>> the impeachment trial of president trump continues today at 1:00 p.m. eastern as house managers continue to present their case. watch live coverage of the senate impeachment trial on c-span 2 on demand at c-span.org/impeachment and listen on the free c-span radio app. this morning on washington journal, roll call mcmahon us discusses the impeachment trial of president trump. then rhode island democratic enator sheldon white house will talk about the senate

impeachment trial. join the conversation all morning with your phone calls, emails, facebook comments and tweets. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning, it's the washington journal for january 23. impeachment managers will continue to make their case against president trump in the senate and will start 1:00 this afternoon eastern standard time and you can watch on c-span 2, c-span.org and our free c-span radio app. we will continue taking your calls on the senate impeachment trial during the course of this three-hour program today. here's how can you make your thoughts known, 202-748-8000 01 for ocrats, 202-7480

epublicans and independents, 202-748-8002 and post on twitter and our facebook is facebook.com/c-span. many, many hours yesterday in the senate with house impeachment managers continuing to make their case and here to give us a summary of what happened. guest: 8 hours and 31 minutes is how long the national was in and convened at 1:04 p.m. and adjourned at :43 yesterday. there were no motions filed ahead of yesterday's proceedings. that was something that had been allowed for under the senate trial rules and was an issue that was debated as part of those rules how much time would be allowed to respond to those motions but they didn't file any of those motions yesterday. we're also starting to get the numbers coming in at how many americans are paying attention to the impeachment trial. this from the daily mail story

looking at the nielsen ratings from the first day, the tuesday of the impeachment trial. some 11 million americans tuned in to watch the proceedings that number is down from roughly the 13.8 million viewers who tuned in last november for the first day of the house of representatives impeachment inquiry. the nielsen numbers covering the six major networks including abc and cbs, nbc, msnbc, cnn and fox news. those numbers don't include those who watch via this network. c-span doesn't use nielsen ratings and doesn't include those who watched live online via streaming and social media. to give you a sense of how many people are being driven to the impeachment proceedings through those avenues, this is c-span's jeremy art looking at c-span's

youtube live coverage for the second day in a row, c-span's youtube live stream was trending number three on youtube during the day. get a sense of public opinion on the impeachment proceedings, several new polls out. this from the associated press looking at various aspects of the senate trial. overall the public slightly more likely to say the senate should convict and remove president trump from office than to say it should not. that's 45% to 40%, a sizable percentage, 14% say they don't know enough or have an opinion yet. americans on both sides say they feel strongly about their positions and 3/4 say it's not very likely or likely at all they'll change their mind during the impeachment trial. to give you a better sense of the breakdown by party when it comes to the question of whether president trump should be removed from office or not, just 9% of republicans saying he should be removed and 83% saying he should not. when it comes to democrats, 80%

saying he should be removed and 9% saying he should not be removed. one more poll for you this morning, pedro, from the pew research center on various aspects of the impeachment trial. they note as was the case in public views in the house impeachment inquiry in the fall the public doesn't express much confidence for either party to be fair and reasonable in the senate trial. 48% are somewhat confident the senate democrats will be fair and reasonable while a slightly fewer percent say about the republicans in the senate. of course senators will have a chance to influence public opinion again today starting at 1:00 p.m. when the senate impeachment trial resumes. host: many ways can you follow along, too. if you have a chance to watch you can watch on c-span 2 or go to our website at c-span.org and follow along there and we've lued a special segment

related to the impeachment trial. watch there if you can. if on the go download our free c-span radio app and listen to it as you go along. we'll take your calls for three hours. 2-748-8000 for democrats and 8001 for the republicans and 8002 for the independents. post on facebook.com/c-span. mr. rogers saying the democrats will suffer the repercussions for years. president trump will be re-elected not because of this but in spite of this. there are no democratic candidates that can compete with his performance. and then off of facebook, too, saying without witnesses and documents the process is a scam and cover-up. mid anytime mitch, referring to the senior majority leader has to go. the topic of witnesses and documents came up several times in the doris of the trial and we'll talk about that in a little bit.

to our call, sadie starts off on the democrats line, what did you think of yesterday's proceedings? caller: i want to make an observation, he should be impeached, no questions asked. i want to know if he's looked in the mirror recently with what he has on top of his head. i remember mrs. bush said she doesn't know how any woman would vote for him because he disrespects the woman. host: let me go back to your first statement. why do you think he should be impeached? aller: he's a conartist. and he's like jim jones. these were meant especially -- host: you made that point already. faith in california, republican line.

go ahead. caller: yes, they keep complaining that trump is against the united states and he gave aid to ukraine, as in money for weapons but obama gave them blankets and nobody complains about that or they didn't want to get bombed for treason when he gave aid and comfort to the enemy, when he gave billions to them. that flies in the face of justice. host: when democrats made the case of aid being released after according to what adam schiff said the president was discovered what do you think about that argument? caller: no, there's no proof of that. host: christopher, englewood, new jersey, democrats line. you're next up. hello. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have to disagree on the republicans on either side who think trump has nothing to

hide. the evidence is absolutely overwhelming and the defense team knows it. they don't realize how dangerous trump really is. four years ago we warned everybody about trump's lies and rhetoric and yet they still voted for him and now we're facing impeachment and removal from office and we're fighting for our lives right now. even my life is at stake. host: when you say the evidence is overwhelming what do you point to by the arguments made by house democrats? caller: according to the imolulent clause you can't do anything as favors as president as well as the call to ukraine withholding money for a certain investigation and everything and that they are trying to hide something. i believe there's a lot they are hiding, the republicans. host: did you get all that from

the democratic presentation yesterday? caller: oh, my god, schiff was extraordinary. every single person on the management team who really know what they're doing is outstanding. they're making an iran class case for impeachment. host: elaine from washington, republican line. caller: pardon me. there's one thing they keep perpetuating like they did yesterday and this is a lie. they keep saying trump said, but he did say this but the context is important, he could do anything under article 2. that came out of he was on tv with stephanopolous on abc and they were interviewing him and hey asked him if he could fire mueller and he said yeah, i can do anything under article 2. so the context related to mueller but they keep making it

sound like he's some kind of, you know, person who wants to be a king and he's going to use article 2 to get there but that wasn't the context at all. it was specific to firing mueller if he wanted to under article 2. host: elaine from the republican line from washington state. it was during the opening arguments yesterday in the senate that adam schiff, lead house impeachment manager talked about the warning that he would get if the senate failed to act. [video] >> the damage the president has done with key strategic partner will be remedied over time and ukraine continues to enjoy strong bipartisanship support in congress. but if we fail to act, the damage to our democratic elections, to our national security, to our system of

checks and balances will be long lasting and potentially irreversible. as you'll hear in the coming days, president trump has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance. his conduct has violated his oath of office and his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law. he's shown no willingness to be constrained by the rule of law and he'll continue to abuse his power and instruct investigations into himself causing nurt damage to the pillars if he's not held accountable. he cannot be charged with a crime so says the department of justice. here is no remedy for such a let but bemoval of the office of the president of the united states. if impeachment and removal

cannot hold him accountable, then he truly is above the law. we're nearly 2 1/2 centuries into this exeerment experiment of democracy but our future is not assured. as benjamin franklin departed got, ings, what have we a republic or monarchy. and he simply said a republic if you can keep it. a fair trial, impartial consideration of all of the evidence against the president is how we keep our republic. host: if you want to see more go to c-span.org. with more here's john. john: pedro, a big focus in the opening days of the trial op and off the floor is the idea of should there be extra witnesses called. senators won't take up that issue until after the

impeachment -- the produce thinkers make their case and then there's a time period for questions by senators committed through the chief justice and then the senators will come back and take that vote whether there will be different instance but the idea of perhaps a witness swap where the president's lawyers get a certain amount of witnesses for the house impeachment manager getting witnesses. we're talking a john boldon and hunter biden or joe biden or perhaps the whistle blower. this idea was floated to vargs members of both sides yesterday. this is adam swift responding to reporters in the senate subway takeout area before proceedings started about the idea of a witness swap. host: are you open to in principle a witness exchange so

epublicans can't call on hunter biden. mr. schiff: it's not we'll offer you this if you give us that, we'll offer you a witness who is irrelevant and immaterial but a witness to let us smear a presidential candidate if you want to get a legitimate witness. that's not a trade. trials aren't trades for witnesses. we offered last night to have the chief justice of the supreme court rule on a question of materiality for any of the witnesses and you know something, not surprising, the president's team was vehemently opposed. not because the president's team doesn't trust the chief justice to make an impartial decision but because they do trust the chief justice to make an impartial decision about materiality. that's not what they want. they want to smear biden and effectuate the scheme that they when they to do

tried to get ukraine to smear the bidens, they want to use this trial to smear the bidens and that's not the purpose of the trial and the senate should not allow it to be abused in that way. host: congressman schiff before the proceedings began yesterday. this is chuck schumer and came later in the afternoon during one of those breaks in the trial proceedings. [video] >> senator, would you be open to, say, a witness trade for hunter biden. >> no. that's off the table. first of all, the republicans have the right to bring in any witness they want. they haven't wanted to and that trade is not on the table. host: chuck schumer yesterday and joe biden getting the same question on the campaign trail yesterday. this is "the washington post" story, a voter in iowa asking about this tion witness swap idea and joe biden shutting it down saying it's not a rational question to ask

but he's not engaging in such a trade. "the washington post" noting that biden said the reason i would not make the deal, the bottom line is this is a constitutional issue. we're not going to turn it into a farce or political theater. i want no part of that. he also defended his son hunter saying no one suggested my son did anything wrong. that was joe biden from the campaign trail yesterday. on the republican side of the aisle, here's a story from "the daily caller" about ted cruz's response to this idea saying that the case made by the house managers has now made hunter biden's testimony both directly relevant and critical. the texas republican who said last week that he's open to the possibility of the senate calling witnesses including the whistle blower contended if house manager's case is based on the allegations of corruption concerning hunter biden and joe biden being a scam than the senate being able to hear from the bidens is

directly relevant. again, the senators won't decide on this issue until after both sides make their cases and after that round of questioning. the timing on that is up in the air but a little bit of speculation yesterday, this is senate majority whip john thune playing out the sequence of events forward saying it could come up on wednesday when the senators could take up this idea of calling witnesses. thune said that timing depends on the house impeachment managers who are expected to take the full 24 hours to make their case and the president's lawyers. it's unclear exactly how long they will take to make their case. one of the president's lawyers gaggling for a bit with reporters just before the trial began yesterday in the senate saying, according to lauren fox of cnn, that his team -- he declined to say exactly how many hours his team will use to

make their case. so that's still up in the air but again, we'll all find out together in the coming days. host: we'll hear from joe next. mount airy, maryland, independent line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: hopefully this helps people. every morning i listen to c-span and every morning you sort of hear the same on both sides where they sort of cover their points we've already heard on the news and think that would be a good exercise for all people is to be to listen to what the other side is saying because they're so galvanized and is a rorschach test on how you view the country. on the democrats side they very rightfully view the evidence of all the back channel, rudy giuliani flying over there to ukraine. and it strains belief to think that trump did not have his thumb on the scale for wanting to get this biden case reviewed

even though -- and he was smart enough, it's come up a few times on the phone call to say no quid pro quo, he's not a dumb man and he's going to do that. i think it's beyond belief to think he did not want that to be done. and if that's what the standard is for the impeachment, removal of office, i think that is probably a done deal. now, i think the better argument is that sort of something he should be removed from office from and at least we can move on from whether or not he was trying to influence ukraine on that. now on the second side for dementsd listening to the republican friends and neighbors, i think there is a legitimate thought about trump and when he's reviewing biden, i think he thought he had an opening there. if you look at hunter biden and how he was given that job, it certainly does give the appearance for influence. and i think trump believed he

had a window where he could do that, an illegal format even though it was obviously to go after the previous vice president of biden. o i think if people at least understood the filter the neighbors and family members were looking things through, maybe it would make politics not such a bloodsport because, you know, you're not answering each others questions i guess i want to say. host: because of what you heard has anything swayed you or come across as new or cause you to rethink some things? caller: that's a good question. not really. i think if you're looking at things from the democratic side, i think you have all the evidence you need. again, if you're going to be looking at things from that point, i think if you're looking for the impartial side you have your answer. on the other hand if you're looking at it from the republican side, i think they're saying wait a second, why are we even talking about

trump? why don't we find out more details what was going on here? was there a quid pro quo? and secondarily, would there ever have even been this type of trial if the media would have put their attention on hunter biden versus on, you know, trump. i think it depends. i don't want you to feel like i'm biased either way because i understand the point and i think i overplayed the republican point. the democrats side, too. host: let me ask you one more question from what the democrats presented. do you think then if you take their argument do you think it rises to an impeachable offense? caller: i think in a neutral country it does, meaning if everything was the same, it does. but i think that the republican argument that the media does influence stories, does influence direction, it's a larger context churl thing. in my heart of hearts i think if a contempt was president and talking about one of bush's

sons being on the board, i think the entire momentum of this would have been taken differently and maybe that's my own biased and something i have to deal with. again, i think that's the larger question. i appreciate you listening to my opinion. host: joe from mount airy, maryland. let's hear from tony in lansing, illinois, democrats line. caller: hi. listen, the democrats made their case that trump violated the constitution. that happened. they made the case for the need for witnesses during primetime fox news showed the trial without sound with pro trump commentary instead. so you know, a lot of republicans, they're just not getting the information. host: when you said they made the case, how specifically? caller: specifically, they made e case he violated the imolent clause and there was quid pro quo and there was

bribery involved and absolutely that there was obstruction of justice as that continues. host: did you get that from the presentation of yesterday? caller: absolutely. host: did you watch? caller: all day. all day. host: let's hear from kathy, nothing pog, texas, republican line. caller: good morning. this truly has been so painful to watch. adam schiff, i think it's hakeem, he continued to use half truths and partial texts to make our president look like he's a crazy lying racist. why they're bringing in race us iminto this, i don't know. i haven't figured that out yet. the new word is cover-up when the senate is, i believe, going to get to the bottom of this and everybody has to remember, trump does have executive privilege. and some of these, like bolton, i hope they put bolton on and we get biden because if you

don't know that biden and his son and his entire family is getting rich off of our tax dollars, then you're blind and don't want to see it. host: kathy, let me ask you this, half truths and partial texts, what do you mean by that, give me examples? caller: when adam schiff was up there for 5,000 minutes, he started saying things zelensky never said. they'll take little texts, they'll take portions of a text from the witnesses they had during the house procedure and they cut things off and they paste things together. listen, this -- host: such as what? caller: i didn't write it down. you can blatantly see. you'll see it when the republicans put this up, their case up, you're going to see this. this is all hate. they hate trump. look, the guy's not perfect. he's a damn good president. our country is doing so good and they want to make us poor

again. they want to lie and cheat. they want to make racists hate each other. this is the democrats socialist party. host: kathy from texas. this is a text from bob in illinois saying, i think they overreached calling president trump evil, a cheater, a schemer, etc., they're getting repetitive and starting to put voters to sleep. this is bill saying the democrats are making a pretty good case for president trump for a guilty verdict and the removal and the senate republicans listening. and another one saying the impeachment trial is about the president's wrongdoing, not bidens and president obama has nothing to do with the impeachment charges, why can't the president's attorneys refute articles of impeachment. the president's attorneys will get a chance starting saturday, 24 hours given to the democrats to make their case, the house impeachment managers and continues today, 1:00 eastern standard time is where you can see that, c-span.org and our

radio app, too. one of the people going before cameras yesterday was the top republican on the house oversight committee, jim jordan. you heard the portion of adam schiff's opening argument from yesterday. here's representative jordan's reaction to that. [video] >> we're supposed to believe adam schiff? he said we have everyday there was corruption. and michael horowitz said nunez was false and adam schiff said you can justify the court and adam told us no you can't they lied to the fisa court 17 times. adam schiff said we look forward to hearing from the whistle blower and adam schiff said we have had no contact and yesterday the story where he misrepresents to all of you, to chairman nadler and most importantly to the white house counsel that mr. z is mr. zelensky when in fact it was someone else. he talked for two hours and 15 minutes and we're to believe everything he said today. in spite of that history, seven

important things he had exactly wrong. so yeah, when he talks about it, he says it's presudges and it was said when congressman turner asked him under oath at the hearing. that's the kind of game they're playing here. again, i think the american people see through it all. host: we'll show you more as we o on throughout the morning. 202-248-8000 for democrats and -8002 and 202-248 or independents, 202-248-8003. guest: yesterday there was a breaking day for the volume of tweets the president put out yesterday. this was mr. baker around dinner time noting president trump broke his twitter record with 132 tweets or retweets as of 4:45 p.m. yesterday, the most of any single day of his

presidency as he defended himself and lashed out at the house managers. 41 of those tweets yesterday came between 12:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. yesterday. the president spending most of the day and morning at the world economic forum in davos, switzerland. he left switzerland yesterday afternoon and arrived back in the white house at about 6:22. that's when marine 1 touched down on the south lawn at the white house. the associated press story about the president's tweets noting his previous record. that coming from december 12 last month, the day the house judiciary committee opened its marathon session to approve the two articles of impeachment against the president. again, he hasn't yet tweeted this morning but we'll bring you what the president has to say and what's on his mind when he does. host: some twitter reaction. mcd236 saying, i just heard

republicans complaining they've heard nothing new. then maybe you should push for documentation and witnesses that have been withhold. also off twitter, i notice the democrats aren't showing us endless clips of the constitutional scholars they subjected us to for a full day. richard textsing from georgia adam schiff went through three hours as a waste of time. another text, trisha from baltimore, maryland, saying the democrats were clear and produced overwhelming evidence this president should be removed from office, we have a corrupt government, wake up america. lonnie, thanks for waiting, democrats line from ohio. caller: i don't think it's a trial, it's a farce. i don't think they want to impeach trump. about two months ago trump was ordered to pay back $2 million to charity because he stole money from his own charity. that's a high crime or

misdemeanor. why didn't they impeach him on that? i don't think they want to impeach him? host: why go through all this exercise if they don't want to impeach him? caller: maybe they're trying to start the war with iran and it's used as a distraction. it's ridiculous. it's ridiculous. we are talking about trump sending somebody over to investigate biden's son. now we are investigating trump. both parties are trying to investigate each other. both parties are pointing the finger at the other party saying they are corrupt. maybe they are both right. host: jamari in north carolina, independent line, you're next. good morning. caller: good morning. well, i just want to start off saying richard nixon,rg scandal seen this before? isn't it laughable for us as americans the current u.s.

politics to be so laughable at this point? host: how does this impeachment trial parallel to the events of richard nixon? caller: he was caught for the scandal. he left his presidency. and to this point we have the option to remove the president. to this point it -- democrats are yelling at republicans. republicans are screaming at democrats. i'm like, so let me ask some republicans this. if obama did the exact same thing what would they have done? they would have removed him from office. trump should be held accountable just like everybody else. i'm not saying trump is perfect. nobody wants our current vice president to become president. i'm like what do we want to do? what should we do? we are close to world war iii.

host: aside from that, what do you think the case that the democrats are making? have you watched? what do you think of what they are presenting? caller: well, so they want to remove trump, but they don't know how to exactly do it. host: how did you come to that conclusion? -- r: well, because after right after they are stating the rules and the impeachment trial, everybody's wanting to have proof. they have a lot of proof against trump. they have a lot of statements. we all know he called and tried to get dirt on joe biden. we all know this it -- but the question really is, i wonder what do you plan to do afterwards? host: from san antonio, texas, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning to you.

i have listened very carefully to these different managers that have been on so far, and it seems that every one of them either has a crystal ball or passed a mind reading course because every single one of them says trump did this or that for his own political purpose. i never passed that mind reading course so i have no idea what's in his mind. and i watched very carefully the house impeachment stories. all of the people that they are putting up for these partial quotes the gentleman was talking about earlier, the ambassadors and such, said that, oh, they knew for sure that trump did this. how did you know? well, ambassador sonderland told me. each one of them said they got their information from ambassador sonderland, when he gets on he says well i assumed it. i heard it and assumed it.

well, you know what happens when you assume something. you make a you know what out of you and me. host: you're saying as far as the democrats are concerned nothing definitive of what they have presented so far? caller: i'm saying it's less than definitive. you cannot possibly know what's in somebody else's mind. and you cannot possibly know that any one thing would be the deciding factor. if there is a giant rainstorm and it's fixing to flood, the deciding factor of whether i stay or go might be whether i have a boat or not. host: that's penelope, san antonio, texas. finishing off a little past our first half-hour. three-hour program, 2 1/2 hours to go. taking your calls on the topic of the impeachment inquiry. the senate version and what's happening in the senate. 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. and independents, 202-748-8002.

back to john. john: you just had a caller or two back concerned about both sides yelling at each other so much. figured it might be a good time to focus on some of the kinder moments that happened during the senate impeachment trial yesterday. there were a couple of them. this is from capitol hill reporter kim, her note about 10:15 last night saying, leaving the capitol lindsey graham, a staunch trump defender, told adam schiff that he's done a good job in his opening arguments. really well-spoken is what graham told schiff. then there was this moment towards the end of yesterday's proceedings, right before the senate adjourned for the evening, both sides, the leaders on both sides in the senate, mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer, got up to thank the senate pages, the high school-age pages whose semesters are up this week and who have been working in the capitol to help the senators. here's that moment from the floor. >> in addition to witnessing

this unusual event that we are all experiencing, they are studying for their final exams as well and we wish them well as they head off back to boring normal high school. >> mr. leader, let me just add my thanks and gratitude for all of us. it is rare, particularly these days, when 100 senators from both sliles, every political persuasion, get up and give someone a standing ovation. but you deserve it. thank you for your good work and we hope you have beautiful and uccessful lives. john: that moment at the very end of yesterday's proceedings. one more moment from the very beginning of yesterday's proceedings. that was the prayer offered yesterday morning by chaplain barry black, the 62nd senate chaplain. he served in that position since 2003.

right after the court of impeachment was convened, just after 1:00 p.m. yesterday, this is barry black offering his prayer. > let us pray. sovereign god, author of liberty , we gather in this historic chamber for the some lem -- solemn responsibility of these impeachment proceedings. give wisdom to the distinguished chief justice john roberts as he presides. and you are all powerful know our thoughts before we form them. as our lawmakers have become jurors, remind them of your corinthians first

10:31, that whatever they do should be done for you are glory. help them remember that patriots side on both sliles -- slile -- sides of the aisle, that words have consequences, and that how something is said can be as important as what is said. give them a civility built upon integrity that brings beliefs andin their actions. we pray in your powerful name. amen. host: tennessee, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro.

i like that lady that just called in from texas. i'd like to buy her a cup of coffee next time i head down that way. she's good. listen, two things i'd like to bring up. mr. schiff said something very chilling and i think all your listeners might want to take about 10 seconds before they get on the phone about it. when he said, we can't depend on an election to take care of this. the upcoming election. hat doesn't it -- point number two, all this stuff -- a lot of it didn't start with mr. schiff. goes back to mr. harry reid. mitt romney stood before harry reid and harry said, mr. romney, rumor has it you haven't paid your taxes in 10 years. you need to prove yourself

innocent. that is the mindset of these people that have been spearheading this thing. host: westchester, ohio. republican line. caller: yes, good morning. i would like -- hi. one thing i want to do is make a correction to something that mr. schiff said yesterday. i think there is a lot of liberties taken and obviously that's going to happen. adam schiff represents the 28th district in california which is the hollywood hills, central l.a. and burbank. he's obviously got the support of his representatives in everything he does. but yesterday during his statement he was talking about how devastating it was for the president to withhold money from ukraine. and he would make us believe this was a serious foreign policy mistake. and hurt ukraine. i would like to give people

information regarding that historically. in 2008 ukraine was flirting with going into nato. washington was screaming. and they invaded georgia. bush 41 immediately put sanctions on russia. missile defense was going into poland. the obama administration was elected. in march of 2009 hillary clinton went into the russian reset button. in geneva. after that, in between that time , obama was caught on a mike, hot mike, saying to the russians, representatives, wait until after the election, i'll have more flexibility. and then obama stopped missile defense in poland. when trump came in, missile defense is roaring back. he has the most sanctions on russia than any president

previously. wants toe -- president do, i'm not speaking for the president, this is behavior, he wants to put a lot of pressure on europe to get more involved with ukraine. host: ok. that's deborah in westchester, ohio. let's hear from laramie, wyoming, democrats line. carol. hello. caller: hello. yes. if i'm accused of a crime i did not commit, i would be producing anything and everything to prove i'm innocent. yet trump's even said yesterday in switzerland, we have the evidence. they don't. well, if you're so innocent, prove it. give us the evidence to prove that you're innocent. host: again, that's carol from wyoming. brian from philadelphia off. saying the president had an obligation to investigate corruption before releasing aid

to ukraine. the bidens were involved in corruption. we want to hear from hunter. jordan saying that adam schiff and company made the compelling case. great use of visual, audio, and case buildings. it's unfortunate there were so many empty seats in the senate. democrats and republicans alike. how can executive privilege be invoked if the president's actions were outside of his official duties. that's james texting us from north carolina. this is ryan off our facebook page saying, it's not the senate's job to investigate it. it's their job to try the case. the house has investigated and sent to them. the partisan house democrats have no case so the senate trial won't take long. i see one column that will landslide in november and it's not blue. the house democrats will take making their case today. expect to do that . to white house team expected to start their presentations this coming saturday. you can see today's events on c-span2. that's at 1:00 eastern standard time on our website at c-span.org and our radio app if

you are out and want to listen to it on the go. download the free radio app and do that. ruben in philadelphia. independent line. caller: yes. how you doing this morning, pedro. thanks for having me on. what i can't seem to understand is why do people want hunter biden to testify when they didn't believe fiona hill, they don't believe sonderland, they didn't believe yovanovitch by saying they have secondhand knowledge. what knowledge does hunter biden have with the president's intention and phone calls? people forget that the phone call was made about the bidens because the president wanted to find dirt on them. now he's trying to get us, the american people, to spread dirt on joe biden. he's just flip-flopping this. biden doesn't have any knowledge of the president's intention or why he made that phone call to za len zi. host: if democrats are allowed to produce witnesses, should

republicans have their chance to prove the witness these desire, too? caller: they should have the chance. but they should be relevant witnesses. hunter biden is not relevant to what the president did. only those that were in the loop know why the president did what he did and made the phone call. what does hunter biden know? if you want to interview hunter biden, have a separate trial. doesn't belong on this impeachment trial. doesn't know what's going on. if you want to ask him about what happened with barisma that should be separate. host: ruben in philadelphia. back to john. john: pedro, with everything that's happening on the floor, there is plenty to pay attention to, but also plenty to pay attention to on your televisions when it comes to ads about impeachment. several new ads out and being aired by several different groups. this is the twitter page for

senate republicans. their official twitter page putting out a new ad compilation of various aspects of the impeachment trial so far. unclear how much money they are putting behind this ad rather than just putting it on social immediatea. we'll play it for you so you can hear it. >> if we dismiss at the outset, the president would never get a chance to defend himself. >> democrats, listen, we can't beat them at the elections. let's impeachment. >> they are not here to steal one election they are here to steal two elections. they said in their brief we have overwhelming evidence. >> the evidence is already overwhelming. >> undeniable case. >> ample evidence. >> they are afraid to make their case. >> this is not only about in their minds damaging donald trump, but it's about removing him and taking him off the ballot. >> the sub plot to having witnesses before the senate has nothing to do with illuminating of bringing more information to the surface. it's about getting corey gardner

taking tough votes. suzan collins taking tough votes. marty mcsally take tough votes. > we need to worry about how to lower the cost of insulin for die beatics. -- diabetics. i think we need to get through t focus on the people's business. -- through it. ocus on the people's business. john: that ad from senate republicans. unclear if for how much money they are putting behind that ad. when it comes to another ad, there is a lot of indication how much money's being put behind it. it's michael bloomberg's new ad about impeachment. some 27 states is the media markets where bloomberg is airing this new ad. part of his massive, as fox news puts it, $248 million in commercial and ad spending since

the start of his campaign. here's bloomberg's latest ad. >> i am running to defeat donald trump. in 2016 i won the donald trump -- warned that donald trump was a dangerous demagogue. when the republican congress wouldn't hold him accountable, i went to work helping run winning campaigns in 21 house seats. it's time for the senate to act and remove trump from office. and if they won't do their jobs this november, you and i will. i'm mike bloomberg and i approved this message. host: next from christopher, madison, wisconsin, democrats line. caller: hi. am i on? host: go ahead. caller: yes. i think that adam schiff and the democrats, they laid out their

case perfectly. adam schiff was especially out ful in the way he laid is case. d he reminded me of elijah cummings. and the way he brought it forward. the senators really do need to documents. es and whoever heard of a trial without witnesses and documents. host: that's christopher in wisconsin. alberto in california, republican line. caller: yes, pedro. good morning. host: good morning. caller: you know, what i say is

why adam schiff, he didn't show the whistleblower. why him show this evidence that he has. it's what i don't understand. why he cover that. also i want to say to all americans, every president abuse the power. let's be honest. and let's stop say that donald trump abuse power. every president abuse the power. i'm mexican american. we have the best president right now. and i ask him to all the people to vote for donald trump. host: ok. that's alberto in california speaking of president trump nishing up in da vose -- ddavos switzerland. talked about the senate, his view of the evidence being presented against him by the house democrats. here's what he had to say. president trump: i got to watch glimpse of what is taking place, wasting time in washington. and i watched -- they don't talk about my conversation. they don't talk about my transcripts. remember this.

when schiff made up the phony story and repeated it to cock and -- congress and the world and totally phony story and released the transcript, there was supposed to be a second whistleblower. what happened to him. wait, wait. otherwise i won't do your show. wait. it was supposed to be an informer. what happened to the informer? all of these people disappeared. when they saw this transcript they said we got problems. but they went ahead because they were already there. because they had a phony concocked story made up. here's the story. did nothing wrong. it was a perfect conversation. it was totally appropriate. the best lawyers in the world have looked at it. the department of justice has looked at it. given it a sign off. there was nothing wrong. they never thought i was going to release the conversation. they probably didn't think we had transcribers or had it transcribed the tape. they never thought we would release it. when we released that

conversation, all hell broke out with the democrats because they say, wait a minute. this is much different than shifty schiff told us. we are doing very well. i got to watch enough. i thought our team did a very good job. honestly we have all the material. they don't have the material. host: it was on september 24 of 2019 that the president released that conversation between himself and president zelensky of the ukraine. if you go to the white house.gov website, can you still find t calling it a transcript one side. officially identified as a memorandum of a telephone conversation. again that's at the basis amongst other things of what the house democrats have been presenting. will continue on today and tomorrow. and again you can watch it on c-span. c-span2 starting at 2:00. massachusetts is next. independent line. we'll go to david. david, good morning.

caller: good morning. i just want to make a quick little story of how things are obvious. i notice you are wearing glasses. you ever lose your glasses and go where are they? can i not find my glasses and your wife looks at you and says they are on top of the head. it was obvious. the thing about this impeachment thing. it has been obvious from day one that they want trump out no matter what. you just showed the commercial of bloomberg. we must beat trump. we must beat trump. that has been their agenda from day one no matter what they have to do. and yet they are not presenting any -- anything to help this country like mr. trump has already done. my thing is it's been obvious even before the election that they wanted this man out. thank you. host: from kevin, kevin in ellicott city, maryland, democrats line. hello.

caller: good morning. just a couple points from the previous callers. the house of representatives has presented over 400 bills, 200 of those bills are bipartisan bills that are sitting in the senate. so the idea that the democrats haven't done anything is absolutely incorrect. the other thing is, he did this. our president does not have ethics. does not have morals. and the gentleman that was a mexican american from california said exactly right. donald trump supporters would not care if donald trump worked with putin in the kremlin to win the presidency, and they had it on video, and you could watch it, all his supporters would say it's ok. we just want to win and we don't care how we win. it doesn't matter -- truth will come out f it doesn't come out now, it will come out in future years. all these folks covering this stuff up are going to look back in history and be embarrassed to take a position that the president of the united states to collude and work with foreign

governments. in the shadow of 2016 election with russians getting in our election, i'm amazed that americans stand by and accept the idea that the president now wants to work with ukraine or ask china to get in our elections. it's a dangerous world we live in. folks better start having a little more ethics, little more morals, and patriotism versus this partisan stuff. i'm not a big partisan. host: gregory in texas, republican line. hello. caller: good morning, sir. i just want to say, president trump, he might not be liked by many, but i personally think that he has done better than most presidents here lately. he has done something no president has done that's by going and meeting with kim jeong, north korea. that's a big accomplishment. that's a standard he had -- many presidents have to come --

host: but to the matter of the impeachment proceedings against him, what do you think of those? caller: him being impeached i think that's a bunch of bogus and waste of our tax dollars. waste of our time, really. we have bigger matters going on. the virus going on in china. host: aside from that why do you think it's a waste of time. caller: because he probably didn't really do anything. from day one they have been attacking him. these individuals that just don't like him. they have been putting it out there saying he's doing this and that. he's really not. there is no evidence so far. how is it going to help us by wasting our money on all this? host: from illinois, independent line. steven, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a couple of issues this morning. related to the calls coming in and the impeachment itself. it seems to be a lot of confusion with many callers in regards to the investigation that was held up by the house.

the house investigation was held because the department of justice and attorney general barr wouldn't do the investigation that was brought before him by the whistleblower. the 12 people that are being presented in their interviews in the investigation that was taking place in the house that you are now seeing in the impeachment trial are all witnesses that were told by donald trump not to testify. these 12 people came forward refusing to accept his denial of his responsibility to this country. that's one thing i wanted to claire fifmente the more important issue that i see with this entire impeachment is not just the attacks on the biden family to improve donald trump's status within the government, we have to look at a different picture in this. the russians more or less invaded crimea. the ukraine is trying to fight

for their own independence in not having russia take over their contry, which is what putin would like to do. donald trump is so affiliated with russia that his integration into our government that we have seen for three years has even rought him to the point of outing a c.i.a. operative in his own white house oval office. host: let me ask you this, when you say donald trump is so affiliated with russia, what do you use that -- as evidence of that? caller: that's all we heard from date he got into office. russia this, russia that. as nancy pelosi says all road leads to russia. host: that's saying things. what's the affiliation part of it? caller: i think it's money. personally i think it's money laundering. for a long time. host: draws you to that conclusion. caller: just from his own history with money. his own history in his own assets that he -- he's wasted

and squandered. he's had six -- what do you call, in 18 years he's had six failed had six failed bankruptcies. how do you get six bankruptcies in 18 years? there is a seven year cycle between each one that you're supposed to be allowed to file. he lost $2 billion in 20 years. will leave it there and go back to john mcardle. >> we promised viewers we will let you know when president trump has been tweeting this morning. he is up and tweeting. here is a few of the president's tweets from a few minutes ago. just after 7:50 a.m., the democrat house would not give one witness but now remand -- demand republicans produce witnesses the house never sought or asked for. hearingair and corrupt in congressional.

history is what the president said. it will never be enough. ago,just about a minute the democrats and shifty s chiff are refusing to state that the obama administration withheld aid for many countries, including ukraine, egypt, honduras, and mexico. witchhunt. we will see if he continues to tweet this morning. a few other tweets from members of congress representing the president. this was senator rand paul from yesterday. his tweet says i heard you like to attend the impeachment trial. i would like to have you as my guest during this partisan charade and a picture of one of the tickets to get into the senate press gallery there. from the democrat side of the aisle, this is senator chris murphy from earlier this morning met late last night, saying i am thinking today as i look across

the republican side how many of these senator's campaign hard against trump in their primary. so many of them warned how out-of-control he would be and now they are readying to greenlight his corruption. corruption that they saw coming. one more from congresswoman sylvia garcia, one of the seven impeachment managers making the case in the senate. repeatingsswoman says the crime and claiming his actions were perfect, president trump continues to show why he is a clear and present danger to our democracy. his words only strengthen our demands for witnesses and documents. americans want a fair trial, not a cover-up. down, three hours we will take your calls this morning on the senate impeachment trial. the house managers presenting their case at 1:00 this afternoon. you can make comments on yesterday's proceedings, what you heard, if you learned anything or not. all of those things available for comment.

(202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you are watching yesterday, one of the people you heard from was jerry nadler. he explained the scope of the president's actions regarding ukraine in the u.s. government. [video clip] >> the house managers will now tell you the story of the president's ukraine scheme. as we tell this story, it is important to note that the facts before us are not in dispute. there are no close calls. president trump unlawfully withheld luke perry assistance appropriated -- withheld military assistance appropriated by congress and then tried to cover it up when he got caught. this is the story of a corrupt government effort that drew in officials,, cabinet

executive branch agencies, and the office of the president. this effort threatens the security of ukraine in his military struggle with russia and compromises our own national security interests because the president cared only about his personal political interests. host: you can watch more at c-span.org. you can post on our twitter feed @cspanwj. our facebook page is facebook.com/c-span. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. ricky from charleston, south carolina, democrats line starts off our second hour. caller: good morning. i am ricky from charleston, south carolina. i told your screen or i have -- screener i have in watching the case and there is overwhelming evidence. of a case that

happened with a 16-year-old boy. his parents had so much money. he killed four other kids. the word influenza or whatever you call it, he was too rich. this brings me to a person like president trump. host: that is ricky in south carolina. don in ohio, republican line. caller: hi. the big winners in this impeachment trial is the news media. i first voted in my first 1946, after i had gotten out of the navy.

i was old enough to vote. me that media told harry truman could not win. and he did. relates to the impeachment proceedings specifically? keeps ithe news media going. nobody would ever have heard of were nadler or adam schiff it not for the news media. thatrned a long time ago you watch tv and listen to the radio. hear it from mike in atkinson, north carolina, independent line. caller: good morning. there are several issues i want to address. to believes hard

anything that the managers put forward. they have repeatedly said it is undisputed evidence. it is not. such as he asked that you do me a favor. -- the democrats call up and say he is breaking laws and telling lies. please give one example. as far asme ask you, the misrepresentation part, what do you think is being misrepresented? caller: adam schiff when he did the fictitious rendition of the phone call. sayy time they would something about the phone call, they would say "do me a favor" when it was "do us a favor." on hunter, a fellow said he

should be tried separately because this has nothing to do with him, impeachment, and he should not be called forward. i agree with that. and joe bidenn are guilty of what they have been accused of, i think president trump had a right to bring it forward. running for president does not give you immunity. host: do you think that the bidens are worth bringing forward to testify or not? if not, why? if you do not think it is worth it. caller: i think it is worth it. what is the value of joe biden and hunter biden testifying, in your opinion? caller: it would testify -- justify, if they are found guilty of what they are accused of, the actions of the president. turned -- go ahead.

caller: trillions of dollars in debt. this is the tip of the iceberg. when mr. trump ran for president, he said he was going to drain the swamp. busy his first term with impeachment stuff. basically the democrats are trying to cover their own utts. i think it is the tip of the iceberg about the corruption, spending money out of the country and having it come back to people that make laws. host: if hunter biden did testify and nothing was found wrong, do you think that harms the president's case? caller: yeah. host: ok. caller: it may not be a law broken, but he should not be benefiting from his father's position in office. host: ok. that is mike in north carolina,

part of the several calls starting us off in the second hour. you can continue to do so while you are calling and waiting period -- waiting. theeeping an eye on how impeachment trial is playing out in newspapers around the country, here is a few from the home states of several of the republican members of the senate , who are being very closely watched, including susan collins of maine. scheme isng, corrupt the headline. managers' house present their case against president trump and then to , theado, the denver post home of cory gardner, also being closely watched. help,ats appeal for gop's a similar headline in the salt lake tribune, the home state of mitt romney. democrats and republicans join our cause. one more from "the encourage daily news -- anchorage daily

news." democrats appeal for gop help to convict corrupt trump. veterand is from kentucky columnists and newspaper writer linda blackford leader,exington herald one of the homestay papers of mitch mcconnell, the majority leader in the senate. she writes someday when the history books are written, mitch mcconnell will be held accountable. that is when he will be fully understood as the architect of much of democracy's degradation from a political system that works only for the highest bidders to the ridiculous spectacle of united states senate as the president's lapdog. until that time, mcconnell will hisinue to -- will continue shameless protection of impeached president donald trump. he grins at the oath of impartiality. he smirked as he tries to

compress the trial into an impossible timeline and chuckles as he consults with trump's lawyers. linda blackford. her call and came out yesterday afternoon -- column came out yesterday afternoon. host: republican congressman mark meadows commented on the performance of the house impeachment managers. [video clip] >> today was not a new day. it was a repeat of the same thing he has been saying for a long time. no new substance, no new arguments, just a lot of rhetoric that is not supported by fact. i think the troubling thing for stayingus is actually alert enough to be able to follow it. it is one of those things, when you have heard the story over and over and you know the punchline to this joke, you cannot even pay attention. i would suggest that the american people, if they could

turn their channel and watch something else, that is what they are doing. int: we will hear from glenn illinois, democrats line. caller: good morning. i have watch this whole thing from start to finish. out to whereng it the republicans ain't got nothing they can say about this. hisand his tweeting and overseas and he is bringing all this stuff up, talking over there, it is -- host: can i ask you what is it about the house democrats' case that you believe? caller: just the way they are laying it all out and the things that has happened, that he has done. host: such as what? all of hish as

tweets. he lies. he has 70,000 lies behind him already. -- 17,000 lies behind him already. host: the case the house democrats are making specifically, give me examples from there. caller: specifically? his denial of the phone call. there is one that is locked up in a secure place that is the original. they pulled it off and hung it -- put it host: do you plan to watch today? caller: yes, sir. host: from what you are watching, when you watch it, what do you look for during the course of watching it? if you are seeing it for long stretches of time, is it able to keep your attention for that

length? take and go to 2579 and fox. i have been hitting all of them. host: you flip through the channels. caller: yes. fox is doing one side here that is it. they do not say anything else. nothing but republican on there. in illinois talking about viewing the senate impeachment trial by the house managers, planning to do so today. you can do so as well on c-span2 and c-span.org and our radio app. we will hear next from diana from hartford, connecticut. caller: thank you. some of the things i have to say i know people have already said. i have been asked questions and i hope you can help me understand. the democrats calling, they are

never going to change. they do not see the hypocrisy and one sidedness of the impeachment trial. people have said why are we concerned about obama? my thing is, logically, if they are accusing trump of endangering the country because he withheld weapons for a month and a half, then why not go back to obama? he withheld weapons for eight years, allowing russia to kill ukrainians and annexed crimea. that is why people are going back to obama. it did not bother the democrats then. that is one hypocrisy. my other thing has to do with the corruption. why do wesend over -- allow someone like biden, the sun of a vice president, to work in a corrupt country to begin with? is and that something illegal about taking money from a corrupt government? i would have yanked him out immediately, saying you cannot work here. it is corrupt. this is illegal. that is another thing.

host: do you think that needs to be a basis of that trial? caller: not necessarily, but i think it needs to be investigated as to why, if this is such a corrupt country, we are sending people over to work there. seems -- itseem it does not seem right. it seems you are almost making it legitimized by taking the money. you are saying i think they are corrupt what you take the money anyway. that kind of bothered me. , these senators are all under oath, right? schiff cannot use the term dig up dirt because that is not in the transcript. the transcript said please would you help us. my other question had to do with justice roberts. this is supposed to be a trial based on the two articles of impeachment. it seems as though -- first, i do not get c-span2.

i do not get cable news, so i do not have those other stations. the only stations that showed it abc and nbc. they turned off at 4:00. i tuned in late at night, thinking maybe they had a repeat, but all i saw was democrats giving a speech, so i did not see the rest. it seemed as though what you show this morning, that the democrats are more or less using this as a pulpit for their political rallies by attacking the character of the president. why didn't justice roberts put a stop to that and say stick to the two articles of impeachment? this is not your political rally that the taxpayers are paying for. i do not know why he did not do that. it seemed as though it was off script that they would use it to just attack the character of the president instead of sticking to the topics. host: when it comes to the viewing, do you have access to a computer?

caller: i do. host: c-span.org, if you want to go there and watch the proceedings there, i know some of the networks pulled away after a few hours. we continue. we will start when it finishes -- when it finishes, we will finish. if you have a phone, you can download the radio app. it is free. you can listen along if that makes it easier for you to consume what is going on. caller: may i ask why was the other part on all the time? i watched that with the -- that they their did to get to this point, but this, the senate part, is not on. host: as far as the senate part is on the other network? caller: for you, why is ended on on the c-spant station? host: c-span2 is the station we have dedicated to the senate.

that is the channel we are going to show it on. there are other avenues that you can watch it if you want or at least monitor and follow along if you wish. we would invite you to avail yourself of that. let's go back to john mcardle. >> just wanted follow up on that last call and some of what she brought up. we have it gavel-to-gavel on c-span2. our viewers can watch the trial in its entirety. she was talking about some the other networks cutting off their coverage. storyast and cable, their is focused on the coverage yesterday. they note that only about a third of the way into the marathon day of the senate trial on wether to remove the present -- whether to remove the president, most of the broadcast networks turned back to regular broadcast programming in the afternoon and into primetime. they went to specific networks, focusing on that first day of

coverage. day, nbc covered proceedings from 12:30 to 5:00 p.m.. when the senate took its break, the continued offering coverage to affiliates until 7:40. the coverage for many of the networks was live all day on their streaming services. another example -- abc's network coverage was from 12:30 to a little after 5:00 p.m. and they covered it on their streaming services. fox offered live coverage to its localates through various channels. they also aired the impeachment coverage on their website. if you want to read more about how this is being covered by some of the other networks and when and how they are covering it, broadcasting cable is a good place to go for that. as we noted earlier, the daily mail, looking at the nielsen

ratings from that first day of coverage, about 11 million people tuned in in the united states to the impeachment coverage. point 8down from 13 million people who tuned in last november during the first day of the impeachment inquiry. that is what is happening on some of the other networks. you can watch it here live, gavel-to-gavel. you can watch it on c-span2, but also through our streaming services. a lot of folks have yesterday and on tuesday. our youtube livestream stream of the senate trial was one of the top livestream's on youtube's entire channel. that is how it is playing out around the country and the various ways americans are accessing this trial. host: rob from maryland says i am a registered democrat. so far, i have not seen anything that teams impeachment. i think we should move on and get ourselves ready for the election. nita from alabama saying

i think everyone in the hearing room should stop speaking to news media as this goes forward. nicholas says i am a moderate. both republican and democrat parties are playing the blame game. these impeachment proceedings are a waste of time. the congress has turned into a capitalist majority. we need to fix the inequality problems in america. the debt clock keeps ticking. congressbers of appearing before cameras, it was ted cruz making himself available yesterday as well. the topic at hand for him -- hunter biden. [video clip] >> a second point -- the house managers made a serious strategic error today. arguments to open the day today directly drew into question hunter biden and made not only his testimony relevant, which it already was but it is now critical because the house democrats built the entire case on the proposition that an

investigation into marie's mom risma was a sham. the problem is, there is significant evidence of corruption. of thebiden, the sun then sitting president joe biden , was being paid $83,000 a month, $1 million a year. this is someone with no background in oil and gas, no experience. at the same time, joe biden has admitted he threatened ukraine. he withheld or threatened to withhold $1 billion of aid unless and until ukraine fired the prosecutor that was potentially investigating the company on which his sun served on the board. case isouse managers' based on the allegations of corruption concerning hunter biden and joe biden being a sham, it is directly relevant. i have to saying, the need for

the senate to hear the testimony of hunter biden and the need for the senate to grant the white house lawyers the ability to take that testimony has become all the more relevant. jay inet's hear from florida, independent line. caller: good morning. the whole thing with the impeachment trial, i just want to go back to the opening statements, not yesterday but the day before. the democrats came out and ,ccused every republican everybody in the united states of america, of treason and a orer-up if they do not vote understand it the way they represented it. i have never seen anything come as an independent, listening to both sides, have i ever heard one group of people disparaged so many, saying they are traitors. they are non-patriotic.

they do not care about america because they do not want to understand and go the way we want to go. i do not hear the republicans saying that. i do not hear them saying if you impeach him you are a traitor. i do not hear that. i hear democrats already setting up, saying, we cannot let the american people make a decision we know it isy do already legitimate. before the election -- how does anybody know that joe biden is going to be the person that donald trump is running against? that is another question. the democrats are throwing everybody else under the bus and saying he is the only person that is going to be running and that is why you cannot investigate him and why trump did it, because he knows joe biden is going to win. nobody knows that. host: let me take you back in time a little bit to reppo jerry nadler -- representative jerry

nadler when his presentation talked about this idea of a cover-up. [video clip] >> the record supports both articles of impeachment. it is beyond argument that president trump mounted a sustained pressure campaign to get ukraine to announce investigations that would benefit him politically and then tried to cover it up. the president does not seriously deny any of these facts. the only question left is this -- why is the president so intent on concealing the evidence and blocking all documents and testimony today? only guilty people try to hide the evidence. of course, all of this is relevant only if this is a fair trial, only if you, the senate, sitting as an impartial jury, do not work with the accused to conceal the evidence from the american people. we cannot be surprised that the president objects to calling witnesses that would prove his

guilt. that is who he is. he does not want you to see evidence or hear testimony the details how he betrayed his office and asked a foreign government intervene in our election. we should be surprised that, in the united states senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world, where we are expected to put our oath of office ahead of political expediency, where we are expected to be honest, where we are expected to protect the interests of the american people, we should be surprised, shocked, that any senator would vote to block this witness or any relevant witness who might shed additional light on the president's obvious misconduct. the president is on trial in the senate, but the senate is on trial in the eyes of the american people. will you vote to allow all of the relevant evidence to be presented here, or will you betray your pledge to be an impartial juror? will you bring a pastor bolton here? -- ambassador bolton here?

or will you instead choose to be complicit in the president's cover-up? through our midway three hours of taking your calls on the proceedings of the house -- in the senate. the house impeachment managers making their case. saturday, the white house team will start making there. you can call on this at (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and, independents, (202) 748-8002. talkinglast caller was about the 2020 democratic primary, saying we do not know yet who is going to win that primary. here is some of the latest news from the primary trail. an npr station out with their latest polling of new hampshire democratic presidential primary sandersthey have bernie with a decent jump and lead in

that race, 29% for sanders, 17% for mayor pete buttigieg, 14% for joe biden, 13% for elizabeth warren, 6% for amy klobuchar, and so on down the line. noting sanderst did particularly well with younger voters. he has 52% of democratic voters under 30. wbur out of boston to read more about that pole. bernie sanders leading in that, also having to cancel a rally in iowa yesterday because of the that and news congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez is appearing at events this week on bernie of his's behalf in light having to be here in washington, d.c. with the other senators and the three other democratic members running for the democratic presidential primary.

this story from the hill newspaper looks at other republicans in the senate who have had to cancel fundraisers or had their 2020 interests impacted by the impeachment trial. senate republicans in particular have had to postpone washington fundraisers. senator dan sullivan out of alaska had a small dinner benefiting alaskans for sullivan easternd for 6:30 p.m. wednesday. . senator mitt romney's pac postponed its believe in america kickoff reception wednesday. the national republican senatorial committee was forced to cancel a fundraiser this week. if you want to read more on those cancellations "the hill" newspaper is where you can go. one more story on 2020, this focusing on how the impeachment might be impacting the race for the house of representatives.

this is out of the washington examiner. had an interview with the chairman of the national republican congressional committee, charged with taking back the house from democratic majority. in his interview, saying that pushedeachment trial has about 1000 republicans to file to run for the house this year. that is the total number they have filing to run. the impeachment intensity has raise the overall political intensity to an election day level. republicans are responding, giving him an incumbent or challenger in 384 out of the 435 house districts. that is nearly 40 above expectations at this stage of the year. brooklyn, new york, democrats line. caller: hello?

how are you doing. job.re doing a great you know what? you are one of the few moderators on c-span i really enjoy. you challenge some of these calls and i like that. i am calling on the democratic line, but i have to tell you, i do not think democrats have proved their case. there is a lot of innuendo. where they aret supposed to bring out the evidence, the witnesses, the facts. they are bringing out innuendos. host: innuendos such as what? caller: and you windows -- innuendos. they say the nastiest things. they called trump a criminal. what do you mean he is a criminal? what has he done that is a crime?

it is a call. you want to make an issue out of the call? we can make an issue out of the call. we can discuss that and say maybe it was not perfect, like trump says. nothing is perfect. host: as far as the evidence? caller: you do not impeach somebody over a call. host: as far as the witnesses they called and brought back in video clips yesterday, none of that is commencing you? caller: no. that is not witnesses. i feel like there is a disconnect here between the citizens and civics. they do not know how and impeachment trial works. host: you say that is not witnesses -- they called those people as witnesses on the house side. caller: they are not supposed to bring them into the senate to give testimony. host: they played clips of them

yesterday. to that end, do you think more witnesses need to be called? there? lewis, are you there? i think we lost him. we will go to linda, independent line. caller: good morning. the media and some of the congressman say is they are all doing this because they hate trump. it does not feel good, being should restrain from defamation and hate politics. we do have laws in this country gets hate crime's. i am hoping that the senate finishes the bogus impeachment and slamdunk it and get back to the business of helping the americans be more productive citizens. host: why do you call it bogus?

caller: because there is no crime. there is no crime. host: what convinces you there is no crime? caller: no one was hurt. physically, there is no crime. i did not go to law school and i do not have to go to law school to figure out that there is no crime. host: ok. caller: thank you. have a good day. int: we will go to kenneth agusta, georgia, republican line. caller: good morning. i just got my sons off to work so they can run out there and make some more tax money that we can just give out to another country, even though my potholes in front of my house are still out there. and other little things we need

doing around here, we need to get that money to these poor countries. i do not understand what we do not load them that money. -- loan them that money. host: and the house and patient proceedings, your thoughts on that? caller: impeachment -- i do not understand how anybody dozens no -- does not know that i think god that the president slowed that mess down because maybe he wanted to be assured that none of those highly sensitive rocket systems were going to fall into the hands of the russians. host: how do you come to that conclusion? caller: because i am a retired major. falls into a system the hands of the opposition that they are going to take it apart until they can build the exact same thing. maybe he was just trying to make sure they had security in place to hold it. and training to use it. host: anthony is next in

minneapolis, democrats line. caller: good morning. bear with me one second. i had you on speaker. i listen to c-span every morning and i keep hearing all of this tension between the republicans and the democrats. this -- this whole thing is hurting our country. the question is about the senate impeachment trial. i think -- i believe trump is guilty. we all know in the criminal justice system that you should -- even if you do not present witnesses to your defense, you -- tell all of your people don't testify. that seems awfully suspicious. whynd it hard to understand republican people do not seem to or want to ask those questions. host: republicans made the case

that they had the opportunity during the house impeachment side to get these witnesses, even if they had go to court over it. caller: i'm talking about john bolton. i'm talking about the information coming out now. we are going to do this one way or another. will probably be destroyed if we cannot keep a president in check and make sure that they do what the people say and follow the constitution. host: why are you convinced that john bolton is the key to this? caller: john bolton was in trump's office. if you're going to talk about the way they have been disparaging all the other people , the ambassadors, john bolton was there. trump was talking directly to him. i think it is kind of strange that nobody wants to hear from him. i have not heard any republicans -- one person did say they would like to hear. if we are going to do this, let's do it right so we do not

have a civil war. us,: as john mcardle told several republicans are considering this idea of calling witnesses. it would take four republicans to make that happen vote wise. we will see how that plays out during the remainder of the weekend as the white house presents their case. one of the people resenting the case yesterday was the senate judiciary chairman, lindsey graham. he talked about and asked about the president's recent comments that he was willing to testify during this process. [video clip] >> if i were the president, i would not cooperate with these guys at all. i am the same guy that said you cannot fire mueller. i encouraged him to work with mueller. mueller is a man of the law. pelosi nadler, and impeach to this president in 48 days. i would not give them the time of day. they are on a crusade to destroy

this man. they do not care what they destroy in the process of trying to destroy donald trump. i do care. to my democratic colleagues, you can say what you want about me, but i am covering up nothing. i am exposing your hatred of this president to the point where you would destroy the institution. nobody would be saying this about a democratic president if a republican house had done this. you will not even ask me that question. all of you would be in our face saying that there is a democratic president and you are denying that person a chance to go to court and litigate these matters because you hate them so much. it shows you how complicit people have become when it comes to trump. ideane question about the

that a democratic-controlled house and 48 days impeached the president of the united states with a process where he could not have a lawyer, could not call the witness. they hold it against him because he will not -- he wants to object to turning over documents to them. you would be all over us. let me tell you what is going to happen in november. this will not matter much. people are going to judge the president about what he has done and what he can do. they are going to look at the democratic alternative and ask will i be better off with this person versus trump? i am going to member this. i am going to remember this for a long time. no good deed goes unpunished around this place. host: again, senator lindsey graham from yesterday.

we invite you to go to our website at c-span.org if you want to find out more information. when you go there, there's a special section at the website devoted strictly to this idea of impeachment and everything related to it. we invite you to do that at c-span.org. we go back to john mcardle. >> one other moment from the proceedings in the senate yesterday that we wanted to show our viewers is a protester that disrupted the proceedings for a little bit. we cannot show you the protester, but we can show you what the senate cameras were taking in at the time when the protester started that disruption in the senate gallery. akeem jeffries was making a presentation to the senators -- jeffries washakeem making a presentation to the senators. [video clip] >> the office issued a short and incomplete summary of the july

25 call. let me read it for your hearing. , president donald j. trump spoke by telephone with president of ukraine to congratulate him on his recent -- >> the senate will be in order. the sergeant and arms will restore order in the gallery. have an, we do not image of the protester on video to show you, but we can show you with a new york times sketch artist caught of the protester being led out of the gallery. the new york times has that courtroom sketch artist sitting in the gallery during these impeachment hearings. that is one of yesterday's sketches that were shown to give you a sense of how the sketches are made, here is an instagram , one of ourspan

field operators, a crew chief for us. he caught this picture of that sketch artist doing his work in the senate gallery. one more of the can lead to sketches to show you from that new york times sketch artist shows the view of the gallery from where -- from the outset of the doors were the reporter sits. in that picture, you are seeing the new magnetometer that reporters have to go through before they go through those doors in the back to sit above the dais in the senate gallery. two of the reporters in that picture. e mcmanus -- catherine tolley mcmanus is a specter to join us in a few minutes. host: that is john mcardle giving us information through the morning.

she does join us live from capitol hill. can you lay out what to expect today on this day of testimony? this will be another day of opening statements from the democrats. each side has 24 hours to present their case. the democrats put a dent in that yesterday but they are not done. opening statements will continue, led by adam schiff. managershe impeachment will get involved here and will be telling different pieces of the democrats' arguments. host: is there a sense of what pieces will be explored today? yesterday was a lot of discussion about the phone call and ties to ukraine. today, there will be more expected video clips of those house hearings with witnesses. tonow democrats are trying bring the point that the witnesses that were brought in the house, while supporting

their case, it may not be enough, and they would like to hear from additional other administration witnesses. they will try to bolster their case for witnesses while laying out this case that they believe is very strong that they built during the house inquiry. host: katherine tully-mcmanus, is there a sense from the republican senators, is there enough to sway the possibility of those being part of that process? guest: that is still up in the air. as we know, going forward, there will be, at some point, a vote to decide whether or not more witnesses should be called. many republicans are saying the argument they are hearing are nothing new and that they do not think they need to see more witnesses because the house should have done that during their inquiry. we are hearing that some republicans want to see witnesses, like hunter biden or joe biden.

yesterday, minority leader chuck schumer was clear that he would not entertain what was being swap," joeitness biden or hunter biden in exchange for john bolton or a witness the democrats wanted to see. he is not going to be playing games like that is what he told the press after the arguments. host: when it comes to the republican senators themselves, i know you cannot be in direct view of what they are doing, but what is the reaction? is there a sense of how they are receiving this information? guest: they are definitely listening. i'm not sure how many minds are being changed. the republicans i talked to yesterday definitely have not yet had their minds changed that there is an impeachable and removable offense. however, they are engaged. they are taking notes. they are watching the videos being played by the democrats to present witness testimony from

the house hearings and other things that are being read aloud. semi-rolling -- knowing rolling and glances between republicans who do not think that this case is strong and that president trump needs to be removed. they probably will not votes to remove him. host: a recent story of yours on the roll call website talking about the seeking of comfort by the senators at this process. can you elaborate on that? guest: absolutely. yesterday, senators seemed to settle in. it was no longer the first day of the trial. they are a few days in. senators had lichens on their laps to keep them warm -- blankets on their laps to keep them warm. even though there is no food technically allowed, they were sneaking snacks. they were testing out the limited beverages allowed in the senate chamber -- just water and

milk. i saw two women senators on the democratic side asked for hot water. --y did not receive that they did receive that and it seems to keep them warm. elizabeth warren was turning over in her hands a hand warmer i am guessing she might have brought back to washington from the campaign trail in iowa, new hampshire, where i am sure she has had to. keep her hands warm. -- had to keep her hands warm. host: a representative spoke to the chief justice about members getting up and walking around. can they get up and stretch? guest: they need to be present in the chamber and they need to be engaged with the testimony that is happening. being seated is the expectation. what i have heard from both sides of the aisle and from other sources is that the chief justice himself is sitting for hours and hours of these

-- so he has not banged his gavel and called for order or ordered senators back to their seats almost in an understanding of humanity is my best guess. he himself might like to take a stretch. climbed down see on at some point is this too and whereom the cloakroom, members can use their phones, have coffee, take a minute to relax. at points yesterday, more than a quarter of the united states senate was either standing up, stretching, or going back and forth from the cloakroom. that is not necessarily the decorum that was expected. we have not seen john roberts call for that order forcing everyone back into their seats. host: reporters have been joining us all week. talk about the restrictions placed on the press pool and how

that effects what you do. how impacted are you? guest: we are severely restrained. i am at the capitol every day doing my job. i am often in conversation with senators, walking with them, o elevators to continue basically an interview on the move. that walking and talking is almost complete lee restricted at this point during the limited time that senators are even allowed out of the chamber during these short breaks. there is ament, stand up set of microphones and cameras, which is not usually their. that gives some access, but there are literal pens on the second floor, where senators come and go from the senate chamber itself. ns tonnot exit those pe talk to senators even if they would like us to chat with them while they move on to wherever they are going to take their quick break.

i have had limited opportunity to speak directly with senators, but i know my colleagues are working hard to make sure that they do have some conversation with senators so we can bring readers the latest. host: do you have any sense from talking to senators or other representatives on the president's team as far as the white house team and what they will present? guest: they are watching the democrats' arguments carefully because they will have the opportunity to rebut those arguments and put forth their own defense case. low j cycle low -- jacek a he wouldkulow said was not put forth suggestions for witnesses or what his arguments held be because he said that is absorbing everything the democrats are saying and taking close note of where he will be offering a rebuttal, offering a

toferent course of events protect the president and defend the president from these charges. host: katherine tully-mcmanus right for "rope -- writes for "r oll call." thanks so much for joining us. guest: thank you. host: at 1:00 this afternoon, the proceedings will start. c-span two,that on c-span.org, and our radio app. on our independent line, tommy. go ahead. caller: yes, sir. i'm a vietnam veteran. democrats.y wrong of they do not believe in the american people. they are not doing anything for the american people. this is wrong. they should wait until an election and beat him in an election.

is from woodbridge, virginia, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to say again, c-span, you guys are national treasure. if we did not have you we would not know what is going on in the world. my name is thomas. i am running for u.s. senate against mark warner in virginia. -looking at this issue going the -- the beginning of i have been looking at this issue going back to the beginning. fbi all originates with the emails from the cia to conduct a counterintelligence investigation against the president, donald trump. the reason this is important is because the fbi readers -- leaders allowed democrat politicians to believe there was some relationship between our president and russia.

anxietylt up a bunch of . across america -- anxiety across america. host: fast-forward to the ukraine portion and the events of yesterday and the house democrats. caller: that is my point. with donald trump -- when donald trump is on the phone with the president of ukraine, he has two agendas, two issues. the ambassador tried to help these politicians understand that rudy giuliani was working --what she called a separate separate from the state department. agenda and also the state department, the weapons they were giving to the ukrainians. about,trump was talking essentially, both of them in the same phone call. the reason that is important is

because the president is just one person. he has two things going on. the whole corruption with regard to burisma that donald trump once investigated was actually 2015 to the2014, obama administration, but they did not do anything about the corruption in ukraine. host: he mentions that he mentions crowd strike. you are saying nothing was wrong with the call as you heard it. caller: i think, under normal circumstances, with the president that you wanted to protect, in other words, the people that are listening -- i work in the intelligence community. under normal circumstances, if there was something wrong with a phone call like that, people on the phone call would pull the president aside and say you do not want to mix those things

together because it will look bad if anybody ever found out -- it looks like you are trying to do a quid pro quo. you do not want to do that. you want to have two separate phone calls, one about corruption and one about getting the president and for a meeting. host: that is tom and woodbridge virginia careless go to roger, democrats line -- virginia. was good to roger, democritus line. line.ocrats caller: i am nervous. bear with me. election -- let me treat one more time. one more time. -- he never says anything about putin but he has all kinds of foulmouthed about everybody else. documents. over all

hash it out in the senate. bring all the witnesses. show us. do not put it on a tweet. we do not all have twitter. mcconnell has over 300 bills laying on his desk to deal with health and all kinds of issues. he has destroyed the senate, people. get two judges aboard. that is roger, making his three points. he is from virginia, one of the many people calling. for just about two hours this morning on the washington journal, we will continue on in our third and final hour. you can make comments. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and, independents, (202) 748-8002.

if you want to textus your -- text us your thoughts, it is (202) 748-8003. island andom rhode member of the judiciary committee, thanks for joining us and giving us your time. guest: good to be with you. host: your impressions of the house -- case made by house democrats so far? guest: yesterday was a good day for them. they had the chance to take all the evidence that has been developed through the course of their house hearing and marshal it into a sequential story that went from the very beginning through to the end of this scheme and cover-up. it is the first time i have seen it presented in that detailed and sequential fashion and i thoughtthey did a very good job. indeed, i was walking out of the capitol with senator graham and the two of us happened to bump into adam schiff on our way out,

formerh graham and i as prosecutors, gave him a professional compliment on the good job he had done and they did a good job yesterday and the evidence was compelling. host: have you observed senate republicans during this process and what you think about how they are receiving the information? , it ison the one hand anxious about this information. it is not the type of behavior that anybody expects of a president, but they also are anxious about consequences should they cross this president. they have watched their colleagues have careers ended after they crossed this president, so they are little bit between a rock and a hard place with the fear of the president and the drive of mitch mcconnell to make sure that this is not a proper or fair trial on the one side, and this damming evidence, and inappropriate,

corrupt behavior that they are going to be asked about on the other hand. host: one of the themes that came out of yesterday was the idea of witness swap. where do you stand on this idea and is a viable one? upst: it kind of cracked me in the senate where the issue is quid pro quo's. the republican want to come up with a witness quid pro quo. we have hundreds of years of experience with witnesses and when they are useful and when they should testify, and when they should not. it has nothing to do with quid pro quo's. america not a trial and where a party of each gets to pick their witnesses. they are respected of their probative value on a one-off basis. you get the called witnesses that will help prove your case and you get to prove the witnesses that will help rebut

the case. and to steer away from that and some kind of quid pro quo deal, there is no point to leave 200 years of american legal tradition for that, particularly in a case where smarmy quid pro after theare actually defense. host: what do you think will result from the topic if it is revisited on allowing witnesses allowing the documents? guest: at this point, my guess is the republicans will vote to end these proceedings. it may take a series of votes to work through that. during the course of this, in order to pacify republican members, mitch might schedule a few votes or a calculated, small number of his members can vote never amething, but sufficient number to affect the outcome. we call that giving them a hall pass.

master at giving republican senators a hall votes. that is certainly my expectation for leader mcconnell's intention. host: you previously served as attorney general for rhode island and you may have seen a letter from the senate about the nature of the case. i want to redo a portion from one of them. article one this to identify any high crimes or misdemeanors committed by president trump and instead it relies on abuse of power, and indictable crimes are not indispensable and the counselsf such a crime great skepticism that the constitutional standard has been met. how would you respond? thet: if you study constitutional law around what high crimes and misdemeanors are , i think these attorneys general are simply wrong.

it is no surprise that it is all republican attorneys general. i think that is what you told me. if you look at what the abuse of power is, it actually is a criminal act. because this is an impeachment and not a criminal trial, it is not charged as a criminal act, but if you go over to the federal criminal code and you look at what solicitation of a bribe is, all you have to do is recognize that a fake investigation of trump's likeliest political rival, joe biden, by ukraine, is a thing of value to him in a thing of value to his campaign. then is a thing of value, it is a bribe and him soliciting it, trying to extort it is a federal crime. it is not phrased it that way because this is a congressional proceeding and not a criminal charge in a federal corporate host: a couple days ago,

representative jerry nadler making his presentation ended it saying that if the republican senator is did not agree to witnesses, that they would participate in a cover-up for. -- cover-up. what did you think of nadler's statement? think tempers and language are running high on that first day. the opening bid by the white house describing the house manager's case as fraudulent, fraud being a crime, it got us off to a bad start. tempers ran high. i think the chief justice of the right thing admonishing both sides to cool their jets and focus on the material. yesterday went very well as a result. the white house did not speak yesterday so we do not know if they have been affected by the admonishment, but certainly, the house managers were about

presenting their case, and i thought as a result, the case went in very compellingly, and a lot of damning evidence got effectively presented. host: did it go too far then? the representative nadler's statement to go too far? guest: i think on both sides, there were things that probably on cooler reflection, they might wish they had not said. but we have moved on from that and i do not think assigning further blame is helpful. host: when you hear from the white house team later on this week, what is your plan on taking on the information they present and how you sift through it? guest: it will be interesting. my guess is that there general strategy will be house, bad, democrats, bad, grievance, grievance, grievance, they do not deserve a real trial. that will be the arc of their presentation. they are not going to engage in the actual offense that is

charged, and the actual solicitation of a fake investigation with the extortive power of all of that military aid behind the solicitation. i think that they are probably going to mount an attack on the house managers and process. in the course of that, it is important to test what they are saying about what the house did and what impeachments should be against reality. they have made up quite a lot during the course of what they have said so far. host: senator sheldon whitehouse, democrat from rhode island joining us this morning to talk about the impeachment process. thank you for your time. guest: good to be with you. host: we will continue on with calls for the remainder of this hour, but before that, we go back to john mcardle. john: keeping viewers updated after president trump is tweeting this morning, breaking a tweeting record in one day yesterday and the president is

active again this morning. his focus at least about 45 minutes ago was on mike bloomberg, and his recent ad, his impeachment focused ad about donald trump. this is what the president had to say, mike bloomberg is playing poker with his unsuspecting democrat rivals. he says that, if he loses, he will spend money helping whoever the democratic nominee is. by doing this, he figures they will not hit him as hard during his hopeless presidential campaign. they will remain silent. the fact is, he will be sending very little of his money to the clowns because he will consider himself to be the biggest clown of them all, and he will be right. the president of the --ted states at age: 25 8:25 a.m. eastern. has the secondrg

ad running in 27 states and media markets. here is the ad. [video clip] michael: i am running to defeat donald trump. [applause] saw donald trump as a dangerous demigod. when the republican congress would not hold him accountable, i went to work helping run and win 21 campaigns. if they will not do their jobs this november, you and i well. [applause] i am mike bloomberg and i approve this message. starts us off in utah, independent line. good morning. caller: hey, good morning. fast-forward from yesterday with the house manager adam schiff, and i would like to point out that if the democrats really care about putting someone in the white house, they anothereally get

candidate to win the election for 2020. host: carroll from west virginia, independent line. caller: hi, good morning. host: good morning. an independent in 2017, and i was a lifelong dem at that point. i have been watching the hearings in the house when they were taking place. is a hoax well, this because i do support some of trump's policies. i have been watching this impeachment hearing, i have watched it since it started. my take on this is after hearing all of this laid out, i am going to try to keep my judgment until trump's lawyers and stuff lay everything out. right now, i am leaning towards

i really do think that we need to hear from witnesses. another gentleman said earlier, we need -- yeah, i think biden and hunter needs to be looked back at a different time, because now it is brought to our attention. host: what changed your mind? after hearings from these house managers, after listening and seeing how it is all laid out. hubbub oft all of the everything going on with everybody yelling over everybody in the house hearings and stuff. that is confusing. to hear it to hear it delayed laid outway -- it this way, it makes a lot of sense to hear from these other people to fill in the material that we are missing. when trump tweeted this morning,

or yesterday, they don't have the material, i do. yeah, he has the material because he has not released it. let everything be released and and let us hear it all so that our senators can make an educated decision. you know what, i think they really need to look at this. it is what is going to help our country. host: that is carol in west virginia. from casper, wyoming, beverly on the democrats line. caller: good morning. right, but working neither is our president. [laughs] callers, if you can refrain please from the profanity during the course of this program. democrat line, karen, hi.

forer: think -- thank god c-span and god bless brian lamb. i would like to comment on something said at the end of the house proceedings. angelouer when maya said, when people tell you who they are, believe them. it we aresomeone say trying to undo the election one more time, i will scream. pence is going to be the president. area, new york and new jersey, pennsylvania, delaware, maryland, we have seen what he has done over the years. we know he is morally bankrupt. he has told us and shown us many, many times. we do not hate him since day one. our day one came back in the 1970's. host: republicans made the case

that from almost the start of the president's term, there were the calls for impeachment. don't you think that shades what you are seeing? caller: no. people in this area would not have let him -- we would never have let him run. we did not hate him from day one, they are late to the party. we hated him for a long time. host: that is karen in pennsylvania. one of the people introducing information yesterday was the house impeachment manager hakeem jeffries, talking pacifically about the july 26 capone call. [video clip] sen. tester: the perfect call -- >> the perfect call. the political and personal gain. in a perfect call, the president would not solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election. in a perfect call, the president would not threaten the well-being of a highly respected

american ambassador and say that she was going to go through some things. in a perfect call, the president would not praise a disgraced, former prosecutor who in the free world, was viewed as corrupt and incompetent. in a perfect call, the president would not have directed a foreign leader to follow up with human handliani, a grenades. this was not a perfect call. it is direct evidence that president donald john trump co andtly abused his power, solicit his foreign interference in the 2020 election. twitteris is from our

feed, the democrats are getting all of this free exposure and it is not costing them a dime. .e as the taxpayers are paying deb in missouri saying, this impeachment is nothing more than a character assassination. flawed, but he has broken no law. americans know that in a trial, a person is innocent until proven guilty. no one can prove the president's intention or motive. someone from maryland saying i am appalled by the utter lack of critical thinking on the part of republican supporters who will insist without regard to argument of the facts of the case. those are some of the texts we had taken in during the course of this morning. you are invited to do the same at (202) 748-8003.

back to john mcardle. john: one of our calls brought up the comment about the president having all of the materials referring to the president at the world economic forum in down -- davo's, switzerland when he talked about the reason he believes he will be acquitted. honestly, we have all of the materials. they do not have the materials. a lot of focus is the president made those comments including by one of the house impeachment managers at sylvia garcia and her tweet, mr. president, glad to hear you have all of the materials. we would like to see all of those documents, is what she tweeted. a few other tweets from chuck schumer after 9:00 a.m. this morning. the senate republicans saying they learned nothing new yesterday are the senate republicans who wrote it over and over and over again on tuesday to not bring in new important witnesses and documents. one more for congressman lee

zeldon, one of the republican housers, democrats keep parroting that no one is above the law. their articles of impeachment do not even allege the president broken the law. zeldins lee' -- lee . tweetse are a couple of from congressional reporters about milk from yesterday. this is sam brody of "the daily beast." just returned from the senate chamber where two senators were drinking milk. and this from nbc news, history of milk on the senate floor per senator bill cassidy, it was thought to be a treatment for peptic ulcer disease in the 1950's. the senators were allowed to drink milk because they had ulcers. again, milk twitter a very real thing and c-span's howard

mortman contributing his share to milk twitter, but also a tweet that features john roberts. the centeray 2002 as of publicans were expressing concern that john roberts nomination was being held up. it was his nomination to the and hercuit judge court, is now the chief justice presiding over the senate trial. this is mitch mcconnell from 2002. [video clip] d.c.er a decade ago to the circuit judge, and back then, was pending for over a year without ever receiving a hearing. the current president bush renominated mr. roberts 365 days ago, a year ago today, to the same court, the d.c. circuit judge, and again, he has not had a hearing. againutstanding lawyer

unanimously well-qualified by the aba, very tough to get a rating like that, has been waiting for two years. just get a hearing, an opportunity to tell his story. we thought that maybe he ought to be on a milk carton, too, madam president. this unanimously, well-qualified nominee has a long and distinguished career in public service including serving as principal deputy to the solicitor general from 1989 to 1993, associate counsel to president reagan from 1982 to 1986. mentioned thei previous nominee had 15 arguments before the u.s. supreme court, this nominee is already 36 cases. 36 cases. before the u.s. supreme court and 20 cases in the u.s. appeals courts across the country.

roberts?e seen john has anyone even knowing what he looks like? has he been dropped into a black hole? another great nominee from a missing in action, not even given a hearing. host: that is courtesy of our c-span video library. you can see not only impeachment stuff, but any topic, politically you would like to explore. you can go to our website, c-span.org, type your information into the search box. we provide that free. that is that c-span.org. you heard john mcardle talk about milk and viewers had the same reaction. mary said, milk is fantastic. does my body good. and one person all of twitter says, i like milk. james is next. democrat line. caller: good morning.

taken shots before, but i will tell you that i appreciate c-span. it is obvious that the people who did not watch the hearings schiff'sdicial and in committees do not know what is going on on the others of the situation. they have to understand, and i think it but -- it behooves you to tell them that they are only hearing the one-sided part that schiff came up with. and morrisonloca were both warned by fiona hill that they did not trust him, they thought he was a leaker, but that has not come out yet. the talk about every one of things -- west taylor, hill all saidri --

when asked specifically, do you think the president did anything impeachable, or committed a crime, every one of them said no. evidence,withholding everyone in the united states of america has the right to fight a subpoena. when people are looking for information and stuff, you can stop, you can make them make you produce information. there is nothing wrong, it is our right. host: the context he provided, i am curious how you got that information. c-span.i watch the hearings from nadler and s chiff's committee. then you put that up against -- host: finish your thought. watched-- what you yesterday and they are cherry picking everything. and i have accused you of that.

when you read down articles and you have a highlighted article, and if you could go beyond that another paragraph, it could change the entire conversation. this is exactly what they are doing. i think it was about the last time i called. host: it is all good. we read papers, it is clear we cannot read the whole paper. to your points, i understand that, and to the point that you make about the house democrats, clearly they present the ways and portions of information they took from the hearing. white house counsel may decide to apply the same tactics when they take their stand on saturday, regardless, thank you for watching and calling. for those of you like james who knew a lot of information about what was saved yesterday, i suspect that not only did you watch the hearings but you could avail yourself of watching the same when you go to our website, c-span.org. we have all of the hearings in

the house judiciary, in the intelligence, and otherwise. if you want to find information and let it for yourself, there it is. one of the people providing information from his perspective is one of the president's lawyers speaking before camera yesterday. [video clip] >> how do you respond to the democrats saying that without witnesses, it could not be a fair trial? >> he just went with two and a half hours for laying out the case and 11 hours of playing out the case last night. and lessie is making it up, it seems like he has a lot of information, so proceed with your case. the more they do this, two and a half hour events at a time, it undercuts their entire argument. they'll ultimately be for the united states senate to decide. today said that basically, we have all of the materials. democrats say, he is boasting that he successfully obstructed congress. how do you respond? >> i think what jerry nadler said last night, what he called

an executive privilege, and other nonsense. these are privileges that come out of constitution. this is not nonsense but this is really what the connotation is about. they are putting on their case and we only have 22 hours more to go of their side, and then we will go. let them put their case on and we will continue. host: they will start making their case this coming saturday, and again, you can watch it on c-span2, just as you can watch today starting at 1:00 as the house impeachment managers continue the case they make before the senate. republican line from florida, good morning. caller: good morning. talking about cover-up and fairness a lot throughout this first day, and i would like house, when the , no duet had no rights

process, no lawyers, nobody could go in to hear or speak up on his side, so is that fair? idea of fairness and going according to the constitution. have ever been to, because i've been called to hear cases in the local courthouse, when the defendant or the one being accused has no rights to defend themselves. fairness and cover-up? it seems like the whole deal from the day the president was the first one started on a dossier, that now the new york times said was probably not fair. from thever heard so-called whistleblower. host: let's go to bob

independent line from wisconsin. caller: good morning. capital, the dairy twin lakes, wisconsin. milke people keep drinking . anyway, i do not think that president trump is innocent. i do think the democrats are having trouble zeroing in on the degree of non-innocence. i would only suggested that hunter biden is the quid pro quo. host: the point you made about the degree, can you expand on that? caller: i do not see that they are coming up with a guilt in a constitutional point of view.

so far, i am thinking that compared to other presidents and i think that the innocence factor is much different than the guilt factor. i think it needs to be thought about. host: do you think the whole effort that the house democrats are making, do you think that what they are charging, do you think it approaches an impeachable offense? caller: i don't think that it approaches an and impeachable -- an impeachable offense. the issue is that the democrats came up with stemmed from a house of representatives. they did not allow the republicans to even ask questions or bring in witnesses.

-- i did notll like it. what can i say? host: the republicans could have asked questions of the people that were presented on the relevant committees, that kind of thing. caller: but those committees were all fixed. , i do not like the way they handled the situation in the house, so therefore, i cannot agree with what they ended up with as impeachable offenses. there is a big difference between innocence and guilt, and i believe that going back to, you look at past presidents, and thatnk you would find that innocence factor versus the guilt factor is a difficult thing to judge.

being judged on his lack of innocence as opposed concreteilt of constitutional issue. host: twin lakes, wisconsin giving us his thoughts. three lines you can choose from, ,emocrats, (202) 748-8000 republicans, (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. if you have called within the last 30 days, if you could hold off from doing so, we would appreciate it. we will continue on with those calls. first, john mcardle. wisconsincaller from brings up milk again. i would be remiss not to mention the other sustenance senators have access to when they are on the floor listening to the impeachment trial, and that is the candy desk on the floor of

the senate. the desk currently occupied by pat toomey, and it is on the republican side of the aisle. stocked with candy. we dug back into the c-span archives to give you more information about the candy desk. this is an interview with senate historian richard baker in 2006 talking about the candy desk. [video clip] mr. baker: the candy desk is the desk on the republican side right in the back of the chamber by the door that leads in from the elevators. , it is coming in midafternoon, and you are looking for a little jolt and you walk up to the candy desk which was first occupied by california senator george murphy, film executive, actor, and came to the senate in the mid-1960's. he is the one who started the tradition. it has now been maintained. senator rick santorum currently has the candy desk, and there is

a well-known chocolate company and his state that perhaps provide some kisses for that drawer. candy for the candy desk and pat toomey currently occupying that desk. if you want to see the entire interview with richard baker, brian lamb interviewed him into thousand six, you can do it at 2006, youe at -- in can do it at our website at c-span.org. one more video clip from senator ted cruz. you can hear more about his thoughts on the trial, he announced yesterday a new podcast where he will be discussing the latest from the impeachment trial, and more as soon as he leaves the senate floor each evening, and asking his twitter subscribers to subscribe to the new podcast, "the verdict." host: that is john mcardle giving us information throughout the morning. one more, this is bobby off of

twitter saying, i am lactose intolerant, hopefully the offer nondairy milk. suzanne, new hampshire on the democrats line. caller: good morning. my question to all of the republican colleagues supporting president trump and saying he is an innocent and he did nothing wrong, i am a defense attorney. trump tweeted out that he has all of the information, but the other side does not have it, why aren't his supporters demanding of their senators that that information be released? if it is going to prove he did nothing wrong, why would you want to keep that information back if it is clearly going to establish that he is innocent of corruption? he is innocent of abuse of power? that is my point. host: should the house have called for these documents and them?and subpoenaed caller: in a perfect world, that

is what should have happened but that process would have taken a long time, it would have gone to the courts, and it would have dragged on forever. anyone who has followed donald trump's career and knows that he has a litigating team, he sue's everybody, he drags everybody through the courts. that is a tactic that would have been used. thatey have information clearly shows the country did nothing wrong, and they will not release it for the reasons that they are giving, why is that not a problem for his supporters? why are they not calling senators and demanding information that showed that he did nothing wrong being released in this trial? this is a trial. host: you heard the republicans say leading up to this debt because they did not have documents and they want to call witnesses and have additional documents, that the democrats were not ready to make their case, how would you respond to

that? caller: i would respond to that, that is a strategic tactic that the white house used to avoid all of the information coming out. they knew this would go through the courts, and the gentleman that called earlier saying every person in america has the right to challenge a subpoena, that is just wrong. witnesses that are subpoenaed to trials cannot just ignore those subpoenas. the whole system would be upended if that were the case, and i've worked on the prosecution side, as well. -- that is wordplay that the democrats did not have the information and they should have gotten it at the trial. that was not a trial, that was more like a grand jury investigation that brought the charges forward. the information that supports this should not be covered up. host: republican line, casey in maine.

caller: hi, pedro, how are you? host: fine, go ahead. caller: the other caller from new hampshire made a good point. why would you not call your senator. susannator in maine, collins, at the forefront of this all. while i do. o agree with the previous caller, this is not a trial case. this is an impeachment. this is a special circumstance that allows your representative body to choose and decide because, there are unique situations happening. i perceive and i hope i am right on this, i voted for donald trump and 2016. obama,ghan, i voted for that is politics. but when you stop and you look at american and integrity, you learn in the marine corps, you

do the right thing when no one is looking. when doors are closed and people are questioning what is happening in there, that really should be alarming to most people. my question for you, i want to go on politics because i think that is one of the broken systems in america is those politics arguments, democrats and republicans throwing mud at each other. the real question from a legal standpoint, if the president had not withheld the funds, the security funds, would -- and he just used say and meeting at the quid house to, as a pro quo, would that still equate to impeachable offenses? if he was not using the taxpayer money as a quote unquote, legal bribery, if you want to say? host: you spoke of senator susan

collins. would you advocate her to push the senate to call for witnesses and documents? caller: absolutely. on a separate issue we had going in maine, i spoke with everything to jerry goldman who was in the house and then senator susan collins about an bute on the veteran side, in that time, i made sure that i put on the record that -- i am 33, i think i am 33. every since -- and senator collins has been in office every since i was legally able to vote anyone in on record, america, i don't care who you are, everyone in america, what makes your country great is you need to have a fair trial, and you need to have everyone's story. you look in religion, the bible -- the bible has many, many,

many accounts of different things. host: we will leave it there. thank you and we will go back to john mcardle. john: we focus on the president's suites this morning and mentioned that yesterday he broke a record, tweeting or re-tweeting more than 130 times. did not want to lose track of one of the more significant tweets yesterday. on president saying, see you friday, big crowds, sending that to the march for life, the largest annual gathering of pro-life advocates. tweeted outnthony afterwards, president trump will not be the first president in history to address the march for life. it is taking place this friday in washington dc. expected to draw about 100,000 activists, and this is fox new'' story about the president deciding to address the march for life. the president's address comes as

the abortion debate on those on both sides of the debate prepared to spend vast sums of money and resources in the 2020 election. fox news' noting that planned , the operatio will include everything from volunteer organizing, to polling and paid advertisements, and several pro-life organizations will be spending $52 million from susan b anthony list alone on the 2020 elections. that is from the president yesterday, and the rally taking place here in d.c. on friday. host: from texas, independent line. orlando. caller: hello. my fellow americans, i think what we are witnessing as a nation is an extensive criminal enterprise led by a lawless president from the white house.

republicanlly, our senators are aiding and abetting in plain sight. we can see it. mym independent and even friends, some republicans who voted for trump are just horrified at what is happening. they are telling me and just like many people are calling and the american people are saying, if trump has nothing to hide, then trump should release all the documents and material witnesses should be called to clear his name. just like he said yesterday, i have all of the documents'.' mr. president, let the documents come forth. since he does not want to release those documents or let witnesses clear his name, then the senators should compel those documents and witnesses through their subpoena power. host: let's hear from brent, atlanta, georgia on the democrat line. caller: hello, hello. i am happy to follow these last three callers, because i

would like to prepare the same thing. the biggest thing is, yes, let's get all of the documents out. the other four witnesses that they really want. doubt that the senate is going to [indiscernible] trump. the biggest thing, i think when we get to get out of this, just like the voter in maine, we need to vote out susan collins, down here, two new senators in georgia. host: to the idea of witnesses, what is the value of additional witnesses? there is nothing to hide and he is innocent, that there is all. i am retired and i have watched senate trialthe

here, and i have watched every bit of the depositions and everything the house did. every minute, you know. been working on my house, watching it. host: from maryland and pikesville, republican line. iller: i am a republican and am so upset that they are not giving this thing the proper hearing that they should get. i am disappointed in the senate and i am disappointed in the senate to the point that so many of them are saying, even before this started, that they have already ruled that they are going to rule against it. i think that trump, even though i am a republican, i think that he has shown to me that he's really not a very competent person. cannot tothat you believe anything he really says.

someone to just arbitrarily change all the rules? whatu go back and look at has transpired since he has been in office, everything he has done in the foreign capacity as participating in syria, north korea, everything points to the benefits of the russians, not americans. on to reallyy changing my affiliation with perhaps becoming an independent. host: clarence and wisconsin, shell lake, good morning. caller: hi, good morning. i called earlier and i am an independent. i try to vote for the best person. host: before you go too far, when you said called today?

caller: i am going to have to leave it there. host: we want to get people at least 30 days for the people who wait in line, give them a chance to talk. democrats line, caroline, kentucky. caller: hello, how are you? host: fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: i hear a lot about whether this is legal or the impeachment thing is legal or criminal. but you know, it is neither. the onlyut trust and analogy i can come up with is when i was married. trust and hope, and faith in that marriage. soind that he is -- has violated the people's trust. you haveve an affair,

a right to get out of that bond of marriage. found that trump has violated our trust so much, how can we possibly -- you do not go anywhere with this? host: but specifically to the impeachment part of it and what is being tried in the senate, why do you think it arises to a level of impeachable offense? give me a specific. caller: it goes to the constitution, trust. he violated the trust and the faith in the constitution that he would hold it up. another thing, before i go about mitch mcconnell, i am in west kentucky, we just had a plant that left before christmas and almost 900 people lost their jobs, devastated this town. in eastern kentucky, he meets with an oligarch and the now we have a russian plant going on in in eastern kentucky. tell me if that is fair.

host: what is the connection? caller: moscow mitch. he did not support [indiscernible] staying. host: you claim that -- what is the connection? caller: the connection is moscow mitch and it is known in kentucky, he met with the russians and the now we have a plant, we swap out one good plant with several employees. host: we will leave it there. washington state, republican line. caller: hi, i am more conservative than republican. deal,of all, this whole guilty until proven innocent goes completely against what our constitution says. we do not have to prove that we are innocent in the great united states of america. and even the president is allowed that. and second of all, i find it

amazing that the democrats are bringing up a constitution, and trying to teach us about it when, for the past 10 years, there has been nothing against the first amendment, the second amendment, and now this. if they remove the president, they will remove the vice president, and you will have nancy pelosi basically sitting where chief roberts is sitting now. and you will basically have a political borough. people should think about that. host: the you think the removal is a serious thing and you think the president will be removed from office? caller: i do. maybe not this time, but eventually, the democrats or the socialist and of the political spectrum will win out, and we will end up having a rule of government by committee. host: back to the impeachment process, what do you think of the case made by the democrats? did you watch it?

trump, i voted for mr. president trump. i think he is guilty, but i do not think he is guilty enough to impeach. if he is guilty enough to be impeached, then every president we have ever had should have been impeached. that is why i believe that this is the trial against our constitution. it starts with president trump and if the democrats win, you will see this country move towards socialism. host: gary in fort worth, texas. independent line. caller: i just got a quick comment. everyone thatter, is listening would ask two word question, this would all be solved. ask your people, what is the crime and what is the statute? defined, andust be

it must be defined through law. i want to hear what statute was broken by president trump, and where he dida -- this with power, or this and that -- those are not crimes. it has to be a statute. the other comment i have for you is, you need to hide your bias more with your eyes and your face. those aren't know if great judgments as far as bias goes, but i will say this for all of our hosts, we do not show biases as we go throughout the program. i think then -- if you are judging that, i do not think that is a great judge. host: you let people say things that are absolutely, unprovable, and unproven, and you do not call them out and say, there is no proof that trump is a russian oligarch. host: we have corrected that

before. caller: what you don't every time. host: that is gary and fort worth, texas, calling. let's go to rick in massachusetts. caller: i think the guy was before me, i think he is kind of right. the question, you have a lot of people jumping onto trump and all this nonsense. see on the tv screen of people talking five to six years ago. i want all of the trump dummies to play the tape where he talked $100,000 so they can shut their mouth before the election. the guy committed a crime before even got in the white house, and then he got away with this bright thing talking about no collusion. who does this guy think he is?

havettorney general -- we 435 people in the congress of the united states. we are going to make a judgment about what -- host: that is rick in boston. we will go to john mcardle. john: just want to know to our viewers that in about three hours from now, house impeachment managers will begin making their case on the impeachment floor, and they have three days, 24 hours total to make that case. one reporter noting that the senate press gallery has estimated they used at seven to eight hours of their allotted 24 hours and we are expecting another eight hours today and another eight hours tomorrow. after that, the president's defense team will make their case and they will have 24 hours spread over three days to make their defense of the president, and then there is 16 hours on the senate floor of questions that the senators can submit

through the chief justice to be asked of the impeachment managers, of the president's lawyers. after that, a decision about whether more witnesses will be called. that is where the impeachment trial stands. one interesting note and one from story we came across -- privately giving feedback to republican senators and one of trump's attorneys since the impeachment trial began. if you dig into "the vermont digger" story, this is the interactions that patrick leahy said he had. he said he had a private conversation with one of the white house counsel, and the for hisasked leahy comparison of the trump trial to the trial for president clinton. fact that the the

first time he met me, that i carried out the first few sentences of our meeting in italian, and he did not realize my italian grandparents emigrated to vermont from northern italy, and we had to speak italian with them. and this about his interaction with other republican senator saying he did not get home after the very late nights on tuesday that went into wednesday morning until about 2:30 a.m., but he was at the senate gym six hours later and fielding questions from republican colleagues saying that there were a number of senators here all wanted to know what i thought, and what will come of that, i have no idea, he said of his interactions with them. host: mcdonald, tennessee, republican line. caller: the democrats keep saying that they want certain documents. they have all of the dates, the names and the documents, and the substance of the documents. they keep saying they want all of these people to testify,

these witnesses. if they have all of these dates about these documents they are talking about, where did they get the information if they already have the information? that is how they have all of the dates and the people they are talking about. the other thing is, he keeps saying, adam schiff, that he has evidence that will do this. why does he keep repeating what we have been hearing for the past four months on tv over and over? it is sickening. it each and every one of them was put under a microscope like president trump has been since he came down the elevator, none of them would past the test. host: no need for additional documents or witnesses in your mind? caller: not in my mind, he says he has all of the evidence he has got to prove his case. let him prove it. pleasanton,in california. caller: good morning. i just want to say that the democrats keep saying that they

want more witnesses. they have already had parnes on there with the video. it does not make sense. you are putting -- right now, they are putting their spin on it. they are putting what they found. none of those people have been cross-examined yet, because remember, when they did it in the house, they came out and then the republicans had a chance to go after them, and a lot of the stories fell apart. isht now, what americans saying is only the democrats side. they have not seen the republican side. host: do you think the republican lawyers will show alternate video to make their case? caller: of course they will. i am retired and i've been watching this. when democrats first put their case in, they embellish the story, they do whatever they can, and then the republican shoot down some of -- most of the things that witnesses are saying. right now, we are only seeing one side.

america is upset, but that is like the prosecutor comes in and gives their case, and then everyone has to make a decision. host: do you think when both sides present their case, mines will be swayed, or people have already picked their conclusion? caller: right now, stage democrats and republicans have already made up their mind. it is the people in the middle, the one who do not just listen to one station but listen to multiple stations, and not only that, do their own research. read the transcripts. host: have you come to a conclusion? caller: me? what he did was not politically correct, right. everybody in washington is political. they measure everything they say. donald trump does not, and that is what makes him look like a bad guy. the other thing is this, he totally upset the apple cart. when he took the presidency, you have a person who was not qualified to other people's

eyes, and the most qualified person should have been president. it tells you a lot when the american people are finally fed up with the political system. i heard someone say earlier that he does not belong there. wait a second, we have been run by some of these politicians -- some of them have been here 40 or 50 years and they are blaming it's on trump. he has been there three years in the economy is doing wonderful. int: we will hear from sue new jersey, democrat line. caller: hello, how are you today? host: fine, thank you. caller: i have been watching everything since the beginning, and i've been watching the impeachment, and i heard a lot of people say, we are seeing the same thing over and over. i did watch and i know we are seeing repeats of things they are saying. but, they are trying to do that to reach the people who do not to watch it every day. who have jobs or whatever, life.

they are not seeing it all. they want to make sure that everyone gets a chance to hear everything. is ando you think that effective tactic as far as repeating things multiple, day over day? caller: well, a part of it is because they are probably going to reach some people that need information, more details, and i think it does help. to me, i just go get a cup of tea or something. host: the plan to watch today? caller: yes i am. i'm going to watch all of it. caller: i've heard people saying why do they need witnesses or whatever. they have everything. why do they need more? they did not get everything. host: that is to who will be watching. c-span a