so the idea that any information that happens to come from overseas it is information that is credible and potentially shows wrongdoing by someone that happens to be running for office if it's credible information is for the voters to know for people to be able to decide on who is the best candidate for an office. thank you. >> the majority leader is recognized. >> mr. chief justice. i recommend we take a break until 10 p.m.. >> without objection, so ordered.

and while they are taking this break we want to hear from you and hear what you've learned today and what questions he would ask the house impeachment managers and the trump defense team. you can see the numbers divided by geographical location. (202)748-8920 if you live in east and central time zones. (202)748-8921 for the mountain and pacific time zones and you can send a text if you can't get through the lines, (202)748-8903. so, they will probably go for another hour or so tonight.

they will be back tomorrow. they have another eight hours on their schedule for senators to ask questions of the lawyers on each side for the house impeachment managers and the defense team. then on friday it's scheduled to have four hours of debate on motion to havthemotion to have s should be allowed. so, this is all coming up right now. we are just going to watch for senators to react and take your calls during this time. henry and diamond head, mississippi, but a what is a qun that you would like answered area >> caller: i would like -- the constitution states that before an impeachment can happen in a house has to have a vote. they did not do that so this whole thing is illegal.

and adam schiff has lied about this. why don't they put him on trial? it's just a sham. but they are doing to america is more divided now than it ever was. >> host: have you been watching all week? >> caller: i've been watching every day, you bet. >> host: what have you learned in the last couple of days, anything from today? >> caller: yes, in the arguments from both sides when they start telling things other people said and then when, mick mulvaney and others, they prove different questions. they asked certain questions and

make a statement that's not true and make people believe it's true and that is what the democrats are doing. >> host: henry, a lot of the questions have centered around john bolton. do you think that he should be compelled to testify? >> caller: i don't think so because the house would not allow the republicans to call a witness, so why should the senate allow these people that think they have everything set up already and now they want more evidence, i think they should allow witnesses. >> host: thank you for your time tonight. george in boynton beach florida. what question would you like to ask? >> caller: it's not so much a question. i may retire army sergeant with about two years of law school

and seeing what i am seeing now is unbelievable. when there is a quid pro quo, it's usually a gangster sent somebody had said you do this for me or else. none of that has been shown in any shape or form where he sent some body to tell the president of ukraine anything and put pressure on him. that's about all i've got to say. this thing is ridiculous. >> host: that is george in boynton beach florida. 82 questions have been asked of the house impeachment managers and the trump defense team so far. deena in rural utah. your senator, romney senator, ra question tonight. did you hear that? what did you think of his question? >> caller: here is the thing, when i'm listening to all these questions that are going back

and forth, they are volleying to try to put their point across. here's my question about whether john bolton should be required to testify. so, -- >> host: don't leave us but let's listen to senator casey, democrat in pennsylvania. >> we will go back and will we go another hour or more, but i think at least an hour. fairly educated guess. >> [inaudible] >> i am not sure they are, but i do think it's important, and it's probably true on both sides where you can emphasize a point and you can reiterate some of the points made in the presentations on either side. you can fill in areas where you think that there wasn't enough emphasis on a point or a date or

fact. succumso, to that extent it helo review the trial or some of the evidence for both parties, but it seems like every question, if not every other question gets back to the fundamental issue of the relevant documents or witnesses and i think that the other side is having great trouble for days now exclaiming why they want witnesses or documents, and beth got ever more difficult in light of john bolton. based on the time in the senate, that makes no sense. >> [inaudible] >> i don't know how friday is going to work. i'm guessing that, and this is a pretty good guess, that friday we will finally get to that witness part, but that is but

one vote. now it could be that if that vote doesn't prevail, then you move to the end of the trial. but there's still questions about how that will play out. but if it is prevail them if there's enough votes for witnesses, then we are into a whole new phase about how to get the witnesses and that would be the subject of some kind of an agreement. >> [inaudible] >> my understanding is it's going to be basically one vote on witnesses at that point. now, if it prevails you could have a series of witness votes that deal with the mechanics. one particular witness or group of witnesses or something like that. but look, we are still back to this basic issue. i don't know how you can finish a full and fair trial without

the witnesses and documents. and i do think the other side is struggling with that. >> [inaudible] how important do you think it is the democrats remain united [inaudible] the president will undoubtedly use that for a bipartisan acquittal. >> it's not really something anyone has talked about, because i think every one of us knows and if our leadership didn't know, we would've told them, this is the decision everybody has to make. so i don't know how that plays out or what the numbers will be, but it's really got to be that individual determination that every senator has to make. you start with the basic charges the president interfered in a foreign government, that is a charge, and also in not solicitation at the same engagement with asking for an

investigation of his political opponent and at least the announcement of an investigation on a debunked theory about the last election. so in one episode to bring two elections. >> [inaudible] >> well, individuals might be making that assessment, but there's never been in our discussions -- and we have been reading a lot, as you know -- how well this day impact the election or determination. i think people are just trying to do their jobs. in fact that you have presidential candidates that are here, all of whom spending a lot of time here, there's never

consideration about how come other time, they are doing the job everyone expects them to do. we expect each of us to do our own job, so it hasn't been that kind of calculation. there's some political motive that drives everything here but people take it seriously. >> to go behind the scenes for me [inaudible] what is the consensus of your colleagues? >> i don't think there is necessarily a consensus about that. i don't know who said this years ago whether it is a rule or something a good lawyer said

years ago you should try to choose the outcome of a supreme court case based on the oral arguments. that rule might apply here. i'm not sure that we can necessarily define based upon their questions into the question period. >> i guess i didn't have much of a reaction because i guess i believe personally in this question, they are either going to get three votes or they are going to get a number greater but it won't be three versus four, it will be versus seven or five or something like that, a larger number. the person who is considered the fourth vote will be subjected to a lot of acrimony on the right, and that's going to be a difficult decision someone would have to make. so i think it will either stop at three, which will fail, or

it'll be a higher number. >> a tommy ten is the start time, so i'm going to run up. anything else? thank you very much. i appreciate it. >> host: senator casey mentioned politics, presidential politics. senator sanders, warren and klobuchar all have questions at it. in the washington examiner newspaper, something else senator casey talked about, senate republicans are optimistic they will vote to conclude president trumps impeachment trial as soon as friday and the motion to call witnesses to testify as of wednesday only three republican senators were publicly considering a vote to call witnesses, and one of them, senator murkowski of alaska, huddled in the morning with majority leader mitch mcconnell at the capitol office. two other gop lawmakers are weighing about two cold witnesses and signaled they

would vote against the move. senator pat toomey, pennsylvania, said he was very, very skeptical, he would see the need to vote for additional witnesses. and senator cory gardner of colorado, republican of for reelection in the battleground eight, announced wednesday that he would not vote to call witnesses. let's go back to dean in rural utah. please go ahead and i apologize for interrupting you. >> caller: that's okay. my point is about calling witnesses, here's the thing. okay, what are the chances that you are going to have 20 republican senators vote to have witnesses, you know, to go to remove the president? so, even if they were to call witnesses, what are the chances of that? >> host: as the article said, very slim. >> caller: so why go through all of this? we are in an election year and what they are doing is

penalizing the election system by dragging this out for months and weeks and weeks. why go there? >> host: your senator, mitt romney, has basically said he would vote for witnesses. >> caller: i know. and i'm not happy about that. and i sent him a message. >> host: did you get a response from his office? >> caller: i just sent it yesterday and i haven't received a response. >> host: tom from illinois. what ithat is the question you d like to see asked of the impeachment managers of the defense team? >> caller: good evening. i have just a brief one. mr. adam schiff said that withholding information evidence is considered indicative of guilt. i would ask him if withholding information or evidence in regards to the whistleblower was indicative of guilt and coordination between himself and the whistleblower as well as

others to frame the president for political reasons to unfairly influence the election and/or why mr. schiff could use statements like you showed you should want to, but claims statements like that from the president are immediately directed the words blackmailing and things of that sort. .. >> johnny and el paso, texas. johnny you are on. >> thank you so much. i have a quick question. i've been watching the question and answer from the house managers and the legal counsel. one thing i noticed is when a

senator asked a certain question they only hit on the question for a quick moment and then they respond to a question either to the house managers or the legal counsel from three or four questions ago. from my understanding from the procedure should go, no either side has a rebuttal. i don't see why the chief justice is allowing that to happen. that would be my only question for that. as far as john bolton, i'm the type of person if they have something to say, let them, and say it but at the same time if he already had the information concerning the president why did he wait for a book deal and sarah have something to say now. that would be my only concern about that. if he had something important he should've came out and said it. >> currently the bolton book is going to be scheduled to come out on march 17. as mitch mcconnell makes his way

back out on the senate for the cameras could come on quickly and we might have to interrupt and go into the senate and they have about an hour or so to go tonight before they conclude. we will be taking your calls after that as well. we will be a little abrupt, we don't control the cameras in the senate unfortunately. leo from texas text in, why don't you file a motion to this qualify the senators who publicly said they would not be an impartial jury. their hopeless, meaningless and should not be allowed to vote at all in accuse themselves or disqualify them. chris in california what the question you would like to have asked. >> this question is for the house managers. if witnesses are so important to the house, why did they shut down the minority for their date of witnesses according to the house rules. they cut them right off at the

knees. >> have you learned anything in the last two days or today with the questioning of the senators? >> nothing new really. all right. thank you for calling him. canton ohio. >> please go ahead. >> my question is how is it fair when they've already signed saying they would not be partial to the hearing when you have these candidates, senator candidates running for president that are automatically going to vote to impeach him. that is not impartial. why are they allowed, shouldn't they have to be excluded from the hearings? because bernie sanders, his question was about calling trump a liar and he was kind of making

a political statement. he said trump is nothing but a liar. their questions will not be bipartisan and they're not going to be by partial when they do their final vote. >> thank you jeannie. kathy, nevada city california. you are on c-span2. >> can you hear me? >> yes we can. >> i had a lot of questions but some have been answered. thank you for televising this. the first thing i'm concerned about, i know this is not necessarily a regular trial but the way it stands now and the answer has not been given there seems to be a huge question of whether to the validity of the articles of impeachment which means some are saying, i think

they've given good evidence that they could be considered not constitutional. so were going to continue through this process, i understand there is a set process and it is up to the senators. but i think they should drill down a little more on that and i don't know if there would be a process that that determination could be made because then what recourse does the president have if he is found guilty, does he have any recourse to go back and prove to begin with articles are not within the constitution which is the bible of our democracy. >> that was the argument alan dershowitz was making. >> yes, i know there's been a lot of back-and-forth on that and i think it's a little bit trying to confuse the issue especially for people like me -- i'm not a lawyer. but i still understood what he

said and also mr. philbin brought up the issue of the articles -- not necessarily to the article but even the process seem to be invalid where there needs to be a vote. i don't think nancy pelosi really has the authority of not voting in getting the consistence as an individual even with her title it does not appear she has the authority to begin what was started and then of course you could go down the rules being unfair and all of that. so does the president have any recourse there. i think if you take this and steps it would be a vital question to ask and get through before you keep going on and on especially if we have the witnesses coming on. >> tom in virginia please go ahead with your question. >> thank you. there is no question that president trump as the ukraine's

to look into the bindings, we have all heard that. i've watched the hearings in the senate trial. the one thing i have not seen from anybody is any evidence that the reason for asking the ukrainians to look into it was for his political gain. what evidence has been presented that he did say truly for his political gain. i have not seen anything or heard anything from the house managers or anybody in the house. they talk about it as though they can read his mind but there's no evidence that that is the reason that he asked them to look into the bidens. >> the senate is back in. >> mr. chief justice, we will finish up at 11:00 o'clock. >> thank you. >> chief justice, the senator from georgia