here or bribery or extortion, conditioning official acts for personal favors. that is bribery, it's also what the founders understood as extortion. you can argue even if you argue under the modern definition of bribery you have to show such and such you can argue that it's not attuned to bribery. that's an appoint what they would argue. that now the president has a constitutional right that he can do anything he wants, he can abuse his office by sacrificing national security and undermining the elections and nothing congress can do about. >> manager. >> we are in recess.

>> so far 54 questions have been asked at the house impeachment managers by the trump's defense team by 59 senators. here is the card that they have to fill out, craig kaplan tweeted this out this is united states senate impeachment trial of the president of the united states check who you want the question to go to, you handwrite it and then you must sign it. by the way all 54 of those questions are available on c-span's website, c-span.org/impeachment under point of interest, you can read and see video of all 54 so far questions. (202)748-8920 if you live on the east central time zone (202)748-8921 and those in the mountain pacific time zones and you can tweet us or text us in a question at (202)748-8903 and of course continue conversation

online. here is chris coons. >> the american people are following the has provided a number of opportunities to the house managers and answer questions and address issues and revisit core pieces of the case in particular with regards to subpoenas and to the president obstruction refusal to produce any witnesses and any documents. i particular struck at one recent development that has not been highlighted or discussed today. that is a general john kelly who is a former chief of staff to president trump that has probably said he believes john bolton. i would like folks to focus on what that means. what that means is knowing former national security advisor john bolton is alleged to say president trump did order him to withhold aid to ukraine in order to try and leverage a baseless investigation by ukraine. this means his former chief of staff was in the room and

witness behavior by the president that would strongly support the conclusion that that is the sort of thing president trump does. >> republicans say that does not matter and it does not reach the level of high crime and misdemeanor. >> something that has been debated a great link in fact one of the most recently discussed questions, i do think the weight of history, evidence in a previous impeachment suggests the abuse of power is an appropriate matter for impeachment and removal. did you have one more question. [inaudible question. >> if you listen to the answers from both the president advocates in the house managers,

that could be used as an offramp, i would suggest more as an excuse. it is clear as incomparable criminal proceedings where there is mixed motives, it is still possible to convict someone. on a charge like bribery or extortion. whether there's a mixture of corrupt and legitimate motive. i don't think the actually answers the issue, i don't think that is a way to say we don't have to consider this. to the last point, i think it's more important than ever that we reach an agreement that allows for witnesses and documents, we see more and more recent development thus adjust in the form of john bolton there is someone who is in the room who can give relevant testimony and what he has to say will come out soon anyway. let me yield my time. >> i will yield to my colleague. >> probably.

i notice were a little into more than a fourth of it now. i think we have right under five hours. as it keeps going, i think the focus is on increasingly the foundation of the case itself. in professor dershowitz, every time he gets up there it's an immediate hard come back because he is attacking this whole process based upon the underpinnings of the articles themselves and when he starts talking about the quid pro quo that we did earlier and how that you have impute motives from a public and applicable interest you can tell that raises the quick response on their side. i sense that the case in general is starting to weaken on those points and they keep focusing of course on the question of witnesses.

[inaudible question] >> if you had listen closely he said there are other scholars and if in his opinion involved over the last 20 years that he is not alone. that was a false statement. >> that was dershowitz to set. >> adam schiff said so. [inaudible question] >> the question is what to say those critics that republicans have abandoned any pretense of being independent jurors to the president. >> hogwash is what i would say. as objective as either side. no one has walked into the hearing without having heard what was proper for the house. we have had 192 video clips of witnesses testifying in the house so we either have our opinions reinforced or rejected those opinions and asking

questions based on the house. beside a flawed week case to the senate, that is on them to make it better. if they want to make it better they can do it by calling mr. bolton in the house where they have an opportunity. >> they did. >> actually they invited him to speak but they did not -- >> they invited him to speak but he did not show up. >> at the end of the day they still have the opportunity, he has now said he would come testify. >> if you want to hear from mr. bolton you have to hear from him in the house. if you don't mind me finishing my, that would be wonderful. where they have the ability to hear from him and continue to work as we do so then we would be able to do america's priorit- >> i would go one step further to say even if everything in bolton's book happens to be true

in everything he testifies happens to be true or he happens to be called. i still do not believe that that rises to the level of the impeachable offenses that the houses charged the president with. we heard 54 questions and answers so far today and at the rate recording will probably hear 160 total. we will have an opportunity for all of our members to hear more information but i'm committed to go to the end of the day on friday and cast a vote to say and ready to go to final judgment, i don't see a need for any additional witnesses america has heard enough. most people do not realize under the system that the senate can do no other work until work through with impeachment which means working on drugs, highway bill, many priorities that the american people -- a majority of americans are saying this is a waste of time because they know the president will not be removed and they know that this

is his election year end they say you have more important things to do to advance the country than what were doing by sitting here in a trial of impeachment -- [inaudible question] >> thank you everybody. i thought this question. again was so good for our side. so many different instances where arguments prevail. once again professor dershowitz argument may just about no sense that it has to be at the level of bribery or extortion, i think adam schiff and the others took him to the cleaners and argument. and the idea that now administration is the same as abuse of power almost no scholar excepts. a very telling moment. they said they don't want absolute immunity and i asked him the question, name one witness or one document you have allowed the house managers to get when they requested it and

mr. philbin filibustered because he had no answer, they could not answer a single witness or single document. if that is not absolute immunity i don't know what is. again two of the senators who are most interested in deciding whether to vote for witnesses asked if they could find any instance where the president talked about biden before he announced for president and they cannot answer. they said i only have the record. that is not true. and then -- back-and-forth. what did mulvaney mean what did mulvaney mean when he said drug to. that was back-and-forth. do you want to know, ask them, bring them here as witnesses. so i thought that it was a great afternoon for us, i am hopeful we can win the argument for

witnesses and documents. we have always said uphill, there is tremendous pressure from an invective nasty president on every republican senator but i think they sit there as they listen to the questions and they know the public is totally on our side and we have a real shot to get witnesses and documents. >> my gut tells me we are making progress, progress, progress and i certainly am hopeful. [inaudible question] hunter biden has nothing to do with the charges against the president. and it's always looking for a diversion. but it's not our call, if they want hunter biden they got 53 votes, they can call him but they don't want to they know it would make it a circus. i don't think mcconnell has the votes on his side for hunter

biden. >> we've seen time and time again in these protracted political that leader mcconnell wins these arguments -- >> you do not win when you stand for a cover-up. you do not win when there is not witnesses and documents and is not a fair trial. i think we have a real shot here. but any conclusion that does not allow witnesses and documents is going to make the president acquittal if that should happen, worth very, very little. 0. you cannot convince the american people it was an acquittal if you don't have witnesses and documents. [inaudible question] some of the committees met today and passed out bills. they sure can in the morning. >> can i tell you something, it

rings so false. we have mitch mcconnell leader of the legislative graveyard who did not put a single bill on the floor for the year before impeachment and now they're saying this is getting in their way. mitch mcconnell will meet early in the morning to get bills on the floor, we dare you take ten of the bills the house passed the day after impeachment ends and put them on the floor then talk about it. if they go that they cannot talk about getting nothing done. they're the ones who have been expert at getting nothing done. [inaudible question] i don't think they named the name on the floor in the senate. >> i know what an contents. >> this is despicable. this is in a administration in their quest for absolute immunity in their donald trump's threats and things towards people like john bolton o were

once his good friends there so afraid of truth they go to any length to stop it from happening. in this trial and sometimes outside the circumstances of this trust. >> i just want -- go ahead your nice guy. >> the gop says you blew in the house and that's where it would happen -- >> for the gop to blame the house for not having all the witnesses and documents when it was donald trump who stopped them in at the snap of his finger can have it all its ultimate hypocrisy. thank you everybody. >> during this dinner break we will continue to get any reaction from the senators but in the meantime we want to hear from you, the question we will ask you is what would you like the senators to ask, 54 questions have been asked so f far, 16 hours in total that the

senators get to question the house impeachment managers from the trump defense team. they began today at 1:00 p.m., today scheduled for this. let's hear from linda in pittsburgh pennsylvania, linda what would you like to ask yourself or what would you like to have the senators ask. >> god save our republic. at question for president counsel, i'm convinced that this house would've been pizza president for blowing bubbles, using regular non-bubble chewing gum, what ethical and u.s. house rules violation et cetera that the process can we the people hold him accountable for in addition to voting them on office. >> thank you linda. senator blumenthal connecticut. >> i do anything that they want to be reelected and nothing wrong with it.

not impeachable as long as i'm doing it to be reelected. because that is the definition of public interest. that cannot be the law. i think that what we have seen is the white house taking such an extreme position, far more overreaching than they need to do in the other point i would make is that i think that 75% of the american people that think we need witnesses and documents has probably reason to 80, maybe 85 after this argument today. the idea that we can finish this trial without john bolton as a witness is absolutely preposterous. after they characterize his fax

as unsourced manuscripts or leaks or hearsay and they complain about lack of evidence, if they want to have anything like a full fair proceeding we need john bolton and we need mick mulvaney in the idea of what he said was garbled and corrected in anybody listening to the press conference has to know what he was saying because that he said get over. and i really think that this trial has been reduced to an absurdity. if there are no witnesses and documents and there will be more coming out day by day, domino by domino, group by group we will see more of the truth emerge and it will haunt my republican colleagues. [inaudible question]

there should be no agreement. i have done quite a few trials, we don't trade witnesses, you get your witness i get my witnesses. the key question is, is a witness relevant. if they have admissible information, do they have eyes and ears on something that is germane and relevant to the trial. that is a criteria. that should be it, the republicans have the power to call anybody they want, they can call 15 witnesses tomorrow, if they can get 51 votes. the question should be will they support witnesses who really have something relevant to say, nobody could be more relevant and important than john bolton and mick mulvaney as well as robert blair and mike duffy. they have eyes and ears on the president.

>> earlier today on the trump campaign -- [inaudible question] i think a disclosure of the whistleblower identity would be great. legal issues although on the floor of the senate there would be some degree of immunity and certainly under our ethics rule there would be potential consequences and i would ask the chief justice to immediately intervene and perhaps apply sanctions. it would be unprecedented but it would be unprecedented for anyone to disclose the identity of a whistleblower on the floor of the senate. i don't anticipate my colleagues to do so. [inaudible question]

i'll be absolutely blunt with you. i am listening. i did the evidence for impeachment is overwhelming, there is more evidence that would corroborate what we've seen and heard so far but i'm still listening for any evidence that the president will produce showing his innocence. anything that exonerates him, anything exculpatory, i am hoping he will bring it forward. and he will bring it forth in witnesses or documents and witnesses cross-examined, documentum black and white that we can see. just like any other trial. if my colleagues are still listening, that is a good thing. that's our obligation. but i think we are absolutely united on the democratic side that we do need those witnesses and documents. i need no colleague who has had we have enough. all done.

[inaudible question] >> i think my republican colleagues are struggling, genuinely really struggling. because ac that they are marching off a cliff. they are marching off a cliff led by donald trump and he ain't going to go over the cliff with them. they're the ones who vote and they know the truth will come out is just a question of when it always does in life and especially washington, d.c. where there are leaks in books and memos, it all comes out. and it will be probably enough before the next election to huge consequences for them. they will be hunted by history

if they refute to see and hear the truth, they cannot complain about what they cannot see if they put blinders on. that's what they're doing right now. putting blinders on. in the american people will know it before the next election. >> zimmer cassie read the question about the administration looking into the bidens, what did you think of the question. >> i was confused by the question. i think they're trying to address the issue of did the president interest in the bidens begin just when he announced for president. i will tell you as a former united states attorney in the state attorney general i will tell you what one of the most profoundly and meaningful facts that come out in the trials of our is for me, the department of

justice our chief law enforcement agencies, either decline or would never ask to look into the bidens. all this corruption, all the criminality, and the department of justice would never ask or he declines to look into any violation by joe biden or hunter biden and said the president of the united states went to foreign governments and asked the foreign leader to investigate a united states citizen. that shocks me. [inaudible question] we have limited amount of time, and may well be a question that we submit, why did you happen in the way whether the department of justice rejected. i've asked for the documents that reflect the department of justice, either being consulted

or rejecting the request and if there are no documents then we need to know that as well. but this is a really important point for the american people to understand. for any citizen to think that the president of the united states is going to go to a foreign government and ask the foreign leader to investigate a u.s. citizen and try to smear them, i think raises profound question and i think it's one of the most telling and important facts in the trial so far. thank you everyone. >> up next on c-span is susie and conrad, montana. susie what question would you like to ask the house impeachment managers or the trump defense team? >> good afternoon.

i would like to ask the question to the house mean enters. >> susie we will put the question on hold and hear from alan dershowitz. >> i don't think that brings out as much information as the questions -- when somebody from one side ask the hard question then somebody on the other side. when people ask questions on the same side it's not as effective in bringing out hard points. so i think it's very informative and i think the senators have been asking terrific questions. very smart questions, questions that go right to the core of everything. from a professor point of view -- [inaudibl and[inaudible questio] >> how come people have said how come everybody disagrees with you.

that's been my life. [inaudible question] >> i change my view so many times with so many issues i've written 40 books, every time i write a book i write one draft and then another draft. and then i changed i'm shocked that people say i change my views, of course i changed my views and i'll probably change him again. even the course of this debate i change my views. none of the chamber department. i would make the argument to hillary clinton and on the other hand of my colleagues to change to my responding. [inaudible question] >> all right susie and conrad, montana what is the question for

the house impeachment manager. >> thank you. i have a question specifically for congressman schiff, based on his argument is it true that he attempted to solicit pictures of president trump from russia directly stating that person on the phone to the recording that putin also tested in them. and under that pretense -- >> where did susie go. susie is gone sorry about that. fort lauderdale florida. >> hi how are you. >> how are you. >> i am great. my question is specifically for the president's defense and i would like to know why the president's personal lawyer is acting on behalf of the country and briefing the accountability and protection for our nation. i think it's absurd that were not able to call witnesses

because if the president did not do anything wrong why can't anybody testify that. we need cooperation of innocent or guilt. >> actually how closely have you followed the process. >> i watch it all the time. i watch c-span all the time. >> are you a student. >> yes i'm a student at the university of florida i study science. >> you study science and watch c-span. >> yes. >> take you for calling it. . . .

asked, that senators have asked the two sides so far this evening. and they should becoming back in about a half an hour or so. jack from sumner washington comical head jack. >> i would like to ask the question of the house. they keep complaining about this absolute immunity for the people close to the president, and that they should be able to testify. i am sure there is a way they could testify, but my question is, why does this whistleblower have absolute immunity because they just passed a law to make it so, that is why. i've been watching this all along. the other question would be, who in this whole nation doesn't have the right to face their accuser? everybody does but they have denied the president of the united states, the highest office in this land, that absolute reason. he has a right to face his accuser. he is the one who started this whole mess.

it's pretty simple. if the whistleblower testifies, it is over. be one democrat in colorado tweeted out of vote against witnesses is a vote against the american people and our democracy. max's in williamsport pennsylvania, maxwell would you like to ask the house impeachment managers of the trunk defense team? >> caller: i am kind of a historian, i have never seen an impeachment on judges or whatever, when the other side in the house, which would be the republicans in this case, did not get to ask for witnesses that they wanted. and i would like either one of my senators from pennsylvania to ask that question. >> host: thank you sir. imagine california text in would like to know what law is preventing the whistleblower's name from being released?

varna from ashland kentucky, you are up. what is your question. >> caller: good evening, my concern goes all the way back to when the house first started the process. pelosi, never had the votes to start the impeachment. and never assigned a committee to launch the investigation. therefore, would that not fall in the law -- about information gathering. they gathered all of the stuff, they did not follow their own policies and procedures, and now they want to say they want more. it is not the senate's responsibility to prove their case for them. >> host: up next is cynthia

from cold spring, texas. cynthia what your question? >> caller: i would like to ask the house managers, given that adam schiff is on record as lying to the american people about having compelling evidence for the russian collusion, how are we to believe him when he is talking about we don't need to hear about a connection that the witness has two the bidens, or the other administration or the ukraine scandal corruption? >> host: thank you ma'am, chrissy from ocala florida how do you justify blocking direct evidence as her question from a text. already 54 questions have been asked, and when they come back they will be in for another couple of hours.

they have two days, 16 hours total to ask their questions. doug from clean creek arizona. good evening. >> caller: hi, my question is for the house managers, and most likely directed at adam schiff and mr. nadler. they continue to make the evaluation that donald trump is quote cheating. however, it seems to me opposition research in campaigning is cheating. so how do they reconcile with that? also i would like to know if any of them have taken a drug test recently or consume thc in the last 24 hours? >> host: michael from virginia, what your question. >> caller: my question is for adam schiff and my senator cain, who i did not vote for and he does not support my

views. my question is when they say it's a debunked theory of the bidens in burisma, they actually spewed debunked theories by roberts muller in two years of investigation for the trump conspiracy. that is debunked compared to the burisma and bidens portion of the deal. my question to adam schiff's why do you keep spreading russian propaganda with the steel reporting and everything that went on there. but you chastise the president for spreading quote russian propaganda on burisma. that is my point. >> host: have you been listening today? >> i have been listening all day every day. i am a retired and i watch and listen to my government to make sure they do everything that i fought for. for my children's benefit.

>> host: do you think the senators have asked questions that you are glad they asked? or have they got you angry? >> caller: not really, i wouldn't say that. but we got going on right now is a messaging problem. the democrats, i will applaud them they are very good at messaging. and they can message anything across if it's in a twitter feed. the republicans are long-winded. they speak very long about everything they do. in this day and age, i'm 48 years old, i am not a millennial and into twitter and all that. but if you can't fit it into a one sentence paragraph to make your point, then you have lost everybody. the democrats have mastered this. the republicans just cannot get on board with this messaging. and i think -- that's what i said about this debunked. they keep saying boersma is debunked. it's the trump russian conspiracy that is debunked.

>> host: bill in manassas, virginia says are the house managers actually answering questions or just reading scripts? tim from lakeland, florida, what is your question for this process? >> caller: yes, sir, thank you for taking my call. i keep on hearing the democrats saying that they want to call witnesses in this and all of that, they had the chance to do that in the house. what they want is the senate to do their job. well if the senate goes ahead and calls people as witnesses, then what is going to end up happening is the next president that gets in their, what can happen? they are going to make up some kind of junk or something -- oh yeah we are going to impeach this one too. and handed over to the senate. and then they want the senate to do all of the work.

they just need to look back and call the stuff that they did in the house and didn't do. >> host: who do you think is been effective on the floor so far? >> caller: who's been effective? >> host: of the two teams of the house impeachment managers or the trunk defense. >> caller: the trump defense to me. they have explained everything and showed where they stopped on the interviews, and the republicans kept on showing where they had stopped. they prove that they are wrong. >> host: thank you tim, wayne is in hanover pennsylvania. >> caller: yes, i was asked to bring this in the form of a question so i will try to do that. it was just funny the one senator was speaking in the hall and he said trump hasn't done anything to prove his

innocence. and i just find it crazy that we are innocent until proven guilty. but they think otherwise. also, schiff and his last statement said that some lady had information, but they don't have the information. he encouraged a guide to investigate it. ain't that the same thing that trump is being drug through this for this deal for? >> host: bobbing organs is a been watching the trial and i would ask the house managers are truly point out all the high crimes and misdemeanors. led out in a clean understandable way. at this point it has been a miss mash of exhibit. dan from cheyenne, wyoming. what your question? >> caller: my question is for adam schiff. when he got duped on tv trying

to get more dirt on donald trump about the naked pictures and he was looking to get more information. and he said his staff would be in contact with him. i would like to have him stand up there and say that is not true. i would like one of the republican senators to ask him that question. >> host: as you know, the republicans have been accusing adam schiff of knowing and meeting with the whistleblower. he did say on the senate floor tonight, that he has never met nor talked with the whistleblower. >> caller: no, he got duped by russian pranksters. >> host: that's right do you let me rephrase that -- do you think that would be an effective question that he would answer? >> caller: why not?

the problem with adam schiff, i will tell you what the problem is with adam schiff. he is all about running his mouth money doesn't have to raise his right hand. everything he says is the truth and nothing but the truth, when he doesn't have to do that to a mike, he is there. he's got his mouth wrapped around that mic. >> host: this is angela and hampton, virginia. >> caller: i'm fine now that i've gotten you on the phone. i am a former elected official in hampton virginia, retired now. i'm 78 years old, i watch the watergate series from beginning to end. and they conducted a true house investigation on the

impeachment of richard nixon. i have not seen that same type of cooperation among the house. it is their job to call witnesses. it is not the job of the senate. and i am tired of hearing all of this care paraphrasing of the president, senator richard blumenthal just used it on c-span a few moments ago when he paraphrase the president's phone call to the president of ukraine. i dislike the paraphrasing, somebody else's comments either you quote them correctly or don't quote them at all. i think the house has done a great disservice to the citizens of the united states and i certainly hope the two senators that i have worked hard with, warner and kane -- senator kaine please don't

tell us to fight in the streets again because charlottesville will repeat itself again. it upsets me greatly when you prime the hate. i sincerely hope that my senators do not vote to impeach the president, but they probably will because this is politics and it is poor. and it isn't pretty. >> host: angela if you're retired public official you have been in the political arena correct? >> caller: correct. >> host: and it's essentially not for wimps is it? >> caller: know it is, you have to be. >> host: hold on here's lindsey graham. >> what i have been told and let me get this accurate, but senator schumer claims there will not be enough votes. [inaudible] the only thing i can say for

sure. [inaudible] the only thing i do know for sure is that there is going to be 53 republican votes to call hunter biden because all of us believe if this trial goes on, hunter biden is very well away in terms of whether or not the president had that there was corruption in the ukraine. it's. reporter: policy accusing you? >> host: jean in florida, asking this question. i want my two republican senators to ask when is it better to not have everyone in the room present when the president testifies? why did clinton's trial senate include witness testimony but it is not here? wasn't testimony president already sat there?

>> host: lloyd, colorado springs, what is your question for the trump impeachment managers and defense? >> caller: i have a question for the democratic council on there. why did they not go through the correct process of getting all of the votes that were required in the house to get the necessary subpoenas they would've got if they had the right amount of votes. then it would've made it legal to get the subpoenas for the witnesses of anybody they wanted. right now they say oh we didn't have time to do it. but they wasted time but they said they had no time and they had to do it on a quick hurry up basis and stuff. and then to hear schumer come on booktv and say how good they are doing. it reminds me of baghdad bob,

when the u.s. invaded iraq and staff, he said it was all propaganda and nobody read it. nobody was at the airport and stuff. but it is all basically propaganda. everything i have seen so far, the president's council has been blowing them out of the water. i have been watching this, clear back since the muller case was on there when they first started with all of this stuff. i have watched about everything i can on c-span, on this every day. >> host: alright lloyd, thank you for participating in our calling tonight. and throughout this evening's questioning whenever their brakes we will come back and take calls. at the end of the night we will certainly do it as well. charles from kings park, new york. good evening to use there. >> caller: good evening and thank you for taking my call. i am a disabled vietnam

veteran -- marine corps from 1966. i find it awful that only days after the election of a duly elected president, that the democratic party. >> host: hey hit the mute button on your tv, charles. >> caller: that days after the election, that they talked about impeaching a duly elected president. >> host: sorry about that charles you had booktv up and it was difficult to understand you here. as you can see the house impeachment managers are coming back into the senate chamber. gary in redmond, washington. hi. >> i have a question for schiff. first of all i am just your average person, i usually go

to the left. and i am devastated to see what has happened. i can say that for a lot of americans. i would like to know how -- is bolting comes and testifies, and how that, no matter which way it goes, how that can't to disprove the other witness that they have had on trial? i mean, what difference does it make it's a he said she said. he is under oath, everybody else has been under oath. what good is it going to do? >> host: so you are ready to vote to acquit? >> caller: absolutely, yes. >> host: and you said you usually on the political left? >> caller: i actually am. i am sick about this whole thing that we made this

devastating accusations based on no fact that has disrupted the entire country. and it is -- it's embarrassing and i'm disappointed. there are no facts and everybody is under oath, what differences bolton bolton going to make? >> host: are people in your area talking about this? [laughter] everybody is just disappointed and has lost a lot of faith in the country. it is sad, i am so disappointed the democrats felt to do this with no facts. i just cannot believe it. >> host: you live in the seattle area correct? >> caller: i do correct. >> host: so they were overwhelmingly for hillary clinton in 2016. do people talk about politics there? do they talk about a simile? >> caller: yes they can.

i try not to, especially now. it is so about trump is right about what is going on and what he did was legitimately okay. it was the way it should have been. there is no question in my mind about that. but yes, there's a great deal of politics. >> host: did you vote for him in 2016? >> caller: i did not. >> host: a mike in aiken south carolina. quickly before the senate comes in which a question for them? >> caller: three quick points number one they say they need witnesses in the senate should hear all of their witnesses after they said their case was a slamdunk case. when in fact we listen for three days to their witnesses who were under oath. we heard every one of them under video testimony. so we heard all of their witnesses except those they kept secret. so i wonder, why a senator

doesn't ask have and we heard all your witnesses? >> host: that is mike in south carolina. another mike in oregon. go ahead mike what's your question? >> caller: this is sort of a legal question to them. they have been tossing around quid pro quo. so i want to ask the question how could this possibly be a quid pro quo since the outcome, the release of the funds, had been predetermined and was not influenced at all by a separate issue request of the president? >> host: are you a lawyer mike? >> caller: i am not. [laughter] but maybe i should be? >> host: i was confused by it in you would make a good lawyer. let's go to louisiana. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. my question has to do with the legal definition of a witness. they are talking about not wanting to call witnesses but

at the same time the witnesses they want to call seem to be witnesses that they want to call to offer up information that they don't seem to know anything about. so it looking at it that way, it seems to be that these witnesses are more of a continuation of the investigation that the defense has been saying should have been conducted in the house since it's their job to do that prior to charging someone with something. you wouldn't charge some of the crime of murder if you didn't have the evidence before he made the charges. thank you much. >> host: brian from oregon. i would like a senator to ask the president's team under what conditions they would consider a house subpoena valid? >> host: brandon victorville california hi brian. >> caller: i would like to know, i've a question for the house. what do paul losey and schiff hope to gain by impeaching donald trump. he's been being a good

president to us. i hope that it's not trying to make it like california. because california sucks, which i am in their district. >> host: tim is in manchester, tennessee. >> caller: i just have a general question. i am wondering why on the democratic side or the republican side for that matter, i was thinking back when the constitution was written, they intended for the senators themselves to do all the questioning. instead of all of these hired guns that are doing what they are doing. i don't understand outsiders being involved in this process. i thought it was supposed to be all people from the senate. >> host: interesting, i appreciate you asking that. kim from central florida i would like to know why trump and the republicans are opposed to witnesses? if trump is not guilty when

witnesses prove that? del from pennsylvania. >> caller: i've got a question, i would like to know what hunter biden and joe biden -- why are they being investigated -- why is it being covered up. what is that why biden is running for president because he had the feeling that this was going to come out -- the corruption on the democratic side? >> host: and joe from texas tech ten would not be fair and proper for democrats running for president recuse themselves from the vote? keri from lawrenceville georgia. >> caller: hi i just wonder why the republicans when they ask their questions they more or less turn this into a trump pep rally. because it makes no difference whether trump or obama has given more to ukraine or what they've given them. the fact is, the psi