low. majority leader, democratic leader, house managers, members of the senate, danger, danger, danger. these articles must be rejected and the constitution requires it. justice demands it. majority leader, we would ask for a short recess if we can, 15 minutes. >> the majority leader is recognized. >> we will be in recess for 15 minutes. >> without objection. >> impeachment trial and a 15

minute break now. we heard from the white house defense team that when they return after this break you will hear from white house counsel, pat cipollone and he will conclude the presidents opening arguments. they have had three days to make their opening arguments, 24 hours and it turns out they will use about half of that time. we want to get your reaction to what you have heard and we are expecting some senators and possibly a house managers, maybe even the president's attorneys, to go to the different cameras positioned throughout the capital on the senate side. the one we see one of them approach we will go to that. in the meantime, we want to take your phone calls. democrats (202)748-8920 republicans (202)748-8921 and all others (202)748-8922 you can text us as well at 202748

###-8003 butter member to put your first name, city and state. while the white house attorneys were making their concluding remarks of their opening arguments alan dershowitz, who we all heard from last night in the senate impeachment trial was tweeting at the same time and sent out this tweet -- referring to senator elizabeth warren and her comments about not following his arguments last night but he said born does not understand law. my former colleagues senator warn claims she cannot follow my carefully laid out presentation that everybody else seemed to understand what this says more about warren that it does about me. then he said she also willfully mischaracterized what i said claiming i spoke about intent could i challenge her to find that word anywhere in my presentation. i talked about the difficulty of discerning mixed motives. he also said this, if warren knew anything about corolla she would understand the distinction

between motives which are not elements of crime and intent, which is paid is the response will be a presidential candidate to have a better understanding of the law. the two of them, harvard law professors together at one time. alan dershowitz still a professor there. as we said our c-span's capitol hill producer is in the chamber during these proceedings and here are a couple tweets from him, observations he made inside the senate impeachment trial date eight which started a few minutes later at 1:03 of his scheduled 1:00 p.m. start time. twenty, 30 senators on both sides of the aisle work missing with chief justice roberts gaveled the trial back into session. he also noted that michigan gop representative fred upton who is not a member of the presidents impeachment team is on the senate floor. seated in the back of the chamber watching the impeachment trial. some reporters on capitol hill,

john put of politico tweeting out senate rubble begins are excited to me today after the presidents lawyers finish up their presentations but after we hear from pat cipollone republicans respected to go behind closed doors and deliberate about what is next. maggie from "the new york times" has breaking news, you all know the past couple of days along with michael schmidt tweeting out the president [inaudible] sees it as likely in conversations with people his team, meanwhile, but the white house lawyers weren't aware of the substance of what is in bolton's book. now, also politico reporting lindsay graham supports a plan to let senators view bolton's transcripts. whenever roll call is reporting that getting a subpoena for that transcript could prove difficult as there will be intellectual property rights issues with that. you also have senator rand paul

today in this quote from "the washington post", torching bolton as a quote disgruntled fired employee. let's listen to what senator graham had to say earlier today about witnesses and john bolton. >> senator. >> here is what i am at at witnesses. i am ready to make my decision based on the record established in the house and the house chair is not to pursue witnesses that were available to them and i do not to start a president doing at half ass and house and expect the senate to do it. i have no idea what they are talking about. senator langford has suggested that maybe the manuscript should be available in a classified settings and let senators read it for themselves. that sounds like a reasonable solution to me however, if people want witnesses we will get a lot of witnesses and this

idea of calling more makes zero sense to me. what i would say is that there is not a scintilla of evidence that the bidens connection to ukraine was inappropriate and there is -- of evidence so the house managers told the senate this is baseless and has been been debunked. i think the defense team yesterday made a damning indictment for the hunter and joe biden what they allowed to happen and it's not an american interest to ever see this happen again in the ukraine where hunter biden basically turned it into an atm machine but we will go to that and there is media reports that have suggested dnc staffer met with ukrainian officials about 2015 election. i don't know if that is true or not but if we will open this up to additional inquiry we will go down the road with a legitimate for the president to believe there was corruption and complex with interest on the bidens part in not ukraine but we will fully explore that whether or not this

good ability to the idea that d&c may have been working with ukraine. >> mr. chairman then, what is your vote going to be on that opening question of what -- >> i will let you know friday but right now i feel comfortable with the idea i have enough. i'm just telling everybody who thank you can surgically deal with this, it will not happen. i will make a prediction but they will be 51 republican votes to call hunter biden, joe biden, the whistleblower and the dnc staffer at a very minimum. >> [inaudible] >> he said if the aid was conditioned i would be wrong -- >> i have said basically that they prove to me it wouldn't be wrong for president trump not to raise this issue but you have to be willfully blind and say that democratic misconduct does not

matter to you, not to believe that the president had a good reason to ask the ukraine to look into the biden affair. you had media reports right before the july 25 meeting and as much as i like joe biden he needs to answer questions of why he allowed his son to continue to receive millions of dollars from burisma when he should have known it was accomplice of interest. if a republican had been that same situation he would be all over all of us wanting to know why we're not calling these people as witnesses. as much as i like joe biden he has to answer for his time as the leader of anticorruption efforts in the ukraine. apparently it was in a classified setting now. i'm just suggesting if it's in a classified setting now let's look at it but this was senator langford's idea and it makes perfect sense to me. i don't know if it's achievable but that would be a solution. >> one more quick question --

>> lindsay graham earlier today talking to reporters on witnesses and calling witnesses. the headline in the hill newspaper this morning that the majority leader mitch mcconnell struggles to maintain gop unity post the news from that manuscript to john bolton's book. elizabeth is on capitol hill reporter saint senator braun says he does not feel the need to see bolton minister because he knows dershowitz argued that even if the claims made in the book are true they don't rise to the level of an impeachable offense. on capitol hill, senate chamber, house republicans are part of the president's defense team talking to reporters. >> but to think the articles of impeachment will come over here to hijack the senate the way it has and they say 1000 times over no one is above the law but they don't even accuse the president of breaking any law. it is time to move on and it is

time to move forward but i will leave you with this, just imagine what would happen in our country if you play this out, not just long-term, not just the next time you have a republican house with a democratic president and this new lower standard but what happens the next day? i care about our republic. my background is in the military and i still serve in the army reserve. i was in iraq with the 82nd airborne division. [inaudible] we have people going overseas for their tenth deployment. they may have a four -year-old and a six -year-old home and why do they make that sacrifice? why are they willing to lay down their life for our flag and for our freedoms and for our liberties and for our constitution? willing to risk it all, not just for friends and families but for

strangers. all of you as patriots, regardless of whether you are in congress, member of the media were watching at home, think about what this means for america. time to move on. happy to answer any questions you have. >> [inaudible] >> first off, the standard and burden of proof is not on the president to prove his innocence. mamie any members of the house who say the president is guilty until he proves his innocence. that is not the american way. but the very first president who came to testify get a transcribed interview from colonel volker and if you go back to his definition that started this whole thing off he said that the readouts from ukraine and the u.s. after the call make no reference to quid pro quo or a hold on aid. that is the next day on july 26

kirk volker met with president zelensky and had no record of quid pro quo or paws on aid. in the weeks that follow with all of the contacts between ambassador volker and president zelensky and his top aides there's no reference to quid pro quo or hold on eight. ... ukraine didn't have to do anything you an order to get the hold on. these facts with the very first facts we learned with the very first witness in front of adam schiff. >> republicans of said none of those witnesses in the house were in the room with the president or had a conversation with the president. why don't they want to get from people like john bolton?

>> actually ambassador volker did have that direct conversation with the the prest of the united states. and to that point -- let me just answer it. because ambassador volker, he did speak. but on top of that, going back to the fall of 2017 president trump was directly expressing his concern to ambassador volker of the need to fight corruption in ukraine. >> we will break away from the house republicans, take you over to another camera, senator richard blumenthal democrat from connecticut is talking to reporters. >> -- was a factory summation of a case bereft of evidence. [inaudible] -- i hope my colleagues look themselves in the mirror and

look at how they will be conducted. >> what do you think -- [inaudible] >> what we want is the truth. not quid pro quo. we've seen what a quid pro quo does. we need the truth and we need the witnesses who were in the room -- firsthand knowledge beginning with the john bolton, his notes so that the american people can -- [inaudible] not a trump campaign manager on the floor of the senate, like a quid pro quo. >> would you prefer to have witnesses one by one or have a slate of witnesses? >> our view is we want all four witnesses, john bolton, mick mulvaney, robert blair and mike duffey, all of them with relevant firsthand knowledge. and the document that we would

like as well, whether it's one by one or in total, we would like votes on all of them. [inaudible] >> and deeply alarmed and concerned, and begin it reflects diminishing leadership of this president and his credibility, which is so reduced by his essentially lack of honesty to the world and to the american people. but the potential for huawei to be integrated into the uk system is deeply concerning, and hope they will -- [inaudible] >> do you think it will affect the relationship between america and the uk? >> i hope it will not because i hope the uk will be better of this potentially very misguided

and possibly -- [inaudible] >> thank you. >> let's get to some calls. shirley in arkansas of first. your reaction to what you've heard today. >> caller: well, i voted democrat for 59 years, but with all that's going on i'll never ever vote for democrat. they are corrupt. they're their making as become d world country, and i will never as long as i live, even though i'm 80 years old, i will never vote democrat ever again. >> because of what you've heard in this impeachment? >> caller: yes why. my specifically? >> caller: they are so crooked. >> dug in california and independent. your turn. >> thank you for taking my call. the whistleblower is what is on

my mind. i believe nobody has ever seen the whistleblower. nobody knows the whistleblower, except for mr. allen schiff. i'm just beginning to wonder if howland schiff is the whistleblower. >> host: it is adam schiff, the chair of the intelligence committee from california. the senate is past the break there. they broke at 2:18 or we're coming up on the end of the break time. the majority leader mitch mcconnell is we saw him walking back into the chamber so we do not control the cameras. when they come up, when the cameras come up that is when we'll go right back into the chamber. we may have to cut off your remarks so we can get you back in there quickly as they resume. their concluding remarks from the president's lawyers. we are expected to hear from pat cipollone. he said he will not take all of

their 24 hours. they will take about half of it and he said they would conclude by dinnertime, if not before. let's go to danny in florida, republican caller. danny. hello, danny. let me try one more time. danny, are you there? >> caller: on here tremors go ahead. >> caller: , trump said is goino run on a basis of draining the swamp, and i've never -- i worked construction for 50 years and you don't drain the swamp without muddying the water. as with a lot of democrats fixing to wash over the damn. dam. that's my opinion on it. >> host: danny in florida. after we hear the conclusion of the president's lawyers opening remarks this afternoon, the hillary's reporting service who can suck when you meet doors, the majority leader mitch mcconnell according to

sources, he has called the meeting to get his gop colleagues on the same page as phase one of the impeachment trial nears its in. under the trials organizing resolution which mcconnell drafted, senators will have 16 hours to ask questions of the house managers and the president's lawyers before voting on whether it should be in order to subpoena additional witnesses such of the former national security adviser john bolton and acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney. they will meet behind closed doors and then they are expected to start with their questioning of house managers and the president's lawyers tomorrow. that is what is being reported by reporters up on capitol hill. him early in philadelphia, caller. >> caller: my concern is that the practice of the gop systematically blocking information from the public is not serving as well. no one including the president

is above the law. the gop has basically been acting as if their role is to defend the president, uphold his agenda. starting with the holding of legislation by mitch seems since the president has been in office, the gop is basically been upholding his agenda as opposed to appearing as if they are working for the public as each sender is to be. now, regarding these charges and impeachment, we've heard also claims that the impeachment is invalid, as if it's not defined by our constitution. each of our elected officials including the president is expected to serve a particular role in upholding our constitution, and that does not seem to be happening. they determined before the trial even started and identified

themselves as biased jurors. imagine that. imagine that, never have we seen any such behavior and claim and willingness to stand up and say that as if it would be accepted by the american people. >> host: kimberly, more observation from c-span's capital producer craig kaplan. senate floor desk mates, senators called and murkowski spoke to each other for a few minutes in their seats at the top of the recess. also been what over and spoke to jerry now the one of the house managers seat of the mentors table turkey returned to trial today after being in newark city monday was wife is undergoing pancreatic cancer treatment. michael in california, independent. >> caller: thank you for providing the coverage. very much appreciate it. i think the biggest issue is when you go to trial, you have to be tried for breaking a law, and you have to have evidence. anybody in your community who

has gone to civil or criminal trial can attest to that. to me, that hasn't happened. i think witnesses and press statements all just take away from that. i think this needs to stop and they need to be resubmitted under constitutionally correct means. >> host: okay. leeann caldwell coproducers for nbc tweeting out just after the break with college and murkowski chatted quietly for about five minutes. each had a hand covering their mouth likely to assure that reporters or perhaps other senators could not pick up what they had to say. roger in new mexico republican. we are waiting for the senate to come back in after this short recess. we don't control the cameras, roger. so when they come in we will go there quickly. go ahead, all right. first of all thank you for letting me speak my opinion.

i do not support the impeachment of the president who has done more than any president we've ever had in history of the united states. if they have a problem with his policy, or him himself, that sounds like a personal issue. what he has done more on foreign policy, all the deals he has made, everything this man has done he's done and made things better. the citizens and people for the united states. >> host: roger in new mexico. the "washington post" caught up with adam schiff, the intel chair in the house. they just interviewed him and, on the bolton fallout, as the witness talks continue shift holds his condition. no circus deals and the senate. they should look to the house to issue a subpoena for bolton. also from capitol hill we have kasie hunt hussein david perdue

has compared romney to jeff flake on steroids picks have romney is not in danger of losing his seat. mitt romney as you all know saying there are him and other republicans who could be open to voting for allowing witnesses and getting testimony from john bolton. on a lighter note, things are getting serious in impeachment trial. senator romney is drinking chocolate milk. he apparently brought his own bottle and a "wall street journal" reporter says mitt romney was busted for bringing a bottle of famous chocolate milk on the senate floor. he put in a class and that was okay then. we will go to in california. democratic caller. >> caller: thank you for having me on. i guess my only reaction to this so far, it feels like they don't have a coherent narrative or like a logical progression to the arguments. more or less i can characterize as a constellation of randomly

indented bullet points. resident the house managers laid out a very clear, they with a systematically through article 12 article ii and they basically when had with trying to prove their case in a very systematic fashion but the senate seems to be spring whatever they can out there. in hopes somebody will latch on to one or two things, that way they can say this is my reason for, you know, rather than the logical argument to be made. i don't know if they're allowed to have visual aid on the floor of the senate but if the were i think would be super helpful to have two different charts come when this as article one and one this is article ii and everything that pertains to those articles of impeachment goes on the first and the third when it says everything else. that would be an easy way. >> host: both the house managers and the president's lawyers have used visual aids throughout.

, yes, give use slides and stuff like that but if you have something that would be a visual reference he could see something that relates directly to article one abuse of power or article to obstruction of congress and that what you would know like a shiny object just trying to be thrown out as way to muddy the waters or confuse people who are watching. that's what it feels like, they're just trying to the thrs much stuff out there to confuse people instead of latch onto one or two things they think they like. >> host: the senate is in a 50 minute break. it's approaching more like 30 minutes and they will take this break and come back and the president's lawyers plan to wrap up their opening arguments and then it turns into 16 hours of questions that senators get to ask. they have to write down their questions. they get vetted through leadership according to the hill newspaper and then they are asked, they're given to the chief justice who then reads the question to whoever it is addressed to. during the clinton trial they

would get five minutes to answer each of those questions. we will see how works out this time around. cnn reported tweeting out amy klobuchar is making a whirlwind trip to iowa tonight. this and is back in. we will go there now. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, members of the senate. well, had kind of a lengthy presentation prepared but i think, i think you've heard a lot from our side and a think we've made our case. and so i just wanted to leave you with a couple of points. first of all, first of all, thank you, mr. leader and thank you democratic leader schumer and all of you for the privilege of speaking on the floor of the senate and for your time and attention. we really appreciate it. we've made three basic points. one, all you need in this case

is the constitution and your common sense. you just look at the articles of impeachment, the articles of impeachment fall far short of any of the constitutional standard, and they are dangerous point and if you look to the words from the past that i think are instructive as i said last night, they are instructive because they were right then and they are right now. and i'll leave you with some of those words. >> there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment when impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other. such an impeachment will produce the divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to, and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions. >> this is unfair to the american people. by these actions you would undo the free election that express the will of the american people

in 1996 and in so doing you will damage the face of the american people have in this institution and in the american democracy. you'll set the dangers precedent that the certainty of presidential terms which is so benefited our wonderful america will be replaced by the person use of impeachment. future presidents will face elections, then litigation, then impeachment. the power of the president will diminish in the face of the congress, a phenomenon much feared by the founding fathers. >> this is a constitutional amendment that we are debating, not an impeachment resolution. the republicans are crossing out the impeachment standard of high crimes and misdemeanors, and they are inserting the word in a crime or misdemeanor. we are permitting a constitution, constitutional coup d'état which will haunt

this body and our country forever. >> i warned my colleagues that you will reap the bitter harvest of the unfair partisan seeds you sowed today. the constitutional provision for impeachment is a way to protect our government and our citizens, not another weapon in the political arsenal. >> i expect history will show we lowered the bar on impeachment so much, we've broken the seal on this extremely piddly so cavalierly that it will be used as a routine tool to fight levitical battles. my fear is that when a republican wins the white house, democrats will demand payback. >> you were right. but i'm sorry to say you were also prophetic. and i think, i couldn't say better myself so i won't.

you know what the right answer is in your heart. you know what the right answer is for our country. you know what the right answer is for the american people. what they are asking you to do is to throw out a successful president on the eve of an election with no basis and in violation of the constitution. it would dangerously change our country and we can, we can forever all of our democratic institutions. you all know that's not an interest of the american people. why not trust the american people with this decision? why terror up their ballots? why terror up every ballot across this country. you can't do that. you know you can't do that. so i ask you to defend our constitution, to defend fundamental fairness, to defend basic due process rights. but most importantly, most

importantly, to respect and to defend the sacred right of every american to vote and to choose their president. the election is only months away. the american people are entitled to choose their president. overturning the last election and massively interfering with the upcoming one would cause serious and lasting damage to the people of the united states and to our great country. the senate cannot allow this to happen. it is time for this to end here and now. so we urge the senate to reject these articles of impeachment for all of the reasons we have given you. you know them all. i don't need to repeat them.

they have repeatedly said over and over again, a quote from benjamin franklin, it's a republic, if you can keep it. and every time i heard it, i said to myself, it's a republic, if they let us keep it. and i have every confidence, every confidence in your wisdom you will do the only thing you can do, what you must do, what the constitution compels you to do, reject these articles of impeachment for our country and for the american people. it will show that you put the constitution above partisanship. it will show that we can come together on both sides of the aisle and end the era of

impeachment for good. you know it should end. you know it should end. it will allow you all to spend all of your energy and all of your enormous talent and all of your resources on doing what the american people sent you here to do, to work together, to work with the president to solve their problems. so this should end now as quickly as possible. thank you again for your attention. i look forward to answering your questions, and with that, that in our presentation. thank you very much. >> majority leader is recognize recognized. >> mr. chief justice, i have reached an agreement with the democratic leader on how to

proceed during the question period. therefore, i ask unanimous consent that the question period for senators start when the senate reconvenes on wednesday. further, that the questions alternate between the majority and minority sides for up to eight hours and during that session of the senate. finally, that on thursday the seventh resume time for senators questions alternating between sides for up to eight hours during that session of the senate. >> is their there objection? without objection, so ordered. >> so we will complete the question period over the next two days. i remind senators the questions must be in writing, will be submitted to the chief justice. during the question period of the clinton trial, senators were thoughtful and brief with their questions, and the managers and counsel were succinct in their

answers. i hope we can follow both of these examples during this time. >> during the impeachment trial of president clinton, chief justice rehnquist advised counsel, quote, counsel on both sides that the chair will operate on a rebuttable presumption that each question can be fully and fairly answered in five minutes or less, end quote. the transcript indicates that the statement was met with quote laughter, end quote. nonetheless, managers and counsel generally limited their responses accordingly. i think the late chiefs time he was a good one and would ask both sides to abide by it. >> mr. chief justice, i would ask an instance of the trial adjourned until one p.m. wednesday, june 29 and this this would also constitutes the adjournment of the senate. >> without objection we are adjourned.

>> with that, the president's lawyers have wrapped up their opening arguments in the senate impeachment trial against president trump and you heard from the majority leader tomorrow when they come in for the senate session they will begin their 16 hours of questioning time alternating between republicans and democrats. they will spend eight hours tomorrow followed by eight hours on thursday with their questions. you also heard chief justice speaking they're saying he's going to follow rehnquist guidelines from 19 and nine clinton p a piece tone ask the question be answered -- impeachment trial. we'll get reaction are coming up to what you have heard today and over the past week plus from the senate impeachment trial and, of course, the proceedings in the house before that. there's majority leader leaving the chamber heading back to his office there were expecting house managers to talk to

reporters shortly and i'm sure we'll hear from other senators as well as lawmakers and possibly attorneys as well. as a way to the remarks go to darrell who is in williamsburg ohio, democratic caller. you're on the air. >> caller: thank you c-span for taking my call. it was my first try believe it or not but i would just like to thank you for your coverage of this sham. i will never vote democrat again. >> host: why do you say that? >> caller: i think it's just a waste of the taxpayers money to try to impeach a sitting u.s. president, lisa they could've had some substantial evidence instead of this hearsay. >> host: what about hearing from john bolton? >> caller: well, whatever, you do, i think it's going to, in the end i think it will be done right. i think trump will prevail in the end. i know i'm certainly -- he's

done a lot for the country so far and you can see the difference in the coverage. i'll have to do a for to see that things about trump, turn to c-span, or cnn or msnbc and you see all the negative stuff but if you watch c-span or -- you see some good stuff that he does. it's just coverage. i'm glad you guys are out there. >> host: i'll take this pokémon you and others we don't control the camps in the senate chamber. ask we be allowed to put our cameras in their. we were denied that and so the cameras are controlled by the senate as well as what you see, what cameras, what angles they take. that's all controlled by the senate. we are bringing you the feed and as we do the video on c-span2 gavel to gavel aegisthus it on outside we don't control the cameras there as well. the hilton sporting senate republicans are expected to go behind closed doors now that the

white house has finished up the opening remarks. the weight got closed doors. this is because majority wants to get all the republicans on the same page before voting on whether there should be in order to subpoena additional witnesses such as john bolton and acting white as chief of staff mick mulvaney. catherine in louisiana, republican. >> caller: hello. how are you? >> host: i am doing well. what are your thoughts? >> caller: my thoughts are this. it has been proven over and over there is no facts, no facts that this president did something wrong. the idea that the democrats keep throwing up -- the held onto two articles of impeachment for weeks. if bolton was such a crucial part in determining whether this president was guilty or not

guilty, why was he not questioned when they went in the basement for the meetings? why was he not subpoenaed? >> host: let's listen to senator hirono of hawaii. >> that he could shake them the present of another country. now we heard -- [inaudible] what can i say but is -- the danger is the president can do what he does. he mentioned for one thing the president was -- [inaudible] i don't think it's investing this policy we all know -- [inaudible] to advance an entire scheme that had to do with the president political and personal interest over our national interests. [inaudible] -- also said -- but never did he

say we've ever paused -- to shake down the present of another -- >> what you think of this one to one witness a deal? >> they want hunter biden so much, they should -- everybody knows hunter biden is an irrelevant with us but they should know that but that's what they want. we will be argument when you have an opportunity that we want relevant witnesses and relevant evidence. >> would you rather see the witnesses called one by one of rather have -- >> that's basically how it will work out that we will have a debate and we will call witnesses one by one. >> thank you, senator. >> let's go listen to mark warner who cochairs the senate intelligence committee. >> that would be bad news for

the west, bad news for the uk and the bad news for any country that does want to have their communications subject to outside interference. >> i have to ask, do you think -- [inaudible] >> i thought it was curious that they made statements saying, calling the manuscript different. if you want to hear what mr. bolton convictions were and conclusions were, let him come forward to testify. i did not hear a single argument other than delay about why you wouldn't bring somebody who was in the room who's got first-hand knowledge that can clear a lot of this up. >> thank you, senator. [inaudible conversations]

>> host: mark warner, democrat of virginia with his thoughts on what he heard from the president's lawyers as they conclude their opening argument. senator schumer tweeted out this afternoon, in a few weeks or months, two republican senators want to pick up the paper and read one of the witnesses are documents they blocked at crucial information on president trump's misconduct? how can any senate republican not vote for the witnesses and documents we are seeking? again we're expecting to hear from house managers led by adam schiff of california. they said they would talk to reporters after the president's lawyers finished up today. when we see them we will bring you there and any other reaction from lawmakers and attorneys. yolanda, pennsylvania, independent go ahead. >> caller: i just have a a couple of things to say about this whole thing. first of all, he done wrong. he got caught.

i'm independent, i'm not democrat, i'm not republican, neither nor. but i see what was going on. i've been following this and he broke the law. no one is above the law. i don't understand why his followers, i dosed utterson why the republicans is blocking important information that need to be shown to us. and i'm so tired of them saying the american people, it's for the american people. they are not there representing the american people. they are representing themselves, not us. they don't want to lose their job. that is not representing us. >> host: the republicans say what law did he break? that the house impeachment of the articles of impeachment do not include a crime that he broke. they say he abuse power any obstructed congress by the republicans are doing that's not a crime. >> caller: he shouldn't never have asked a foreign president to try to help with the election.

basically that's what he did. that's a crime, you know. that is breaking the law. when i was just watching he said not guilty until proven innocent. in the real world around here and not in capitol hill in washington, we are guilty until proven innocent, okay? i don't know why there is two different things. and for his followers, i don't understand them. as far as i know the president has integrity. they represent respect for the united states and everything, but this president, he tweets, he bullies people turkey does a lot of things that is not normal for the president of the united states. things that were teaching our kids not to do, schools, the teachers, the principles of teaching kids not to do, society assigned to teach them not to do. you have the president doing it and then you wonder why all this

kids is getting up your shooting of schools and shooting up different things. look at the prime example of what they have and a president and -- >> host: while you were talking to my nursing senator joe manchin coming out of the chamber with his arm around senator murkowski, republican of alaska. folks are watching the senator from alaska, senator murkowski as well as susan collins, lamar alexander who is retiring of tennessee and send it in that romney if those four with democrats on voting to allow witnesses. president trump expected to depart the white house in an hour or so to make his way to wildwood new jersey. he is going to be holding a campaign rally there this evening. with coverage of that on c-span2 life at 7 p.m. eastern time as well as c-span.org or you can always listen along if you download the free c-span radio

app. one reporter tweeting or excuse me tweeted out from the mayor of wildwood new jersey saying that the folks of an line up since sunday. this tweet on your screen. from opensecrets.org which tracks fundraiser. mitch mcconnell, ted cruz, johnson come mitt romney all senator serving as a jurist in the impeachment trial have received campaign contributions from members of the president's defense team. you can learn more if you go to the website. john, california, democratic caller. john, are you there? >> caller: yes, i can. sorry. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: i'm a progressive democrat. i believe there are three things. things. i believe the president is obstructing justice and declaring himself above the law in which is the first time thing. and then he wants to deny the truth and basically that's the

obstruction. the thing he does was hold back money which supposedly was against the law. and then to use for his own personal political gains against the law. we need to try and we need the witnesses and we need the documents. this is what a trial is. otherwise, it's a sham. right now i think of this trump administration is the most corrupt administration we've ever had. people who hate the epa, people who ate the consumer financial bureau and bureau lands and try to get rid of the clean water act, it's too much. we don't need a corporate fascist, racist agenda precedent. that's all i've got. >> host: john was referring to the government accountability office ruling recently that the trump administration violated the impoundment control act by

withholding ukraine aid. that's what john was referring to. rick, indiana, republican. >> caller: how're you doing today? >> host: what you think of this, these impeachment proceedings so far? >> caller: well, i think it's -- [inaudible] ever since donald trump was sworn in as president, the democrats were dead set on impeachment, just about from day one. one of the things that struck me, i couldn't believe what i was seeing, they spent $15,000 on pins with nancy pelosi's signature to sign the impeachment thing. but they are talking about ukraine a been withheld.

what i don't understand, why did the democrats think that any of those people, joe biden, hunter biden, whoever it might be, is above not being able to be called up to the witness stand? what they want to get their people. and as far as the book with john bolton, how convenient that it's just now coming out. i don't know. i mean, i think president trump has been excellent job anything -- do i think is perfect? no. tell me one who is. a look at the economy, look at the stock market, look at the unemployment rate. these are all good things that's going on right now. that's just what i've got to say. >> host: judy, mesa, arizona, independent. >> caller: i just wanted to say i am an independent now. i was a democrat for over 55

years, and i have been reading a lot of books on everything that's been going on, and the event after like the previous judgment said, after our president since day one. the good book for everybody to read is a plot against the president by lee smith, and the one on judge kavanaugh and they will see how nasty the democrats, and i was a democrat. >> host: judy, are you referring to the story behind the cabin of nomination written by -- >> caller: yes. >> host: david in northbrook illinois democratic caller. >> caller: thank you. there's only one thing i really have to say that's really very simple. i'm a lifelong democrat. i obviously didn't vote for our president, and there's only one thing about the net i i can tel you, and that is he's right if

this whole thing is a big sham. but it is, it's a sham for reasons people don't understand. he's a a television starr. he's a businessman. he's not a politician, a people who don't read, and this is no offense to television people,, who don't read media, don't know these things about him but he will never really ever be a politician, a president, or anything. people have to vote, it's their own business, and the other thing would be that television would be a good way for people to learn all these things about him. we shouldn't be watching this on tv. >> host: did the president do anything wrong, in your opinion? >> caller: everything. everything. >> host: david, we will leave it there. msnbc tweet, registered voters say 75-20% that witnesses should

be allowed to testify in impeachment trial. test one should include 49% republicans, 95% democrats. this is democrats. this is a new poll. 75-20% say witnesses should be allowed. you also have -- if i can find it, another tweet from -- we will go on to senator chuck schumer, minority leader coming to the microphone. >> of you when ready facts so i thought the summation by mr. sekulow, the president's a lawyer, showed how the case was. he said we don't have eyewitness accounts, that all we have is a newspaper article. well, mr. sekulow, president trump, we want to get witnesses. you can bring alton right into this chamber and he can swear under oath and be cross examined by you.

-- bolton. he ukip think this was a policy choice and he points to the letter of july 25. three words, have come out of his mouth that were in that letter, hunter biden crowdstrik crowdstrike. so they just cannot address the issues. their whole argument is the version. you don't believe the newspaper report, call the witness. if you don't believe the people around who said what trump did was wrong and they heard it secondhand or sondland heard it first and, call mulvaney, call bolton, called layer, called duffey. -- blair. the bottom line is simple, we want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. that's what witnesses and documents mean. the president's of lawyers have spent three days avoiding the

truth, pointing fingers here, there, and everywhere. even one of them gave a political speech on the floor. it was like a campaign rally, because they don't want the facts. they don't want the truth. they are afraid of them. i think the case has been extremely weak on one of the most serious things you can accuse the president of doing. which is organizing foreign interference in american elections, threatening a country, cut off their aid unless you interfere in our election. when i was in high school i read in my textbook that one of the things the founding fathers feared most was foreign interference in elections, and this was back in the '60s. i said what are they talking about? that doesn't happen. once again the founding fathers were a lot smarter than all of us. that's just what they worried about. that's just what trump was doing. let me make another point. if he's allowed to completely

stonewall, to do absolutely obstruction on everything and not be held accountable, he will do it again and again. future presidents will do it again and again. and this grand experiment we call democracy will have been fatally fatally eroded because when americans lose faith that elections are fair, when americans lose a that it's americans determining who elects the president rather than a foreign power, we've got trouble. one at a time. >> do you believe we're going to get witnesses? >> look, i hope we have just four republicans, all we need is four, rise to the occasion and safe when you do find out the truth i would remind my republican friends, these witnesses we have asked for are not democrats. they are not anti-trump people. they are his own appointees.

we don't know if what this it will be exculpatory or further incriminating. but let the chips fall where they may. get the truth. [inaudible] >> look, we want these four witnesses and these four sets of documents because we want a fair trial and to trial where the facts come out. they can call who they want. ask yourselves why are they talking about the trade? they can call hunter biden if they had to give when folks for today. they don't. i don't believe they have the votes because a good number of republicans no two things. that hunter biden is a diversion and makes the trial into a circus like a couple of the president's of lawyers did yesterday. and second, it confirms the fact that president trump is obsessed with hunter biden and joe biden. so in other words, he's willing to risk american security and risk elections to go after biden. now he's willing to spoil one of

the most sacred things the senate can do, a trial on impeachment because he's so focus on hunter biden and that's where you got those two way out of left field lawyers yesterday. >> why not support a subpoena in a classified version of the manuscript? >> first of all, no, the classified version of the manuscript, this is a manuscript it's going to be public. what the heck are they hiding? you don't need it in him a classified version of the transcript is just another excuse to hide things. they are afraid of the truth. >> senator schumer, how are democrats preparing for the next days and what question do you want to ask? >> what we're doing is we have lots of questions, and we are, i

am not venturing anybody. each member will ask his or her own questions as they see fit. what we are doing is organizing things. in other words, we don't want the same question ten times and second we want them in some degree of order. i am sure that a good number of the questions will give the house managers time to rebut all the holes in the president's lawyers arguments, which they didn't have in the course of this trial. i'll take one more question. >> comment on the legal argument made by the white house team that even if everything ambassador bolton was reportedly saying is true, that president trump -- what would the ramifications be? >> they talk about quid pro quo. they talk about policy choice. they don't talk about interfering in elections. that is one of those serious things that a president can be charged with. it gets to the whole basis for

root of america. when you try to interfere with that, you are risk just what i will democracy. i could not think of a more serious charge than that, nor one that was the founding fathers were more fearful of than that. thank you, everybody. >> thank you, senator. >> host: minority leader talking to reporters at the white house team finishes up their opening arguments. they had three days to do so, .4 hours and and it took about half of their time. now as you heard the minority and majority are getting ready for question time which starts tomorrow. let's go listen to the house managers. >> the president's case, it's clear today they are still reeling from the revelation of john bolton's book and what he has to say. that's very relative, relevant and probative quality of the testimony that he should give the senate, as i'm sure you've

seen the president's own former chief of staff general kelly has stated that he believes of john bolton and more importantly, and that is extraordinary in and of itself that the president's own former chief of staff believes john bolton and by implication does not believe the president of the united states that he worked closely with for such a long time. but more importantly, he also recognizes the importance of calling john bolton as a witness, swearing him in and allowing the senators here for themselves that very relevant testimony. the president's lawyers today and in the prior presentations really did not and cannot defend the president on the facts. instead they use their time on the floor today to go through a list of grievances which enter the president was delighted to hear but nonetheless not particularly relevant to the charges against the president and the here today they used

their time in defense to smear the bidens, an object that they unsuccessfully sought to do for the whole ukraine scheme, attack the managers and other distractions. but in terms of the actual facts themselves, while the have at their disposal in the number of administration officials and agency officials who worked with the president, by the president for this whole time, did they choose to rely on any of them, call any of them, hear from any of them? any of them that could come and testify in support the president's position? the answer is not a single one because none of them can. the one that is not offered to come over, they're determined to try to prevent but i don't think frankly that we could have made as effective a case for john bolton's testament as the president's own lawyers. part of the way they did that today was the bulk of mr. sekulow's trend argument was this is merely policy.

that's all this is. they are seeking to impeach the present over policy difference, as if as mr. sekulow would have us believe, donald trump released the military aid because he was so grateful that the ukrainian parliament passed and anticorruption bill. he was just waiting for that the whole time. no one believes that. no one believes that. there isn't anyone in the chamber anyone in the country who will buy that explanation. they make very few bones about it. one of the senators remarking i think publicly today that we pretty much know the facts, and we do. we know that the president withheld hundreds of billions of dollars of military aid from ally at war in order to coerce that our life to helping him cheat in the next election. it is indefensible. as the weather they have to fall

back on, they fall back on the argument that okay, he did it, we all know he did it, but we're going to find a criminal defense lawyer whose expertise is not really constitutional law and admits he is out of the consensus on this to come in and make the argument that is effectively the constitution says, so what? that abuse of power you can impeach a president because it's too nebulous concept. as if article one c of the race abuse of power and says nothing further, as if he's impeached for the mere label of abuse of power come as if the article didn't charge with withholding military aid and provided meeting in seeking to get foreign help in his election to help him cheat. but, of course, that's exactly what the article charges. and that is evidently what they cannot contest. and so the question -- that are really two questions.

the first is foundational, that is will there be a fair trial? up until this point all the senators have heard his argument. argument. fair trial in false witnesses and it involves documents. so the question that will now be before the senators, they will have questions for us in the next few days, but the question squarely before the senators is, will there be a fair trial? will there be a trial that americans overwhelmingly want, those that are for or against the president want the trial to be fair, which means the calling of witnesses. that is the threshold issue the senate will have to decide. we know what those witnesses will say because they had said it already. they said it during the course of course proceedings as we showed mick mulvaney admitting that the aid was tied to these investigations. sondland admitting what the president claimed no quid pro quo, effectively describe quid pro quo, in order to get military aid, the president of

ukraine was going to have to go to mic and announce these investigations and what's more, he should want to do it. so the question is, with the context that egregious are we prepared to say that we will simply have to accept that in this present and future president that will have to accept the idea that a president can so blatantly sacrifice national security of his country in order to get help cheating in the next election? i think the founders would be astonished that anyone could even try to make that argument. let me make one other point. with respect to mr. bolton because you have heard this also. the house should have taken the year or two years that it would've taken to force john bolton to testify. they should've forced him to testify but but i want you to r what donald trump's lawyers and the justice department saying, not incented but before the court of appeals on the subject.

and this is in the committee on judiciary versus don mcgahn. summary of argument, the committee lacks article iii arti standing to sue to enforce a congressional subpoena demanding testimony from individuals on matters related to his duties as an executive branch official. so here they are, the president's lawyers are this duplicitous, iq do not, they come into the senate which they refer to as a court and they say, the house should have sued in court to enforce subpoenas on witnesses like john bolton, and they go to court and they say the house may not sue in court to compel a witness to testify. if that is the legal duplicity of the president's team, and it's in black and white. so that's basically it. are we going to get a fair trial or are we not? is the senate going to hear from

someone that every american now knows is a key and important witness on the most egregious of the president's conduct, or are we not? and i don't see how the oath of impartiality can be interpreted any other way than demanding a fair trial that includes witnesses and documents. >> are you confident enough that the senate will -- if so, how? republicans have raised -- are you yourself prepared to possibly be dragged into this? >> first, are we preparing? no, we have prepared for john bolton. we have a lot more work to prepare now that we know more of what he is likely to say. but we were prepared when the time comes. i think at the most crucial is not the skill of his examination or cross examination, but rather

letting the senators a value with his credibility and letting him tell his story and not tell it in a book are we really going to require the country to wait until his book comes out to find out information that senators could get used to make the right decision on conviction or acquittal? in terms of these sort of red herrings, well, if were going to call, if the house managers want to call relevant witnesses, we want to call the relevant ones because want to make them pay a price if we're getting witnesses who were at the heart of this scheme. that's not a game we are interested in playing. [inaudible question] >> well, i can tell you what my testament is. he is guilty and he should be impeached. and i think the idea is, and of certain but this of which are to fall back on when you know just how damaging john bolton's test what is going to be. i would say this saint of hunter biden. if the one a witness for

witness, then let them call mick mulvaney pic mick mulvaney has said that he disputes what john bolton has to say. let them call mick mulvaney. that them call secretary pompeo. i think all people that are percipient witnesses to this scandal and this corrupt scheme. if you want a witness for witness, but that's not really what they want. they want a distraction and adopting the senators want to allow the proceeding to return into a circus. >> republicans are not arguing senator -- john bolton is not a credible witness. they're saying his intentions might not be as clean or perfect as perceived to be. what would you say to that argument about bolton's credibility? are you concerned how the american public will perceive him? certainly some republicans are trying to paint him as a person who has a vendetta.

>> well, let me turn to -- yes, please. >> you know, the chairman has always so eloquently said that this trial and the republicans tactic is to distort, deceive, distract. .. anyone else who has questioned about john bolton credibility when he said he would testify, he said he would come in and testify under oath so let's subpoena him so we can hear what he says. and the american people can make up their own minds about his credibility. but based on the evidence and overwhelming testimony before us, i don't see much more concerned about the president

practices. >> two things, number one. it is fundamental in any trial that you listen to the witnesses and make the judgment whether the witness is credible and telling the truth. you do not not hear from the witness because they might not tell the truth. if it's irrelevant witness you hear from them. that's what courts do every day in this land. second of all, john kemp has no reason to assume, until recently the chief of staff said he believes bolton's account. i hope he has a better statement and belief than the presidents chief of staff. in what you are seeing is anyone to testify get the president and the state is lying and we have to keep them away from testify

but with if we cannot keep them away from testified they might be lying. [inaudible question. first of all, john bolden in court, his lawyer made that crystal clear. we had made it clear at the point with respect to up the witnesses that we had subpoena who were refusing to come in that we would not play this in the sling in the corporate and allow the president essentially to obstruct the congress with impunity. which is what he attempted to do

by saying he would fight all subpoenas. so the fact that in the case that we did bring against don mcgann, they are arguing that you don't have a standing to sue in court to enforce subpoenas shows just how disingenuous the president and his lawyers are. so that did not make much sense. in terms of personality, we allow the minority suggests witnesses and they did. we called witnesses in the open hearings that were proposed by the minority in the supersecret depositions i keep complaining about. there were as many members entitled to be there as the entire body of the u.s. senate. they had every opportunity to ask all those questions in the deposition and hearing the same as the members of my party. and so they can complain and say it was partial or it did not have the same due process. they can make the argument as they have repetitively that we

did not get the same due process as in other impeachments. but the reality is, they did. i don't think those process grievances amount to very much. we will take one last question. >> the senate has not decided to subpoena mr. bolan's testimony. that's in the house would do -- >> i'm knuckling to discuss the fallback position. at the end of the day nothing is sufficient if the senate does not decide to have a fair trial. you cannot have a fair trial without witnesses. the resolution that senator mcconnell pushed through the senate says that the witnesses have to be deposed before they testify.

now the justification given for that, they depose witnesses before their testimony, in the clinton case it was the quality of testimony that led them to want to have the witnesses suppose so all those questions in the deposition did not have to be asked before the senate. that is not the issue here. why if the senators have the opportunity to hear directly from john bolton, with a number one not want to do it and if they do it, want it to be done in a deposition reform. after all the complaints they made about depositions it's very ironic that they're making such a strong case for a deposition. but were not in the investigative stage anymore. we are in the trial. in the trial is a fact in the judges of the law and the senators of both should evaluate john bolton's pet ability for themselves. they don't have to take our word for it, he's not exactly on the

same policy pages many democrats. they don't have to take john kelley's word for it. they don't have to take the presidents word port. they can make their own judgment. but they cannot do that if they refuse to even hear what he has to say. thank you. >> adam schiff, the lead house manager taking questions from reporter at the white house. while the house managers were holding that news conference political reports of the senate gop our meeting right now behind closed doors in a room after the trump defense rest. so they have rested and now moved on to the next phase of the senate trial. the senator gets 16 hours to ask questions, eight hour sessions tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. eastern

time and of course that will be live coverage on c-span2. they will start with the first eight hours and alternate between democrats and republicans and as we heard the chief justice said, he would like the lawyers to respond in the house managers to respond in five minutes time to each question. we heard the minority leader chuck schumer say he's not centering any questions from his rank-and-file. he is organizing them to make sure there are no repeat questions. after they conclude the 16 hours, then they will vote on a motion -- on the question of whether or not witnesses and evidence is allowed. there will be four hours debate on that. that is happening possibly as early as friday and then deliberation votes on witnesses and documents. if they vote, to call more

witnesses and evidence then presumably the majority leader mitch mcconnell could turn right to the vote on whether or not to acquit or convict this president. your reaction to the senate impeachment trial sean in minnesota, republican thank you for hanging on the line. >> thank you for having me. second off i want to say, donald trump has been fighting this entire time is a crunch in ukraine. if you really think about it, what donald trump is trying to do is look into joe biden. if you take away joe biden as a presidential candidate, was he corrupt, that's a great question. would we be in the same shoes as we are in right now if he was not running for presidential nomination. that's my question to the u.s. and not something that's been

tricky leading in my head, why exactly have this when were trying to investigate corruption in the united states government. >> winslow arizona, independent. >> hello. >> you are on the air. >> i want to say that the president has done nothing wrong i am registering as a republican now, i have been democrat most of my life and then i went independent. but the democratic party has gone haywire somewhere. anyway the president is doing his job which the democrats in the house are not doing for the people, they're doing something for themselves. but this president has done more for our country than any president has in years. >> do you think republicans and democrats should hear from witnesses in which witnesses. >> i don't see a need for witnesses myself.

the house should've completed their case and then it comes to the senate and john bolton, i don't know what he would have to say. i know he was fired so i'm not sure i would want to listen to him. and i think the case has been made because there was no quid pro quo but even if there was according to the constitution it would not rise to impeachment elevation. so i do not see the reason to keep going with this thing. he has gone on for so long. the president has been under attack since he got in office. >> okay. more observation from the senate chamber. the capitol hill producer, the two legal teams including sue pallone and cyclo- and from the house judiciary committees, they shook hands and spoke to each other after they gaveled out the trial session.

chris, lake worth florida. hello. >> one final thing, ladies and gentlemen -- >> we are going to move on. molly is a reporter on capitol hill, senator feinstein said she's against impeaching president trump because of 2020. that is still my view she apparently said. she has not made up her mind, serious questions about trump character but the fact that she's maybe is pretty interesting for molly o'toole capitol hill. crystal hayes says this is new, senator doug jones tells me he found arguments made by trump's counsel persuasive. alabama democrat up for reelection. specifically he said he had an issue and concerns with the second article of impeachment, obstruction of congress and said through tallender twits make go.

also this from aaron who is an investigator reporter with washington post. who is paying president trump's legal bill. the rnc has set aside millions according to reports by his colleagues who is profiting, exhibit a, the lawyer connected to the christian nonprofit and the links to the story in the washington post. let's go to stephen and buffington indiana. republican. hi stephen. >> go ahead. >> i was in the military for five presidents. all of which had done some for form -- the democrats cannot get hillary clinton elected so ever since trump got elected the

democrats have tried everything they could to get rid of him. this impeachment thing is wasting the peoples tax money. >> let me go to thomas in san francisco. democratic caller. >> hello, this is tom in san francisco. thank you for having my call. i'm a lifetime democrat and response to your direct questions of getting to the segment. i would say it is wrong to have any acquittal or dismissal of trump before his state of the union. i think is very clear what the strategy is and i think they should make sure that he has to stand before the united states for what he has done in the midst of an impeachment and tell us what is the state of the union. secondly, i think the president's counsel is obviously

had absolutely nothing to say and they said it. it's very clear. i'm very proud of adam schiff in the managers there. there's so eloquently perfectly wonderful. thank you. and i think the american people know in the majority knows that the president is a liar and treasonous rascal and needs to be taken away from the office. >> the president will address the nation on tuesday february 4 and this evening holding a rally in wildwood new jersey and you can watch that at 7:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span2 and other websites c-span.org or the free c-span radio app. howard tweeting out the moment as a defense lawyers wrapped up today when senators laughed after they said this during the january 22, 1999 clinton impeachment trial as a question.

begin chair will operate on a rebuttable presumption in each question can be answered in five minutes or less. then chief justice rehnquist, let's take a moment and show you how today's proceedings ended in the senate trial. >> mr. chief justice i have reached an agreement with the democratic leader on how to proceed your question. therefore i ask in a unanimous consent that the question. start when the senate reconvenes on wednesday further, that the questions alternate between the majority in minority side for up to eight hours and during that session of the senate. finally on thursday the senate resume time senators questions alternating between sites for up to eight hours during that session of the senate.

>> is there an objection. >> without objection so ordered. >> we will complete the question. over the next two days, i remind senators that the questions must be in writing and will be submitted to the chief justice during the question. of the clinton trial senators were thoughtful and brief with her questions in the managers and counsel were the same and their answers. i hope we can follow both of these examples during this time. >> during the impeachment trial of president trump chief justice rehnquist advised counsel on both sides that the chair will operate on a rebuttable presumption that each question can be fully answered in five minutes or less. the transcript indicates the state will "laughter.

nonetheless managers and counsel limited their responses accordingly. i think the late chief time limit was a good one and that upsides to abide by. >> that is how the proceedings ended in the senate impeachment trial. we understand senate republicans are meeting behind closed doors right now. so the majority leader can get them all on the same page when it comes to witnesses preview for the reporting over the past few days senators met romney, collins, lisa murkowski, alexander, all republicans all watched to see if they would vote injuring the democrats call for witness in this trial. by the way lauren fox who reports for cnn tweeted this out it is a handwritten five-page letter saying where jim rich

explains to the paper what it's like to be in the chamber and why he's not the only senator to get up occasionally or doze off. some may have seen the report. the sketch artist senator rich of the idaho paper also noting that in reporting on that in the senate impeachment trial. let's get back to your calls. travis in springdale arkansas. independent. >> i would like to say first off president trump has not done anything wrong. the democratic party has stated that they have this evidence and overwhelming evidence to hold him and impeach him but everything expressed is by their personal opinion which does not make sense and not hard facts to impeach a president. i feel that our president did not hold any military aid for

his benefit. i thought he did -- who knows what he did it i may have missed it. i don't think he's doing anything wrong in the democratic party has nothing to go against it. the democratic party is just hanging on. >> harry republican. >> thanks a lot c-span. first i am hoping there are no witnesses but i hope john bolton gets called but the white house has his book which is like a manuscript they will testify to. so they should be able to question in front of him and know the answers are coming. he would be a great witness. basically everything i've heard leaked, i haven't heard anything i don't know. he complained to the attorney general barr to tell people who had complained to him to see their lawyers.

and he got advice. he gave advice to the president. naturally it's unlawful what the president think. i think he might make a great witness in donald trump has been investigated for three years and they have not found anything. do you know anybody else that could be investigated by these people for three years. and nothing. i say hooray for donald trump 61%, the house prices up, my taxes are down. thank you c-span. >> harry says he does not want to hear from witnesses proved but a new poll out shows registered voters say 75 - 25% should be allowed to testify in the trial. kyle tweedy not out. and here's a pull, half of the

americans think the impeachment is a bad use of congress time. that's in b -- abc tweeting out and open secrets.org is telling you about this proved to have this treat mitch mcconnell, lindsey graham, ted cruz, met romney and all members serving as jurors in the trial that it receives campaign contribution from members of trump's defense team. you can learn more if you go to open secrets.org. patrick and washington a democratic caller. >> hello. thank you for taking my call, i just wanted to make a point, i interact with quite a few republicans and i try to have decent conversations with them. and i often hear them talk about the economy. and i have to say and i say what has donald trump done for you. and i say the economy, and i stayed that is true the stock

market and if they are going to claim donald trump is personally responsible, they have to take credit as well which is approaching a trillion dollars. they are not able to answer any specific questions about one donald trump is done for them. there is blanket statements are hearing and what they're watching is not giving them the full story. i was able to name specific things the democratic presidents did that i was proud of but i don't hear from them. besides the economy that's only thing i hear. the man is clearly corrupt, he's racist, it's been proven, i'm just really concerned in this division in our country right now. only the economy, there should be better answers and that. >> thank you patrick. >> briand with the duane register, chief political

register says berni joni ernst r impeachment and many of you saw her come to the cameras yesterday evening after alan dershowitz wrapped up the second day. the white house second day of opening arguments and she came to the microphone how it would play out in the iowa caucuses which is monday february 3 this monday coming up in our reports from the des moines register that she has gone back and forth. >> richard from pennsylvania independent. >> i would like to thank you for having me on and i love c-span it's great. great coverage. i appreciate it. this is someone that we knew for a long time, someone that we can trace back to even just before and gratian. what was the last thing that happened to donald trump, he got

in trouble by trying to fraud the people. this guy has been real, he has high plight underpriced lawyer to come in and sweep it under the rug. everyone sees was going on and the people that are following, we know what happens people follow blindly and i don't think it's a good idea and i think we should remove the president and the sad fact no matter what we do the idea is to incite an arrest in the country and if we keep him or let him go the minority has accomplice cycle. >> charlotte in florida, republican. you were on the air. >> thank you very much for taking my call. i have been listening to others

and there are three points i would like to bring up do i have not heard address. first, their accusing trump of benefiting with the election. but how quickly did democrats forget that clinton in the dmc purchased the dossier to used to get to truck. second, adam schiff because of the whistleblower, went to him first and for two weeks he held the secret while i guess until they decided how they would present this as an impeachment trip. but he is in fact witness so he should not be participating in these proceedings. and the third is the most important to me. if you are going to interfere in the current election coming up

which is what their accusing trump of doing then i think the three senators running for president that are sitting in the senate should refuse himself from voting on these procedures because that and the fact would be them interfering with their opponent or who thereupon it would be. >> got it. by the way, adam schiff at his news conference moments ago addressed whether or not he would be a witness and what would his testimony be and he responded to the reporters, if you miss that you can go to c-span.org/impeachment. we will in the conversation for now but we will pick it up tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time, the "washington journal" will be talking to all of you in getting more reaction

to the senate impeachment trial tomorrow morning 7:00 a.m. eastern time and our coverage of the next phase of the senate trial, the question time begins at 1:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span2. >> c-span, your unfiltered view of government. created by cable in 1979 and brought to today by your television provider. >> we will bring you to the start of today's senate proceedings, the third day of the white house defense team wrapping up their oral arguments, it is one hour in 25 minutes. >> the senate will convene as a court of impeachment, the chaplain will lead us in prayer. >> let us pray. oh