that we see on law and order every night, they are not there. Trial by name only. There will be a few things that feel like a trial, opening statement, closing statement, maybe testimony. Basically, Everything Else it is a political offense. That is what is at issue. In 1788, hamilton said this will be determined by who has the majority in the senate. It is a political event, so we should not be surprised by any of this. David does this not make a difference at all as a practical matter . As you talk about law, why would you not have witnesses . Why on earth would you not hear from witnesses . Keith i think the way it will play out, the way it played out in the clinton trial also, was there is the opportunity to have witnesses at the end. That was the agreement. They tabled a motion for witnesses in the clinton trial. They ended up taking three depositions. Monica lewinsky, vernon jordan, sid blumenthal. They didnt require live testimony, they only showed parts of their just efficient their depositions. That is part of what is known of aiding senator mcconnell to put that in the rules. He could also say we could have them, and then table them later. Say, one thing that has not been discussed is the comparisons between the clinton process and the current process with President Trump. A twoyearlong ken starr investigation that preempted the investigation in the house of representatives. There was none of that prior to the house of representatives acting, no record of thousands of interviews, hundreds of pieces of evidence, all the evidence that ken starr as the special prosecutor accumulated in the course leading up to impeachment. That is one of the things that seems almost random lighthouse. You mentioned earlier, here we are in an Election Year. 10 months away from an up or down vote on donald trump. Why not wait for that up or down vote on donald trump . And yet, we went into a very speedy house procedure that led to now this activity that is going on in the senate. There is a lot of difference between what was happening, the investigation by ken starr that led up to the house procedure, and what we are now seeing play out. People out there are not just paying attention to this impeachment, paying attention to larger issues, including what is going on in davos. Taking a victory lap on the economy. We caught up with larry kudlow. He was talking about a different subject. Phase one is about breaking down trade barriers. Market oriented. If we can get those exports in the next year, the year after that, that is a big growth factor for the united states. President and his advisers are saying lets forget about impeachment, we are taking care of business, we are creating jobs, increasing wages. Just a few weeks, the president will go into the senate for the state of the union. He will talk about the success he has had against the chinese on this trade war that he facilitated, he will talk about the success he had in creating the new nafta agreement between x ago and canada, he will talk levels oforic Economic Activity all throughout the course of our economy. And he will paint a completely different picture than probably what youll be hearing out about for the next 10 days in the senate. Keith makes an important point about the state of the Union Address. That may be on Mitch Mcconnells mind as well. Lets get through this. What are the chances that we can get clear of this before that . Virtually none. The schedule does not allow for it. I think president clinton gave a state of the Union Address while under impeachment. I was the chief Oversight Council for the House Judiciary Committee and the government reform committee. This all raises an interesting question of what the roles of the senate in the house are in impeachment when there is factual records. How much more should the house have done, how much more should the senate do . Leader mcconnell referred to that, saying we cannot just let the house of the hook year by not doing a full job. The compulsions of time and events led the house to move without a full or investigation, to get those witnesses that the senate says they should look at. An interesting dynamic between the house and senate that appears to be headed in the direction that the house has to do the real investigation and let the senate do the trial. Now, we want to go to Abigail Doolittle in new york. She has some market news. It doesnt have to do with the impeachment. Abigail we are looking at a risk off reaction to the cnn headline, they report that the cdc is expected to say a case of the coronovirus in china has been found in the u. S. That is a cnn report, an expectation of the cdc would say that. We have a bit of a risk off reaction. The s p down by. 25 . Nonetheless, a down day. We are seeing a greater reaction of course, we always talk about the u. S. Profit outlook. If this were to affect the u. S. Corporate profit outlook, that is when you would see stocks selloff. We are seeing that in the russell 2000. A bit of an expectation that perhaps something worse could play out. Ight now down. 8 the worst decline is for the dow transports, now down more than 2 . If this virus is spreading around the world and it is not known that that is the case in china right now six deaths, 291 cases but if there is a case reported by the cdc, it could crimp travel. Headingsports right now for its worst day in almost two months. We can take a look at what that looks like for the american airlines, a big leg lower, down 4 . American airlines down on this report on what is happening in china. On the headline that perhaps. Here is a case in the u. S. An extra leg lower right now. American airlines down 4 , heading for the worst day in a week. Confirming the risk off picture for stocks, haven assets rallying, the 10year yield down five basis points. Investors seeking the safety of bonds. They are also seeking the safety of the japanese yen. The dollar versus the yen falling by. 3 . Confirming once again that there is a bit of fear, uncertainty in the market. Vix index the vix index is up on a day but still down. We are seeing bigger declines for the russell 2000, dow transports, down the most, down more than 2 . You so much. As if the transports and did not have enough bad news, a report from cnbc that boeing does not expect the 737 max to be signed off by the faa until june or july. Boeing is down about 3 on the news at the moment. Coming to us from capitol hill is emily wilkins, who has written who has been reporting all day long. Adam schiff was talking about the procedural motion. Where are we now . Emily each side will have two hours to argue for or against the procedural motion. After that we expect to see a vote. Right now were in the middle of the start of the process. You have also heard that there were a couple of changes to the process. There will now be three days instead of two days or both sides are present their case. We are also going to see previously, if they wanted evidence, from the house, it needed to be entered into the record and be voted on. Now it will be automatic unless somebody objects. Thank you so much. Now for a quick roundup of from our panel. Keith, lets start with you. Three days is what clinton got. I guess theyll be arguing eight hours a day for three days . Keith and maybe not so far into the dark of night, as leader schumer was saying. That is a little bit of an opening, concession. A littlet will make it more accommodating environment. I still suspect we will see lots ofmotions and a lot disruptions. Not of the statements, but when there will be motions. David you have been a student of impeachment. What will history record about this impeachment . Will history make a mark of this . David of course. Whenever Donald Trump Affairs in history book, the first sentence will be that will he will be that he was impeached. It is the mark that you carry with you. We need to see what will happen with this proceeding. As i said earlier, the factual itord, as underdeveloped as is, is a unique thing. If that continues and we get to a verdict without hearing from witnesses who seem to be quite relevant, that is going to be something will care a lot about and wonder if the impeachment process is broken. David does donald care about the fact that he was impeached . He can say i was impeached but i was cleared. Rick you can read into his stirredhat he is very by now having that tag of now being impeached. Part of the reason people run to doe presidency is something that they think will be life altering for themselves as a leader. This will follow him all the way to his obituary. This has got to have some salutary effect on the president. He wanted to avoid this at all costs. Some would argue that he didnt do much to avoid it. But that is his style of trying to create change, by bullying through. Nonetheless, its a reality, it will haunt him. Regardless of what evidence is presented over the next three or ongoings, there will be reporting on the ukraine scandal for a long time. David many thanks to our powell, rick davis, david o. Stewart, and keith ausbrook. More on the markets and the latest from davos. This is balance of power on Bloomberg Television and radio. Mark i am Mark Crumpton with first word news. President trumps impeachment trial began with, as expected, a fight over the ground rules. Senate majority leader Mitch Mcconnell said his resolution would give democrats just two days to give their case against the president , has enough republicans for to be adopted. Mcconnell wants to prevent both sides from calling witnesses. Sen. Mcconnell fair is fair. The process was good enough for president clinton, and as fairness dictates that ought to be good enough for this president as well. Mark Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer countered that mcconnells approach creates a trial that is in his words, rushed and rigged. Sen. Schumer mcconnell roles seem to be decided by President Trump for President Trump to it asks the senate to rush through as fast as possible and make getting evidence as hard as possible. Mark President Trump charged with abusing his office and obstructing a house investigation of his actions. China is trying to ease concerns