there's a lot about the case, they made their case based on innuendo and speculation and secret motivations or presumptions. today the facts are starting to come up and let's actually see what the facts are. i look forward to hearing more facts in the days ahead. [inaudible question] >> we will have 16 hours and questions, we will meet at the conference to decide what questions we want to post but the order may be of those questions, it seems like the chief justice will go back and forth one republican question, one democrat question. they will bring out more information from the white house counsel and some may be specifically to go after the house has provided. will be conferring, we'll meet again before we go in session monday. we'll talk about tuesday and probably not going to cut to that until wednesday. >> let me say this, the white

house counsel has just made the most powerful argument and the effect of witnesses and documents that could be made. they actually did a better job of making that argument even in the house managers made. why? the white house counsel laid out specific staff that they believe took forth the president's position in this case. to use one as an example, they said the release on aid and the hold on aid and then the release was based upon the president concern about corruption and burden. there was public reporting on the eight was released at the white house had to scramble to try to come up with a rationale for the whole. the documents are available. the documents would show whether there assertion of the fact is true or not. the white house counsel has just basically moved to us that we

can only grapple with the facts in this case that we get witnesses and documents. one of the white house counsel, mr. philbin said, cross-examination is the greatest engine to search for truth in our american system. they want to deny our ability to examine witnesses if cross-examination of witnesses is necessary. to discover the truth, how dare the white house and how dare the senate majority even contemplate a trial without witnesses or documents. my strong impression from the first two hours is not the case for witnesses and documents has gotten even stronger and i hope my colleagues, when we get to the end of it and get to questions, will embrace the need for procedures that would be required in a trial even in the traffic division.

[inaudible] >> i don't think the white house because in the democratic case. i do think they put assertions on the table that they think goes in the case but the assertions, you can't just take the lawyers word for it. the assertions have to be proven. some of the assertions they ma made, we know them to be false. an example, jake sekulow said well, the president had aid to other countries. that's true but when you went to the examples, he sent aid to the northern countries and he's now pursuing it. he announced he was doing it. i believe there's only one instance where president trump pause aid to a country, in this case ukraine and hid it from congress. he hid it from congress by not turning the whistleblower

complaint of r. if they only withheld aid once and tried to hide it, why did they try to hide it in this instance where they made it public? i don't really think they poked holes in the case but i will s say, they asserted facts which can easily be proven or disproven if witnesses and documents are available as they would be in a trial in any court. [inaudible] >> it wouldn't surprise me, i went into it without expectation but i was surprised that they made the case today about six facts which can be proven or disproven if there's witnesses or documents. it was almost like they were making the argument from the

very thing we've been asking for and the american public deserves. [inaudible] >> it's too early to say. obviously we have to hear the remaining presentation by the president defense counsel but if they stay on this. >> that resolution of these disputes really matter, i think they are going to increase the necessity of getting witnesses and documents. [inaudible] >> i don't, my belief is based on reviewing the questions, 16 hours for the be democrat or republican questions and it will go until their 16 hours. i think it was 11 hours are questions but i assume it will be alternating until their 16 hours of time that has gone by. [inaudible question] >> i want to see everything. thank you.

>> president's attorney presenting two hours of opening arguments today, they will be back 1:00 on monday as a trial resumes live coverage on c-span2, i want to let you know we are looking live at the studio on capitol hill, waiting to hear from senator chuck schumer and the house managers are expected to speak. we have a couple of camera locations across the capital and some of those were streaming live on c-span the orc as well. if you want to broaden of the coverage and see where some of the members are speaking, check out c-span.org for that. we want to hear from you and your comments, text, calls, let's hear from greg and long beach new york. >> thank you very much. i just want to say, i've been a businessman for 35 years in new york doing business with the trump organization. i don't understand why the country doesn't realize who we elected president.

i was a democrat that later became republican. donald trump's life was an open book in new york. a celebrity from beginning to end. we knew what we elected. we elected a businessman to try to turn us around. which is what he did. i don't understand why people, after just two hours of listening to the other side, can see everything that's been missed. why they chose not to include the stuff. >> appreciate that. here's some of what adam schiff heard after two hours. he tweeted, after listening to the presence lawyers opening arguments, i three observations. i don't contest the facts of trump scheme, try to deflect, distract from and distort the truth and they are continuing to cover it up by blocking documents and witnesses. bill is on the independent line.

>> hello. i've been independent all of my adult life. we voted for trump, my wife and i because he's a businessman. the business of a country. i've been watching the trials from day one. i agree with what's been said about the democrats repeating themselves and repeating themselves and repeating themselves. i appreciated today that the defense counsel only took two hours and a few things and showed us more facts that the manager, house managers didn't show. one thing that really stuck out to me was that they said trump did a blanket think not to cooperate. i don't remember the name from

the council that showed us, it was not a house resolution to make impeachment inquiry there, the subpoenas were not legal. how can we have a senate trial based on an illegal house investigation? i think that's one of the key points and when they read the transcript of the actual transcript of the call, i didn't hear any quid pro quo. i didn't hear anything other than as trump and zelensky both said was a perfect call. >> do you think the additional witnesses and documents should be allowed? >> if they want to get to the truth, if they want a true, fair hearing, they want a fair trial for the president, i believe

witnesses and documents should be there. >> appreciate that. we'll go to chris next in north carolina. democrat line. >> thanks for having me. >> chris, your on the air. go ahead. >> i'd like to start by saying young people need to get out and vote. i'm watching a stream on twitch with a bunch of other young people that are very enthused about watching this process. i would also like to say that it seems like republicans think we don't know how to google trump. they are so obsessed with younger people sitting on their phones all the time, they have the capability of google searching, it's not that hard. >> what are you googling? what are you finding out that's relevant to this money? >> the major thing is, i'm not sure why they would bring up the

mueller report. it doesn't have a bearing right now. they want to use it as an excuse that there was no collusion when mueller very clearly stated they were not investigating collusion. that it was based on true conspiracy. so the outright lie that i would like to mention. >> appreciate you calling in, find all of our coverage, documents related to the impeachment c-span.org/impeachment. text us at 2,027,488,003. of deputy white house counsel put in an articulate and detailed rebuttal. wichita kansas, the only people concerned with the call our deranged trump haters. the american people elect by way of the ballot box, interference with 2020 is okay as long as they ease in front of your name. jay sekulow nailed the entire

case. you cannot remove a president just because you disagree with those who advised he listens to, registered democrat. robert from blue springs, missouri. conservative and proud of it. listening to the arguments from the president's lawyers, i heard and saw the parody from mr. schiff. disgraceful from a public official. he's a danger to our great nation. he needs to be removed from office. continue to get your calls, comments or waiting to hear from the democratic leader in the senate, chuck schumer and the speakers reporters, we will hear from the house managers as well. republican line. >> thank you. i am so proud to be an american today. i have been watching and listening to all of the comments. i would like to say after listening to two hours this morning, i'm done.

i'm ready to move on. shifty schiff deserves his name. i'm surprised the democrats are so easily consumed with the theatric instead of the facts. it sounds like there's a lot of people paying attention to the facts though and they are coming out. do i think there ought to be other witnesses and other documents? no, i don't. i think the democrats especially schiff just took off on his own. i think that's going to come out more and more. they have not done the process they think they knew so well. that should have been done as happened in other impeachment cases. that will come out. i think the president has a good group of attorneys and i don't