been offered on the first article of impeachment and then one on the final article of impeachment. but, you know, everybody's looking for their moment of performative politics to raise money off of, and the senator from missouri grabbed one. i think he's competing with josh hawley to see if he can be better at performative politics, and that's quite a race between the two of them. so now after he objected to the agreement, then what schumer did is say, okay, let's do a point of order as to whether or not article i is even constitutional because it doesn't rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. and the vote was called, and now they're voting on it. and now they've got to figure out what they're going to do. so it will be interesting. this is, you know, it feels like a test run. if it's found unconstitutional, then i'd assume the next motion would be the motion, the resolution to dismiss the

impeachment. >> you pointed out earlier, claire, there are an awful lot of lawyers who are in that room who presumably at some point have read and understood the constitution, how much of the voting do you imagine will be based on those principles and how much on performative politics? >> it will be interesting to see what the republicans will do that have said out loud that this impeachment is not well placed. you know, mitt romney has said so. i think lisa today was trying to equivocate a little bit about whether or not there should be more procedure that felt like a trial before just an outright dismissal. i haven't read or seen what susan collins has said lately on the matter, but i said at the beginning of your show, chris. i do believe that all of the democrats and independents that would include kyrsten sinema and joe manchin and the whole crew

that caucus with the democrats. i believe all of them will vote to dismiss this when the appropriate time comes. i think it will be interesting to see if they all vote to determine that, in fact, this first article is on its face unconstitutional because it does not allege a high crime and misdemeanor. >> and then where will we go from there, ryan nobles. we should say, they have not started that vote yet. they will be voting on a point of order on the constitutionality, as claire just said of that first of the two articles that are laid out in this impeachment. what happens? >> reporter: so we'll get this vote. in my ways, it's a point of order, it doesn't tell us anything about whether or not there's going to be a motion to dismiss or table or convict or anything along those lines. it's basically just establishing a fact for the record. but it will, as senator

mccaskill point out, be very telling if it gets the 51 votes or more, and if we see republicans voting for it or democrats voting against it, that could forecast how long this process will take. i also think it's important to point out as senator mccaskill pointed out, senator schumer was offering the republicans an opportunity of 2 1/2 hours of debate over this particular issue. this would give them an enormous amount of television time and clips they could use down the road as part of this process. it's probably the most they can hope to get out of this trial, and they're balking at that, and theoretically, perhaps, reducing the amount of time that they'll get to talk about it because at any point, democrats could theoretically pull the plug. they chose to not take the path of the agreement that was on the floor which would basically provide a framework by which to operate here that would give all sides the opportunity to voice their concerns or lack of concern or their issues with

this impeachment proceedings, and, instead, have decided to try and do this more forceful, kind of conflicting way of protesting this process, to see, and in many respects, put these vulnerable democrats in a difficult position to take votes like this on a point of order like this. whether or not this is a binding thing, this point of order is not necessarily going to impact the conviction or non-conviction or acquittal of secretary mayorkas, it's a vote that every person in the senate is going to have to take here, and that could theoretically be used against them at a future date. that happens a lot where votes take place for the purpose of forcing people to take votes. it's difficult right now to forecast the way this is going to go because the two sides are not working with each other to figure out how this path forward is, and republicans would like to make this as difficult as they possibly can on democrats, and i think that's what we see playing out right now.

>> yeah, unfortunately we are in a place where not working together has become more the rule than the exception. and the two things that ryan nobles points out are two things you can watch for. one is to use votes against people, the second is to take anything variable to say and, gee, suddenly it ends up in a campaign ad. i want to bring in nbc's ali vitali. i know you closely follow how many members of the senate have viewed this point of order. tell us what you have been hearing on the hill from the u.s. senators. >> well, look, certainly i think it's striking to see this kind of a point of order because in many ways, ryan's right, this tees it up for a season of really tough defense battles for democrats in red states. the people i'm thinking about of course are people like jon tester in montana who i remember during his last race, chris, you were out there on his farm, if i'm remembering correctly, detailing what it was like to be running on the ground. it's not just him. it's also sherrod brown of ohio.

it's in nevada, jackie rosen, various races across the country. and so certainly that has been a thorny political issue, but i think what's striking to me is i have been having conversations on the other side of this building with senators is the way there's a divergence of view from republican senators. there are some, certainly like senator schmidt of missouri who former senator mccaskill was talking about, the people who want and are demanding a trial. those folks are not just demanding that a trial happen wu but warning if a trial doesn't happen, which is probably the way this is going to go, they will gum up the senate processes. mccaskill knows this well. this is a building that functions based on all 100 senators saying, yeah, okay, we can go through some of these procedural motions more quickly or dispense with some of the procedural motions more quickly. it runs quickly if all 100 senators say it should run quickly. if one senator, in the way that senator schmidt did, in the ways

they were trying to move this particular moment on the floor along, if one senator says i'm not good with that, they can gum up and slow down the process. that could be something we are in for now as a ramification of not holding a trial. that's what hard line conservatives like senator lee, like senator cruz, like senator schmidt all are promising could happen if you don't see the trial you want. senator lisa murkowski, a bipartisan leaning member, despite the fact that she's a republican, who's saying she doesn't think there's enough here to convict mayorkas of what house republicans are sending over for the senate to consider, but at the same time she does have concerns about the precedent that it could set to not have a trial in this instance and to not let people be able to basically vote on the conviction articles that are in front of the senate right now. again, we'll watch to see what's happening on the senate floor because we're sort of in a moment of uncharted territory when there are no rules and motions and hours of debate yet

agreed to. then we get to sort of see it unfold in realtime, and that's i think where we could end up seeing more of these politically potentially difficult votes as we watch them just sort of play this out in realtime with no agreements on how it's going to go, chris. >> ryan nobles, do we know why they haven't started this roll call vote? >> reporter: your guess is as good as mine. the senate, no one knows this better than senator mccaskill can be a very frustrating place sometimes. you'd think something as easy as starting the roll call, especially because they're all in there, they did the quorum call, and they're sitting at their desks right now. there could be, and this is speculation because i'm not in the room, they could be horse trading. there could be some conversations happening about potentially coming up with an agreement that they could all sign up for that would give everybody a little bit of what they were looking for. obviously they have been trying

to do that behind the scenes to no avail. that could be one of the reasons the vote hasn't taken place yet. a lot of times on the senate floor, things grind to a halt. nobody knows the exact reason why. that seems to be what we're dealing with right now. >> i want to bring in former rnc chairman michael steele, watching this unfold. we were talking about the fact, i don't know if you just joined us but that for a lot of folks, this is about putting democrats in a difficult position, like someone say, a jon tester who's in a red state with a difficult race ahead. it's about finding an opportunity for you to get something, maybe a little sound bite that you can put in to a campaign ad that shows in your mind how tough you are standing up against what's happening at the border. but what do you see when you watch this, michael steele? >> i see a level of dysfunction

that should concern every american out there, and certainly everyone who will be voting. when the binary system that we have can't work, when the two parties are at a point where if you don't give me what i want, i'm going to shut everything down, yeah, there's a lot to consider here. you know, the democrats, are they on the hook? i guess. i don't know why because there is no high crime or misdemeanor. even republicans say that. so you just want to do a show trial for what purpose? that's not going to be lost on the voters in ohio or anywhere elsewhere you have democrats who are running in quote, red states. those folks got elected. those voters kno them. they know them well, they know their character and their principles, so, you know, unless they've gone completely maga-f

maga-fied in that voting base, they can stand on that principle that there is no there here for us to vote on. but that's a political calculation. as you know. and the senator knows. senator mccaskill. and that's one they'll have to make. this is a dog and pony show trial. it stands for nothing. but it does represent in one sense exactly how dysfunctional our government has become that this has even gotten to the senate, that the republicans in the house just, you know, force fed this down our throats, pushed out a vote, and now expects the senate to convict someone with no evidence. that's how our, you know, process works now. well, for me, it kind of sets up what the future is going to look like. this will be the landscape that happens under a trump administration where all of a sudden former biden officials

are going to be hauled in front of congress to try to be convicted on what they did when they were in office. so there's a lot here for us to digest, but i think the big take away for me is this is just bad. this is a bad look for the country. it's a bad look right now. we've got other things more pressing that need to be addressed like ukraine and israel. republicans are so pissed off and concerned about the economy. where's your bill? what's your proposal to deal with, you know, the joe biden crimes that are happening on streets of america, the implosion of wall street or whatever scary scenario you're painting, you're not backing up with legislation. oh, but you're doing this. got it. >> let me pick up on what you said about how voters know or how these folks who are running, a jon tester, knows his state, and ali vitali was talking about the fact that i was on his farm

the last time he ran, and he was in a tough race. and then you know what happened? what happened was the guy he was running against called himself a rancher, but there were no animals on his farm, and jon tester very effectively turned that into what a lot of voters believe, which is he doesn't really get this state. that other guy doesn't get this state. yeah, he may be part of our party, but jon tester understands us. he lives the life we lead. he knows what is important. he doesn't live on some sprawling estate that he's calling a ranch. but that has no animals, and i'm not saying that was the only issue there. >> right. >> i was back home in ohio recently, and, yes, immigration is something people are talking about, but i wonder if in ohio and montana and other states

where there are going to be tight races if, michael steele, this, for the average american voter, this is just more of what they have come to expect from congress. it means nothing. it has no impact on the way they vote. they care about is something going to be done about immigration, they care about the economy. there are a lot of issues they care about, arguably in pennsylvania where the president is. they care about whether or not steel remains or grows as a thriving industry in the united states, maybe they just reject all of this and all the talk about how it's going to hurt certain members who are running for reelection is specious, and those who are going to fund raise off it, they're fundraising off the maga base which frankly was going to find a reason to contribute to them anyway.

>> i think you just framed that exactly right to be honest. and that's really where i was, you know, where i was coming from in what i said because that is where this is right now. for a lot of voters who have watched all of this play out, they still have the concerns that they have that are not whether or not mayorkas has or hasn't done what he said he was supposed to do on the border, et cetera, but how they're more directly impacted by this, and then you layer on top of that, someone like a jon tester, who is, you know, a rancher. he's a guy that everyone connects with. they understand his narrative. he has been in their homes and backyards and pubs and watering holes and on their farms. and so, yeah, all of this, and i think the lesson in the story that you told about, you know, his opponent not having the animals all of this gets exposed in the wash when it's really

rubber hitting the road, and you have to stand and confront those voters in september, october, before the vote in november. that's when all of this starts to shave away, and people sort of look at the man or woman in front of them and say, how much are you connected to what's really important to me, and i think someone like tester and sherrod brown and other democrats in red states will have an easier conversation with those voters versus the republicans that are running in blue states, for example, in congressional districts in the house or even in the u.s. senate will have carrying donald trump's baggage, the maga baggage, and crap like this. the phoney show trials. how do you talk about that. you had republicans on the house floor say could you give us something to run on other than what we're doing?

>> how does kari lake run on abortion, that's the other side, right, the other side is running on abortion. >> i take those republicans in the house who says give me something to run on here. we have done nothing. that's my campaign ad if i'm sherrod brown or jon tester. i'm like, okay, really. but we did this instead. this is what we did instead of, you know, actually dealing with the public policy matters that are important right now that need to get resolved. we gave you a border bill. the republicans rejected it. we put in front of you an infrastructure bill. they voted against it. we tried to address the inflation that was run away on the tail end of covid, we managed that. they poopooed it. really, what side of that argument do you want to have with voters, regardless of the color of the state.

this comes back to bite republicans. >> for folks who are just joining us, the impeachment trial in the senate for alejandro mayorkas is underway, but chuck schumer, the majority leader raised a point of order that he says the first impeachment article, there are two, does not allege conduct that rises to the level of a high crime or a misdemeanor as required under article ii section 4 of the constitution, and therefore is unconstitutional under the precedence and practices of the senate, so what happened is republicans then put the senate into a quorum, which basically means that they could do what they're doing right now, is to talk amongst themselves, decide what comes next, and while they do that, we're going to take a quick break. but claire mccaskill, michael steele, ryan nobles and ali

vitali are still with us. stay right there. re e there is ae in the erection, caused by a formation of scar tissue. and an estimated 1 in 10 men may have it. but pd can be treated even without surgery. say goodbye to searching online. find a specialized urologist who can diagnose pd and build a treatment plan with you. visit makeapdplan.com today. (♪♪) [shaking] itchy pet? (♪♪) with chewy, save 20% on your first pharmacy order so you can put an end to the itch. get flea and tick medication delivered right to your door. [panting]

you're probably not easily persuaded to switch get mobile providers forion delivere your business. door. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. all on the most reliable 5g mobile network—nationwide. wireless that works for you. for a limited time, ask how to save up to $830 off an eligible 5g phone when you switch to comcast business mobile. don't wait! call, click or visit an xfinity store today.

so in the senate, the impeachment trial of alejandro mayorkas only the second time in history a cabinet member has been brought before the senate for an impeachment trial got underway and then very quickly ground to a halt. we've got ali vitali here, julia ainsley, claire mccaskill, and michael steele. ali vitali, throughout the runup to this, there was a lot of talk that at this point in the proceedings there might be a motion to table or a motion to dismiss. did anybody see it coming that

chuck schumer would say, let's get rid of article i of these two impeachment articles? >> i feel like claire mccaskill is going to be one of the few people who can truly understand what it is to make a point of order on the senate floor because initially for us going into this, we assumed it would be republicans making points of order, which is basically them saying, let me drill down on one quick thing and force a vote on. now what we're seeing is after they dismissed the general idea of forming a few hours of debate, a few various motions, we watched that be dispense with early on, and we saw senator schumer say a point of order on the constitutionality of the first of the charges that are being brought before the senate, which are willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law. this is now why you see things ground to a halt. republicans are trying to figure out where to go next here. several of them are huddled in various different groups. some of them in the cloak room. some of them you can maybe see,

not in this shot but the periphery of the chamber for colleagues sitting in there and watching. what's going to happen here, and i think why we're seeing a pause that's so lengthy is that the idea of the constitutionality of mayorkas willfully ignoring the law is something that even some republicans have called into question. they have said, hey, this is a secretary who's just following out the orders of the president, and this is someone who might be and is complying with the laws as they are written. republicans are arguing the contrary, but there are some senate republicans who said they don't believe he's willfully ignoring the laws of this country and he should not be convicted on this offense. if they are to move forward with a vote on this point of order and the senators on the republican and democratic side are able to come forward and say we do not believe that this particular point of conviction is constitutional, then that would be it for article i. then they would move on, i would imagine, to article ii, which is a breach of trust from secretary

mayorkas. that could be another point of order. without getting too far ahead of ourselves, that's what we're watching and waiting to see now. yes, it could be one of those politically thorny votes that we were talking about earlier. it also could be something that dispenses with this trial more quickly than we thought it was going to be, and you're watching me look down only because our ever moving capitol hill chat is constantly putting updates in here. it seems like we are still in a holding posture here on the senate floor as you watch folks mill about, have conversations and sort of wait to see what this next procedural step might bring. >> what do you think it might be, claire mccaskill? what are the conversations that are going on? >> there's a couple of things that are fascinating about this pause. mitch mcconnell put them in a quorum call, but typically when you see scrums on the floor, the leader of the party that's trying to figure out what to do next is part of those conversations. what's been fascinating to me is that you see robert duncan, and

he's not on the screen right now, but he's the floor manager for mitch mcconnell and the republicans. gary myrick is the same thing for schumer and the democrats. so typically you see gary myrick and robert duncan would be going back and forth, basically -- and there's gary myrick, he just came in on the screen. he's standing by schumer's desk right now, you would see the two of them conferring and then going back and checking with their constituencies, the republican and democratic senators as to what people will agree to. the democrats aren't doing any negotiating here. the democrats have decided, schumer has decided a vote on this makes sense. it is probably because he believes some of the republicans have said to him they don't think it's constitutional, and he thinks he may get one or two or three or four of those votes. it means he's probably confident about the votes he's got in his own caucus, and now the republicans are scurrying around

figuring out what to do because schumer offered them up on silver platter, two and a half hours of debate, 15 different votes where they could do what you all referred to earlier, gotcha votes. there are things that are put on the floor just to get people on record. we used to call them 30-second ad votes. oh, it's another 30-second ad vote. schumer offered them all of that. and they had one member, and from what i can tell, it didn't appear to me there was a lot of other members that were also objecting, just the junior senator from missouri. but watching those scrums, mitch mcconnell is not in them. the main scrum that happened, was, in fact, thune was in it, cruz was in it. there have been other senators that have wandered in and out of the scrum. what they're trying to figure out is what kind of deal do they

want to make with schumer to get some debate time. it looks like to me, schumer has not moved from that chair, and mitch mcconnell hasn't moved either, so this is all going on, i think, among the republican members of the caucus as to how to go forward, and the fact that gary is just standing there and not doing any shuttle work means that this is a fight within the republican caucus, not between the two parties. >> and who's on each side? where's that fight happening between whom? >> i think the fight is going on between the maga senators. and the maga senators, mostly the new ones, marshal from kansas. schmidt from missouri, you know, that genius tuberville from down in alabama, where, you know, lord knows what iq he had to coach football because he doesn't appear to be the smartest guy in the chamber, and a lot of others that are trying to be maga or maga-like.

and then there's the senators like i don't want to name names because it will probably hurt them politically, but there's a bunch of senators that aren't in that camp that are still more thought. and, frankly, don't think that donald trump has been good for their party. they don't say it out loud, but they certainly say it privately, and so i think that's probably the schism you're saying, those who want to play in politics and throw a fit, and others who are trying to be pragmatic. if the votes aren't here, let's highlight a political issue and move on. >> i want to bring in "new york times" chief white house correspondent peter baker. i can't imagine democrats aren't watching this with at least some degree of appreciation for yet again another show of the divisions within the republican party as claire mccaskill puts it between the maga wing of the

party, which exists very strongly in the house but also obviously in the senate, and other members. let me just say the person who is in the middle of this, alejandro mayorkas, we have mentioned this before, is not here. in fact, this morning he was out doing the business of the department of homeland security and there's a lot that has to be done. let me play for you what he said when he was asked about these proceedings. >> the senate is going to do what the senate considers to be appropriate. as that proceeds, i'm here in new york city on wednesday morning, fighting online child sexual exploitation and abuse. we are focused on our mission. our mission is an imperative to keep everyone safe and secure. >> in summary, peter baker, the senate is going to do what it's going to do. i have my job to do. what's the white house view of all of this. and what have your conversations been with folks there? >> look, you see alejandro

mayorkas out doing his job, as you say, in the last few months. he was making a point of getting around town. nobody wanted to be impeached. he knows he's not going to be convicted. therefore he wants to give the appearance of somebody who thinks it's just politics, which i think he does think. i think the white house thinks what you just said, if republicans want to put their divisions on display again, have at it. it doesn't affect them. there's a larger question here, though, beyond the politics of the moment and the day and that is the future of impeachment as a useful constitutional tool. right? and what you're hearing from critics of what this impeachment is they have diminished the point of impeachment, high crimes and misdemeanors, to

ferret out disruption in the halls of power. rather than a policy dispute, what the democrats say and certainly what appears from the face of the articles of impeachment to be. the flip side, you hear republicans say, look, if you don't have a trial, if you dismiss out of hand and don't consider it, you're also setting a precedent that they themselves will use when the moment comes, some impeachment comes, a republican official, like donald trump if he were to win and the republicans say we have a precedent, we dismiss out of hand without bothering to consider it. this has real impact beyond today and beyond alejandro mayorkas. >> it does. what do you do in the future, and i don't think there's any question about it when you look at the sheer numbers of how many impeachments have been held over history, and how many impeachments have been held in the last several years. you can see how much it's been used. now, you can make the argument in various cases how much of it was political, how much of it was legitimate. but where does this stand right

now, claire mccaskill? >> first of all, i don't think the impeachment has really risen significantly with the exception of donald trump. there's never been a president like donald trump. you sit in a criminal courtroom right now, that's never happened before. we don't have time today to list all of the things that donald trump has done as president and as the former president that had never been done before. so, yes, there were two impeachments during the trump administration. there was one impeachment while i was in the senate for 12 years, and that was a judge who was convicted. and he was delaying leaving the bench because he wanted to collect his pension. he was stalling and insisting on a trial. i don't think impeachment necessarily is going to be the norm. i certainly hope the democratic party doesn't follow this example and try to use impeachment as a political performance as opposed to a serious matter of substance. i would like to believe that would not occur, and frankly, if

the democrats did that, the republicans would be within the right to call for a vote on whether there was a high crime or misdemeanor within the articles of impeachment. i just disagree that -- you got to take trump out of the equation when you start talking about how many impeachments there have been. he's a different animal when it comes to the enormous of the united states presidency. let's hope it's never repeated with presidents of either party in the future. that will remain to be seen with the maga movement, but clearly it was his two impeachments that made impeachment seem more common. >> ali vitali, let me go back to you because we got a tweet, an x, what do we call it now. from mike lee. he said he is scrambling with ted cruz to respond to schumer's baseless point of order, saying it didn't identify an

impeachable offense. mike lee calls it nonsense. they are scrambling, apparently. >> reporter: cruz and lee are back on the floor and it seems that they're speeding up this quorum call. so they might be getting ready to move on. it's not clear. we are very much playing this out in realtime. i do think it's notable because the way that senator schumer's office explained it to us, you can't make a point of order on a point of order. procedurally, i think there are some questions about how republicans might best proceed so that they can achieve their end goals. of course, senators cruz and lee are part of the small coalition of hard line republicans that you were talking about earlier who are really trying to push this into a trial and trying to gum up the senate processes if they don't get what they want. they have held multiple press conferences, not just cruz and lee, alongside senator schmidt. senator johnson and others, trying to say that this needs to

be a trial. they are also the ones who worked in tandem with house speaker johnson who push this off. it was supposed to happen last week that the articles were transmitted to the senate. the motion to dismiss would have happened on a thursday. that is a day all of us who cover congress like to know, senators like to get out of town as fast as they can. thursday is typically a fly out day. we're seeing this play out in the middle of the week. house republicans decided we can do this in the early part of the week, as opposed to the latter half of last week. that was the idea on the timing. we'll keep an eye on the screen and the text chain. while we're watching this moment of effectively confusion about what comes next on the senate floor, there's a similar point of confusion of what's happening on the house side. the more important issues congress has to deal with

thousand, chief among them, the foreign aid supplemental bill, which we are waiting to see how speaker johnson deals with it. what we're going to see on the house floor over the next few days is them try to get on to the business of voting on individual bills for ukraine, for israel, for the indoe-pacific and a litany of other republican priorities in a fourth bill. it's not clear they have the votes to do that, to consider the package of rules that the speaker has unveiled just in the last few hours frankly. there's dysfunction on both sides of this building as we watch a small crop of hard line conservatives both in the house and the senate sort of drive the way that these two chambers are functioning right now. i will say to senator mccaskill's point about where is mitch mcconnell in all of this, our team watching the chamber say he wasn't on the floor. he is now back on the floor, but i also think his role in this is fascinating. we have seen the so called

breakfast club. the conservative group of senators made up of the people we have been talking about sort of take the baton and pressure their republican leadership in a way that we have not seen mcconnell threatened in his power before. and i think that, you know, senator mccaskill is right to point that out. it is a change within the house republican caucus about how they function and where their center of power actually lies. >> for people who remain puzzled by everything that they see, michael steele, both in the house and to some extent in the senate, how did it get to this point where a relatively small number of people seem to exert so much control about what's happening? >> i mean, i think a lot of it hassed to -- has to go to, it's

not just the trumpian period we're in. it goes back to the days of newt gingrich. he brought political warfare inside the building. when i give talks, i tell people to go back and read the farewell address of former speaker jim wright, who forecasted this moment, this period in the house and senate. when you lose decorum, when you respect for the institution, when your political opponents become your political enemies to the point where you're outright saying i hate them, this is what government looks like and people need to understand, this is an extension of you, this is a reflection back on you of what you are reflecting as well. that's why voting matters, participation, accountability,

matter. because it helps maintain the order. mitch mcconnell is sitting in that front row chair. mitch mcconnell's on his way out the door. he's lost the fight, right. mike lee and ted cruz and josh hawley in the senate. marjorie taylor greene runs the house, and this happens because over the course of time the political leader ship gave into baser motives, grifting, cash, raising money, and manipulating votes to keep power, and that reality is now coming home to roost. and the same is true for both parties in various forms. democrats had the moment staved off the progressive movement with the dlc. you see that light burning in

the corner. both parties have to deal with this. right now it's really hot and focused on the republican side of it. it speaks more broadly to where our body politic is. >> senator murray is back gaveling in. >> madame president, i rise to make a motion. the majority leader has argued that secretary mayorkas's defiance of federal immigration law and active aiding and abetting of the worst criminal invasion in our nation's history does not constitute a high crime or misdemeanor. he has presented no argument on that question. he's presented no briefing on that question, and the position is directly contrary to the constitution, to the original understanding of the constitution at the time it was ratified and to the explicit position of the biden department of justice as argued before the supreme court of the united states. the majority leader's position is asking members of the senate

to vote on political expediency to avoid listening to arguments. the only rational way to resolve this question is to debate it, to consider the constitution and consider the law. >> the senator will recognize that the senate is in a non-debatable position. the senator has a right to offer his point of order. or his motion but we are in a non-debatable position. >> my motion is to change that so we can debate the law as senators care what the constitution and law says. i move that the senate proceed to close session to allow for deliberation on the question as required by impeachment rule 24. >> madame president. >> in our previous consent request away gave your side a chance for debate in public where it should be. and your side objected. we are moving forward. >> the question is on the motion. >> ask for the yays and nays.

is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second, the clerk will call the roll. >> ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennett. mrs. blackburn, mr. blumenthal. no. >> mr. booker. >> no. >> mr. boazman. mr. braun. >> aye. >> mrs. brit. >> aye. >> mr. brown. >> no. >> mr. bud. >> aye. >> ms. butler. >> no. >> ms. cant well. >> no. >> mrs. capito. >> aye. >> mr. cardin. >> no. >> mr. carper. >> no. >> mr. casey. >> no. >> mr. cassidy. >> aye. >> ms. collins. >> aye. >> mr. coons.

>> no. >> ms. cortez masto. >> no. >> mr. cotton. >> aye. >> mr. kramer. mr. cruz. >> aye. >> ms. duckworth. >> no. >> mr. durbin. >> no. >> mr. fetterman. >> no. >> so just so you know what they're voting on here, you saw ted cruz, that was his motion to go into closed session. you just heard the response from chuck schumer. we gave them the possibility of two and a half hours of debate, 15 different resolutions argue this should be held in public. while they are voting, and we'll continue to follow that. really quickly, julia ainsley, i want to go to you. ted cruz said something that should have a fact check.

he said mayorkas presided over the worst criminal invasion in history. fact check that for us. >> reporter: look, how do you define that in legal term, but what we've seen is a very low number of anyone posing a threat who has crossed the boarder and to call it an invasion is a misrepresentation of the facts because the people who cross the border are stopped by customs and border protection, and they're processed. yes, there are some people who come in, they call them got aways in the ports of entry. the majority are processed, vetted and then released with a court date and many of them are on alternatives to detention, a program that tracks them as they lead up to that court date. they're claiming their international right to asylum in the process. they can get work authorization. they cannot get a right to an attorney. they cannot access medicaid, medicare benefits. there are a lot of things that are misconstrued about this process, often by the republican party to explain what's happening here.

yes, we have seen record numbers of immigrants cross, 9.3 million undocumented migrants crossing the border since biden took office, the highest under any administration. the numbers have continued to rise. they were higher under trump than there were under obama. there are more people displaced globally, than any other time since world war ii. this is something the administration is wrestling with. they have not opened the flood gates here. they are wrestling with more migrants and fewer resources than they would like. they want more agents at the border. they want to get more intelligence on who is crossing. we have asked for more funding for i.c.e. so they can continue to do deportation flights. they haven't gotten a lot of funding from the very leaders who are proposing they move forward with the impeachment trial today. >> thank you for that, julia. let's go back to this motion to

go to closed session. we are getting toward the end of the roll call vote. l vote ali vitali i don't know how closely we were able to track this, but to our understanding, mostly along party lines here? >> reporter: yeah, that's my understanding as well. of course the key votes that i was looking at was for senator sinema, she voted no on this motion, which means that she does not want them to go into closed session.

someone we have been talking a lot about here, jon tester, embattled senator from montana voted no. this seemed to be a full party line vote, all democrats voted no and seemingly all republicans voted yes. there are a few i want to check on. i'm going to wait for the team to give the full tally here. again, i think when you see senator ted cruz and hear him citing supreme court decisions, it's the reminder that he is a former clerk to a former supreme court justice himself. they've got their constitutional scholars within that group of republicans who are trying to force this process forward. this was expected, i believe, according to our sources that this was how cruz was going to push forward, once schumer made that point of order and we're in a position of waiting. if they're not going in a closed session, we'll see what senator schumer wants to do next. we're watching and waiting as we

see where they go. when they go into a session like this, and they don't have a full-on agreement of x number of hours of debate, and then a vote, this is what happens where it plays out in realtime. you watch each side try to leverage procedural steps to their advantage. this one may have worked to schumer's advantage, but again, we'll see when they get back on the floor, and i want to check with our team on how some of these republicans voted and if any of them actually stepped out of their party lines. i'm not sure on that right now at this point. >> and when you get that, feel free to give us the high sign and we'll come back to you. claire mccaskill, how do you read what you see happening on the floor? >> the only vote i heard that was really important was collins, and she did vote with the republicans on cruz's motion. now, it appears this motion is going to go down on a party line vote. the next thing up is schumer's original point of order.

that still would have to be voted on. this is basically saying no to cruz's motion to go into closed session. >> to what end? to the average person, the average voter sitting out there, they're saying, well, if you want to impeach this guy, why are you going into closed session? that was essentially what chuck schumer said. any debate should be in public. >> somebody like jon tester and others have the right to say, why would we want to hide this from the public what we're doing. why do the republicans want to go behind closed doors. if they're so proud of this impeachment process, wouldn't they want to trumpet it in front of the american people? it was a weird motion, i believe, in terms of going into closed session. it was also weird because he was misstating things about the constitutional law. >> let's go back to the floor, but ted cruz's motion fails.

>> specious about the constitutionality of these impeachment proceedings. we find ourselves in the awkward position because we're in impeachment proceedings of being unable to success in public the merits of senator schumer's claim, and at the same time, my democratic friends have refused to go into closed session so we can't discuss it. for that reason, madame president, i move we adjourn this court of impeachment immediately until 12:00 noon on tuesday, april 30th, and i ask for the yeahs and nays. >> is there a sufficient second? >> ms. baldwin. >> no. >> mr. barrasso. >> aye. >> mr. bennett.

>> that was louisiana senator john kennedy. claire mccaskill, let's just say they say sometimes that the wheels of justice don't run smoothly, the wheels of the senate don't seem to necessarily be running smoothly. let me go back to getting your take on what we're seeing happen on the floor here. >> yeah, well technically kennedy's right. i mean, technically once you've been sworn in and impeachment, senators frankly aren't allowed to debate anything. they're not supposed to speak anymore. it's supposed to be, you know, nothing but that. so that's why this agreement that schumer offered was so important to the republicans. they know they don't have the votes for impeachment. the only opportunity they had to get their arguments out in front of the american people was the agreement that schumer offered up for hours of debate and many many votes on all kinds of resolutions. once they turned that down, they

are limited into what -- and that's why you see patty murray keeps reminding them as the sitting president pro tem of the senate, you can't debate right now. all you can do is make a motion, and that's why they are now moving to adjourn. because i don't think they quite know what to do. other than adjourn. i don't know what adjourning gets them, other than just delaying this and giving them the opportunity to pound the desk and say, oh, they aren't performing the trial the way they should. that one vote showed you that schumer came into this chamber knowing that he had the votes, and he held on to the votes even with the simple motion just to debate behind closed doors the constitutionality of the entire impeachment proceeding because of the lack of high crimes and misdemeanors. peter baker, we only have a minute left, and i'll give you 45 seconds of it, but how you imagine democrats and the white house are viewing what they're seeing right now?

>> well, look, i think they would like to get this done and over with if they had the opportunity to. it's a distraction from their point of view. on the other hand, if it makes republicans look like they're you know, in disarray, they're perfectly happy with that too. i think that, you know, they look like they have their act together at the moment. they are voting as a caucus, and as long as they do, they're in charge here. and republicans are trying to make hay of it, and they're thag trying to say the democrats are not taking this seriously. i think to the white house, it would be perfectly fine to have this go away. >> i want to thank all of our guests, peter, claire, michael, julia, a li, join us for "chris jansing reports" every weekday here on msnbc. our coverage of the impeachment of alejandro mayorkas, the senate trial will continue with "katy tur reports" next. "katy tur reports" next. his #2s are perfect!

he's a brand new dog, all in less than a year. when people switch their dog's food from kibble to the farmer's dog, they often say that it feels like magic. but there's no magic involved. (dog bark) it's simply fresh meat and vegetables, with all the nutrients dogs need— instead of dried pellets. just food made for the health of dogs. delivered in packs portioned for your dog. it's amazing what real food can do. (man) mm, hey, honey. looks like my to-do list grew. "paint the bathroom, give baxter a bath, get life insurance," hm. i have a few minutes. i can do that now. oh, that fast? remember that colonial penn ad? i called and i got information. they sent the simple form i need to apply. all i do is fill it out and send it back. well, that sounds too easy! (man) give a little information, check a few boxes, sign my name, done. they don't ask about your health? (man) no health questions.

-physical exam? -don't need one. it's colonial penn guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance. if you're between the ages of 50 and 85, your acceptance is guaranteed in most states, even if you're not in the best health. options start at $9.95 a month, 35 cents a day. once insured, your rate will never increase. a lifetime rate lock guarantees it. keep in mind, this is lifetime protection. as long as you pay your premiums, it's yours to keep. call for more information and the simple form you need to apply today. there's no obligation, and you'll receive a free beneficiary planner just for calling. -unnecessary action hero ... the nemesis. -it appears that despite my sinister

efforts, employees are still managing their own hr and payroll. why would you think mere humans deserve to do their own payroll? because their livelihoods depend on it? because they have bills to pay? hear me now, paycom! return the world of hr and payroll to its rightful place of chaos or face a tsunami of unnecessary the likes of which you have never seen!

good to be with you, i'm katy tur. we're catching the impeachment trial of homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas on the floor soft senate right now or as john fetterman calls it "the jerry springer show." how many other senators feel the same. not all of them. and will they debate the merits? it wle