>> it's only going to get more exciting. >> we've got special coverage starting at 12:30 today. thank you for joining us here. "outnumbered" starts right now right now. >> harris: a fox news alert, some high drama on capitol hill today, president trump's impeachment trial formally gets underway at 1:00 p.m. eastern. a big battle expected over the rules for the trial, including how many days each side will have to argue their case and whether witnesses will or will not be called. here is senate minority leader chuck schumer just moments ago. >> the mcconnell rules seem to be designed by president trump for president trump. simply executed by a leader mcconnell. later mcconnell decided to go along with the president's desire to cover up is wrongdoing. hook, line, and sinker. it almost seems that the resolution was written in the

white house, not in the senate. >> harris: and it is on. john cornyn fired back at the criticism of the mcconnell resolution, watch. >> our job is to lish listen to the case presented by the parties. not to hijack the trial and orchestrated ourselves. that's what senator schumer wants to do and i think that would be wrong. >> harris: you're watching "outnumbered." i'm harris faulkner. here today, melissa francis, dagen mcdowell, syndicated radio host and fox news contributor leslie marshall. in the center seat, former acting attorney general matt whitaker is with us. we will have full reaction from everyone around me but first let's go to congressional correspondent live on capitol hill. this is a huge moment. >> that's right. this is the debate about the argument, the framework that this is going to be a proposal put forth by senate majority leader mitch mcconnell to try to wrap up these arguments in 12 hour batches over the next four

days. something adam schiff, lead manager and chair of the intelligence committee, does not want not want. >> there is a wealth of evidence to present here. and we should have the opportunity to present the case as the house chooses to present its case, not to go late into the evening when senator mcconnell helps the public may not be watching. >> article one, section three of the constitution gives the senate the power to trial impeachments. arguing he is a material witness to the case, they say it's his obligation to disclose to chief justice john roberts potential bias and conflicts. meantime, republicans have their own issues with adam schiff. here is john ratcliffe, republican of texas. >> what they don't know is that the whistle-blower was not truthful under oath about his contacts with congressman adam schiff. there is a transcript of that,

the only 1 out of 18 transcripts that hasn't been released so there is a cover up there. and that is what prevents fair trial. >> chuck schumer is going to try to put forth a series of amendments to alter this prospect of the sessions running deep into the night. we are also told in the past couple of hours, there will be a closed session later today and that's probably where senators will hash this out. there might be an effort to try to shrink the time rather than these 24-hour sessions to what i am told "single digits." it depends on how cranky they are, harris. back to you. >> harris: we've seen plenty of that, we know what to watch for. a couple questions. one about these rules and may be something that stands out that you think will be a big jumping point for them today. >> matt: it's going to be very interesting. the proposed timetable has 12 hour sessions, 24 hours in each

cycle, four days starting at 1:00 in the afternoon and ending at 1:00 in the morning and this is concerned that this will be done under the dark of night but really the question is, is there that much to talk about? 's there's 24 hours of a case to present? >> harris: these are politicians. >> matt: they are but at the same time, they are trying to effectively prove their case to the senate. i think the most interesting thing is that the house managers together with the president's legal team are the ones that are going to be arguing and senators are going to have to sit there quietly not debating the rules. >> harris: there's penalty if they talk. >> matt: there is. senators, you've seen it, it manifests in these press conferences. >> harris: really quickly, i said two things, that was one. the other, in my notes, he's talking with people on the hill, keep an eye on how chief justice john roberts presides and on the lower left-hand part of your

screen you will repeatedly see two women swinging around on their chairs, the senate parliamentarian and assistant parliamentarian. that's interesting, right? >> matt: the senate and house always operate under the rules the majority passes and following those rules and the rules of parliamentary procedure are very important and the only way these things actually conclude is who can speak and who can't speak so they are going to help the presiding officer make these rulings if necessary but ultimately the chief does not have a lot of authority or responsibility, he just pretty much gets to call votes and see where the majority comes out. >> melissa: matches part of the press conference beforehand, dick durbin stood up there and set a majority of americans are calling for the president to be removed and if that were true there would be republicans joining the democrats because they would be afraid that they

were going to lose their job. if that were true they would be confident to let this go to the election because he would certainly lose. how do you think he makes that argument, how do you respond? do you think the majority of americans really want the president to be removed? >> dagen: it depends on what poll you look at and what day. yesterday, a 51% poll. what is the sampling group of anything? do we believe any poll nowadays especially since 2016. this is what i would say to your point regarding votes. people can say how they are going to vote and then people vote and sometimes both left and right, you have some democrats that are in red states, they have to worry about reelection. mcconnell i think has a harder time here with republicans, he has a balancing act created 35 senate seats are up, 23 are republicans and a handful are in blue districts or districts that are very purple and there are moderate republicans there whose people in their states want

witnesses. you might see some of the republicans come over and at the end of the day i certainly think mcconnell has votes. >> harris: dagan, what are you watching for? >> dagen: this resolution introduced by mitch mcconnell, you wouldn't think he would introduce it unless he knew he had the votes ahead of time and that would be a simple majority. as the democrats like to say, elections have consequences. indeed they do because there are 53 republicans in the senate, a majority in the senate and of course the vice president is the president of the senate who would vote, that's why they made -- andy mccarthy wrote something interesting about as this plays out, as long as the rules provide for the possibility of subpoenaing and interviewing witnesses at some point down the way this resolution mitch mcconnell wrote plays out, it's at the end of the trial, the democrats are

not prejudiced if that issue is deferred until after the senate considers the case as it was actually charged by the house. that is very important. every single one of those senators should have to listen to this case and decided on its merits. the two articles of impeachment that don't include any criminal acts. >> harris: it's interesting about that, that's what senator marco rubio is saying. before we introduce more points, let's look at the current scope of the case. >> matt: anyone who supports at this point in time or witnesses or more documents is saying the house did not complete their investigation and sent over incomplete articles of impeachment. and that's concerning. the way it's designed, the house is supposed to do the investigation into the senate is supposed to essentially take that evidence and vote by youth arts. that's why these polls suggest that there is not there is overwhelming groundswell of

removal that the founding fathers intended. >> harris: i think also, correct me if i'm wrong, dagen just pointed to this, too, the process is supposed to work because there is something that's in place at the president should be judged by, and again, the crime, misdemeanor, whatever it is, it's not polling. >> matt: that's true and this is the first time that impeachment articles have been passed on a purely partisan vote that didn't allege any crimes and that's fundamentally the problem. >> melissa: what i wonder is, if you said, assume the allegations are true, would you vote for removal? if you went around the senate and did that, i wonder if you would be removed or not even if you assume the facts are true, the allegations are true. >> matt: you can't take out the red versus blue and even assuming in your heart of hearts that the allegations are true, to some extent we know the facts, we don't know the president's motivations and intent but we know what the facts are alleged and ultimately

i think republicans are going to support this president, democrats have opposed him since he was elected and we are right back where we started. >> harris: you are getting a nod from leslie marshall on the couch, too. okay, we are going to squeeze in a whole lot before we get to our live coverage, so keep watching. a last-minute addition to president trump's defense team is now speaking out about the trial. and the big role all eight of those house republicans are likely to play in the senate trial, next. ♪ nah. not gonna happen.

that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath. my name is ken. how may i help you? hi, i'm calling about kohler's walk-in bath. excellent! happy to help. huh? hold one moment please... [ finger snaps ] hmm.

the kohler walk-in bath features an extra-wide opening and a low step-in at three inches, which is 25 to 60% lower than some leading competitors. the bath fills and drains quickly, while the heated seat soothes your back, neck and shoulders. kohler is an expert in bathing, so you can count on a deep soaking experience. are you seeing this? the kohler walk-in bath comes with fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. everything is installed in as little as a day by a kohler-certified installer. and it's made by kohler- america's leading plumbing brand. we need this bath. yes. yes you do. a kohler walk-in bath provides independence with peace of mind. >> melissa: a fox news alert, president trump adding eight of his strongest g.o.p. allies in the hauch t how states impeachmt

defense team. they will be a resource for trump's attneys. among them is john ratcliffe who is involved in both phases of house inquiry above for the intel and judiciary committee, listen. >> they can't make constitutional arguments because they don't have any. this is going to be like killing fly with a sledgehammer. even on a slanted playing field where they made their rules, changed the rules, and broke the rules to their advantage, on a level playing field it's going to get ugly. i expect an early acquittal for president trump. >> melissa: we want to show you this because it just happened a short time ago, the impeachment documents over to the senate for the trial, they have not heard of email, there is some thing, a digital record. what do you think of the additions to the president's team. smart, good, unnecessary? >> matt: really is, john and i

were u.s. attorneys in the bush administration, i have a great admiration for him and i think they are going to be a very important resource and will provide the voice of people who are in the room during the entire proceeding and can speak publicly about it. >> melissa: former whitewater prosecutor out there slamming the president's impeachment defense, listen to this. >> at this point, i see president trump's response to the impeachment as completely outside of the box of normal discussion, it reads like nothing so much as one of my friends, the scream of a wounded animal, raging against the time. >> harris: what do you think? i want to get a quick reaction and that i have a question for leslie. >> matt: that sounds like somebody trying to partisan posture.

>> harris: do they need that? >> matt: they don't but that is what it sounds like. >> harris: how are the democrats doing? >> leslie: if you are looking at voters, this doesn't -- when you look at the stats, democrats have more engaged or excited base where you have a higher fund-raiser around this point in time. >> harris: have you seen those numbers? >> leslie: yes, but nancy pelosi is bringing in the money. at the end of the data voters aren't going to vote based on impeachment and that's why mitch mcconnell, a lot of people are saying, you might win this impeachment, you might get your acquittal but you might lose your majority in the senate. >> melissa: let me ask you about the messaging, mainly what democrats are doing is complaining about the process. what republicans were doing on

the other side and democrats were saying, when you don't like the facts you talk about the process, and other doing the same thing, what do you think? >> dagen: the dead of night is better because the american people can see it, they can tune in and watch it and see for themselves. you hear the words like "cover-up" from the likes of chuck schumer, and all of the female and male counterparts both in the senate and democrats in the house. i'm surprised they haven't concocted a little nixon emoji, that's why they use that, trying to equate this president with richard nixon. i will just point out that they -- one thing i'm going to add, on impeachment and removal, it's still underwater that yes is 47.3%, 47.5 is no so when somebody says the majority of americans want this president removed, the real clear politics average does not say that.

>> harris: the majority and a pretty healthy number agree on that the president did something wrong but the big question is, did that deserve impeachment in the house and what it deserve removal in the senate? and that's why those numbers start to go below water, no. we have an election coming up, let thos the people decide. >> melissa: if you assume the allegations are true, do you want the president removed? i don't know what the book would be in the senate, that would be interesting to see, that's the question in my mind. >> matt: the constitution has the american people choose the president and i think american people are very reticent to have that power taken out of their chance. >> dagen: it requires a supermajority to impeach a president dan move remove him from office and that means a bipartisan consensus and the democrats do not have that. nobody expects that would happ

happen. >> melissa: as we await the start of the trial, a new report says the president's legal team is making plan just in case the democrats get enough votes to call john bolton to testify. their plan if it works. ♪

listening and observing are critical skills for scientists at 3m. one of the products i helped develop was a softer, more secure diaper closure. as a mom, i knew it had to work. there were babies involved... and they weren't saying much. i envisioned what it's like for babies to have diapers around them. that's what we do at 3m, we listen to people, even those who don't have a voice. at the end of the day, we are people helping people. of course i'd love to take an informal poll. i used to be a little cranky. dealing with our finances really haunted me. thankfully, i got quickbooks, and a live bookkeeper's helping customize it for our business.

(live bookkeeper) you're all set up! (janine) great! hey! you got the burnt marshmallow out! (delivery man) he slimed me. (janine) tissue? (vo) get set up right with a live bookkeeper with intuit quickbooks. the easy way to a happier business.

>> to be debating whether you should allow witnesses is to be debating whether you should have a cover-up by definition. any senator who votes to deny a witness, who votes to deny evidence, is voting to cover up the presidents crimes and subversion of the constitution. they are afraid of what the witnesses will say. >> harris: house impeachment manager jerry nadler there, going after republicans saying they are trying to block witnesses in the senate trial. president trump's attorneys and

g.o.p. allies are working on a plan b to ensure former national security advisor john bolton does not testify publicly. "the washington post" reports, one strategy would be to "move walton's testimony to classified settings because of national security concerns." a material witness must disclose any relevant first-hand knowledge. what about that? >> matt: these are all interesting theoretical questions, ultimately mitch mcconnell knows he has the votes to pass a role that's not going to allow witnesses. >> harris: do you think it should be that way? >> matt: i do, to hear jerry nadler suggest that not calling witnesses is a cover-up, he's the one that didn't call any real witnesses in the house judiciary committee. >> harris: democrats don't know what they are asking for because they don't know bolton will say. i think it's kind of interesting. given what they want, do we get to hear from everybody, can we

hear from hunter biden, why is that not game? >> matt: if we get over the precipice of witnesses, you should expect they a floodgate of witnesses on both sides and a process that really gets out of control because there's a lot of executive privilege issues, national security questions and i really don't -- >> harris: do you think it should be behind closed doors? >> matt: i think it should have been in the house, first of all, and i don't see a workable solution because it will devolve. >> harris: we would've been waiting for years for that process according to democrats. >> melissa: i think witnesses hurt both sides. for the president i think the case is what it is, witnesses are not going to help him, they could hurt him. for the democrats, there are going to be witnesses there's going to be the bidens. so that's no good. i think witnesses hurt both sides, what do you think? >> leslie: i think the witnesses can hurt both sides but also can help. how many times do you hear, not just on the right but on the left as well, "they weren't on

the call." john bolton was, john bolton knows what was said, why wouldn't the president and his defense team want john bolton? >> harris: he's got a book coming out, he's not going to step on that. democrats better be really careful. >> leslie: very true but from where i sit, wher when you lookt the emergency planning underway with the impeachment defense team for the president regarding the possible testimony of john bolton, they must know he is going to squash their defense and if that's the case the american people deserve to hear that. >> melissa: they are ready won, why would they want anyone to testify at this point given the fact that they are -- the president is not going to be impeached. >> dagen: you saw that in the brief yesterday from the legal team, a focus on the two articles of impeachment, do they rise to impeachable offenses?

that is the gist of it. the second, obstruction of congress is literally the president defending the power of the executive branch and this -- keep talking about witnesses because this shines a light on the fact that john bolton wasn't subpoenaed by the house and in fact, charles kupperman went to court over his house subpoena, looking for guidance on whether privilege applied to his testimony, the house dropped it so where we now? it's a political talking point on the left. >> harris: quickly because we are going into the bottom of the hour, i want to quickly get to you on material witnesses, where do we go with that? >> matt: the president is entitled to have whoever he wants argue his case. >> harris: can democrats call his lawyer? >> matt: this is one of those things, it takes 51 votes to do just about anything and i don't ultimately see pat being witnessed. >> harris: we've got mitt romney, republican, lisa murkowski, susan collins.

there's a handful of them. >> matt: at some point in time, the senators are going to defend the institution of the senate and not how it evolved into some back and forth like we saw in the house. >> harris: the political side of this is that mitch mcconnell and others are up for reelection so the bulk of people that leslie is talking about, the polling shows they want to hear from witnesses, the full trial and then move on. >> leslie: monmouth university poll today, 57%. >> harris: that's a big number. >> matt: i don't expect and unless something dramatically changes, i do not expect to see witnesses. >> harris: we have a lot coming up this afternoon and as we've known, 1:00 p.m. eastern would be where everything would kick off. ahead of that, we have an opportunity to see the coverage ramp-up. we will see the chief justice of the united states john roberts and his swearing-in for the

proceedings to just get started and all of this. matt whitaker, thank you for being with us on this abbreviated version of "outnumbered." i want to hand it over now to bret baier and martha maccallum live in washington, d.c., for that special coverage of the impeachment trial of president trump. ♪ >> bret: this is special coverage of the senate impeachment trial of president trump, live from washington. i'm bret baier. >> martha: high martha maccallum, a live look on capitol hill as we wait for the third presidential impeachment trial in united states history to kick into high gear in the senate today. we expect fierce fighting and debate over the rules of this trial, including the big issue of potential witnesses. majority leader mitch mcconnell will take the floor, we may get some comments from him, we are told, and perhaps senator schumer as well. chucschumer not happy with the y

the rules are laying out thus far, watch this. >> it appears that lida mcconnell decided to go along with the president's desire to cover up his wrongdoing. hook, line, and sinker. it almost seems that the resolution was written in the white house, not in the senate. >> bret: house democrats have already laid out their arguments, accusing president trump of abusing his power and obstructing congress. president trump's legal team is asking for a speedy acquittal and calling the case against the president "flimsy." right now the president is in switzerland for an economics on the above hours before the trial was set to resume he called the impeachment a hoax. >> that whole thing is a hoax, goes nowhere because nothing happened. we have the strongest country in the world by far, we're going in the wrong direction. speech of the president going about business and we expect this trial will run six days a

week, monday through saturday until it's over and at least this week there could be some 12 hour days stretching late into the night. chad pergram reporting live from capitol hill with what we can expect today. hi, chad. >> hi, there, just in the past couple of moments we've seen the house impeachment managers themselves walking over to the senate, sylvia garcia from texas, hakeem jeffries from new york, jerry nadler, chair of the judiciary committee. that's happened in just the past couple minutes here. let me set the scene. at 1:00, they will actually started we expect them then to swear in jim inhofe, republican from oklahoma, he was not there due to a family emergency so they will swear him in as a juror. a little later they will actually hear the proposal of mitch mcconnell, the senate senate majority leader last night. this is the four-page, it's pretty terse as to what the rules of the road would be if

the senate in fact agrees to this. this is what they are going to be debating today. it's interesting the senators don't debate this, the house impeachment managers debate this and the president's trial lawyers debate it. two hours are set for that proposal and chuck schumer, sent a majority leader about an hour ago said he's going to issue a series of amendments he's going to try to alter the proposal and two hours of debate between the managers in the president's legal counsel to debate that. then we are probably going to get to what we call a closed session with a kick everybody out except the senators, the presiding officer in this case, the chief justice and essential floor personnel. here is senate majority leader mitch mcconnell on the floor right now. >> presidential impeachment trial in american history. this is a unique responsibility, the framers of our constitution to the senate and only the senate could handle. our founders trusted the senate

to rise above short-term passions. they trusted the senate to soberly consider what has actually been proven and which outcome best serves the nation. that's a pretty high bar, mr. president, and you might say that later today this body will take our entrance exam. today, we will consider and pass and organizing resolution that will structure the first phase of the trial. this initial step will offer and early signal to our country. can the senate still serve our founding purpose? can we still put fairness, evenhandedness, and historical precedent ahead of the partisan passions of the day? today's vote will contain some

answers. though organizing resolution will put forward already has the support of a majority of the senate. that's because it sets up a structure that is fair, evenhanded, and tracks closely with past precedents that were established unanimously. after pretrial business, the resolution establishes the four things that need to happen next. first, the senate will hear an opening presentation from the house managers. second, we will hear it from the president counsel. third, senators will be able to seek further information about opposing written questions to either side through the chief justice. and fourth, with all that information in hand, the senate will consider whether we feel any additional evidence or

witnesses are necessary to evaluate whether the house case has cleared or failed to clear the high bar of overcoming the presumption of innocence and in doing a democratic election. the senate's fair process will draw a sharp contrast with the unfair and precedent breaking inquiry that was carried on by the house of representatives. the house broke with precedent by denying members of the republican minority the same rights that democrats had received when they were in the minority back in 1998. here in the senate, every single senator will have exactly the same rights and exactly the same ability to ask questions. the house broke with fairness by cutting president trump's counsel out of their inquiry to an unprecedented degree. here in the senate, the

president's lawyers will finally receive a level playing field with the house democrats. and will finally be able to present the president's case. finally, some fairness. on every point, our straightforward resolution will bring the clarity and fairness that everyone deserves. the president of the united states, the house of representatives, and the american people. this is the fair road map for our trial. we need it in place before we can move forward. so the senate should prepare to remain in session today until we complete this resolution and adopted. this basic four-part structure allows for the first steps of the clinton impeachment trial in 1999. 21 years ago, 100 senators agreed unanimously that this road map was the right way to

begin the trial. all 100 senators agreed the proper time to consider the question of potential witnesses was after, after organ opening arguments and senators questio questions. some outside voices have been urging senators to break with precedent on this question, including -- to seek specific witnesses and documents before senators that even heard opening arguments or even ask questions. these are potential witnesses, mr. president, whom the house managers themselves declined to hear from. declined to pursue through the

legal system in its own inquiry. the house was not facing any deadlines and were free to run whatever investigation they wanted to run. if they wanted witnesses who would trigger legal battles over it presidential privilege they could've had those. but the chairman of the house intelligence committee and chairman of the house judiciary committee decided not to. they decided their inquiry was finished and moved right in. the house chose not to pursue the same witnesses they apparently would now like the senate to precommit to pursuing ourselves. as i've been saying for weeks, nobody, nobody will dictate senate procedure to united states senators. a majority of us are committed to upholding the unanimous, bipartisan clinton precedent with respect to the proper

timing of these mid-trial questions. and so, if any amendments are brought forward, premature decisions on mid-trial questio questions, i will move to table such amendments and protect our bipartisan precedent. if the senator moves to amend the resolution or subpoena specific witnesses or documents, i will move to table such motions because the senate will decide those questions later in the trial, just like we did back in 1999. mr. president, today may present a curious situation. we may hear house managers themselves agitate for such amendments. we may hear a team of managers argue that the senate must precommit ourselves to reopen the very investigation they

themselves oversaw and voluntarily shut down. it would be curious to hear these house chairman argue that the senate must precommit ourselves to supplementing their own evidentiary record to supplementing case that they themselves have recently described as overwhelming. overwhelming. and beyond any reasonable doubt. so mr. president, these mid-trial questions could potentially take us even deeper and into more complex constitutional waters. many senators, including me have concerns about blurring the traditional role between the house and the senate within the impeachment process. the constitution divides the

power to impeach by the power to try. the first resides solely to the house and with the power to impeach comes a responsibility to investigate. the senate agreed to pick up and carry on the house is an adequate investigation would send a new precedent that could incentivize frequent and hasty impeachments from future house majorities. it could dramatically change of separation of powers between the house and the senate if the senate agrees we will conduct both the investigation and the trial. a van impeachment. what's more, some of the proposed new witnesses executive branch officials whose communications with the president and other executive branch officials lie at the very core of the president's constitutional privilege. pursuing those witnesses could indefinitely delay the senate

trial and grow our body into a protracted and complex legal fight over presidential privilege. such litigation could potentially have permanent repercussions for the separation of powers and the institution of the presidency that senators would need to consider very, very carefully. so mr. president, the senate is not about to rush into these weighty questions without discussion and without deliberation, without even hearing opening arguments first. there were good reasons by 100 out of 100 senators agreed to codecades ago to cross these bridges and we came to them. that is what we will do this time as well. fair is fair, the process was good enough for president clinton and basic fairness dictates it ought to be good enough for this president as well.

so the eyes are on the senate. the country is watching to see if we can rise to the occasion. 21 years ago, 100 senators including a number of us who sit in the chamber today did just that. the body improved a fair common sense process to guide the beginning of a presidential impeachment trial. today, to codecades later, the senate will retake that entrance exam, where justice is eminently fair and evenhanded as it was back then. the question is whether senators are themselves ready to be as fair and as evenhanded.

the senate made a statement 21 years ago, we said that presidents of either party deserve basic justice and a fair process. challenging political moment like today does not make such statements less necessary. but all the more necessary, in fact, so i would say to my colleagues across the aisle, there is no reason why the vote on this resolution not to be remotely partisan. there is no reason other than base partisanship to say a particular president deserves a radically different rulebook than what was good enough for a past president of your own par party. so i would urge every single senator to support our fair resolution, urge everyone to vote to uphold the senate's unanimous bipartisan precedent of a fair process.

>> bret: senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, i think we will here with senate minority leader chuck schumer right now. >> there has been well-founded concern that the additional security measures required for access to the galleries during the trial could cause reporters to miss some of the events on the senate floor. i want to assure everyone in the past that i will vociferously oppose any attempt to begin the trial unless the reporters trying to enter the gallery are seated. the press is here to inform the american public about these pivotal events in our nations history. we must make sure they are able to -- some may not what happens here to be public. we do. now, mr. president, after the conclusion of my remarks, the senate will proceed to the

impeachment trial of president donald john trump for committing high crimes and misdemeanors. president trump is accused of coercing a foreign leader into interfering in our elections to benefit himself and then doing everything in his power to cover it up. if approved, the president's actions are crimes against democracy itself. it's hard to imagine a greater subversion of our democracy than for powers outside our borders to determine the elections from within. for a foreign country to attempt such a thing on its own is bad enough. for an american president to deliberately solicit such a thing, to blackmail a foreign country with military assistance to help him win and election is unimaginably worse. i can't imagine any other president doing this.

beyond that, for then the president to deny the right of congress to conduct oversight, deny the right to investigate, to say article two of the constitution gives the right to quote, do whatever he wants. we are staring down the erosion of the sacred democratic principles, our founders for blood he war of independence. is the gravity of this historic moment. now, one senator i this morningt 1:00 p.m., the senate then must determine the rules of the trial. the republican leader will offer an organizing resolution that outlines his plan, his plan for the rules of the trial. it is completely partisan, kept

secret until the very eve of the trial. and now that it's public, it's very easy to see why. the mcconnell rules seem to be designed by president trump for president trump. it asks the senate to rush through as fast as possible, it makes getting evidence as hard as possible. he could force presentations to take place at two or three in the morning so the american people won't see them and in short, the mcconnell resolution will result in a rush trial with little evidence in the dark of night. literally the dark of night. if the president is so confident in his case, if leader mcconnell is so confident the president did nothing wrong, why don't they want the case to be presented in broad daylight?

on something as important as impeachment, the mcconnell resolution is nothing short than a national disgrace. this will go down as one of the darker moments in the senate history. perhaps one of even the darkest. leader mcconnell has just said he wants to go by the clinton rules. why did he change them in four important ways that minimum to make the trials less transparent, less clear and less evidence. he said he wanted to get started in exactly the same way. it turns out contrary to what the leaders said, amazed he could say it with a straight face. that the rules are the same as the clinton rules, the rules are not even close to the clinton rules. unlike the clinton rules, the mcconnell resolution does not admit the record of the house impeachment proceedings into

evidence. so leader mcconnell wants a trial with no existing evidence and no new evidence, a trial without evidence is not a trial. it's a cover up. second, unlike the clinton rules, and the mcconnell resolution limits participation for 24 hours to preside over only two days. we start at 112 hours a day, at 1:00 a.m. without breaks. it will be later. leader mcconnell wants to force the managers to make important parts of their case in the dark of night. number three, unlike the clinton rules, the mcconnell resolution places an additional hurdle to get witnesses and documents by requiring a vote on whether such motions are even in order. there are no motions to subpoena witnesses and documents will be in order.

later i will determine it, they are making it far more difficult to vote in the future, later on in the trial. and finally, unlike the clinton rules, the mcconnell resolution allows the motion to dismiss. at any time, any time in the trial. in short, contrary to what the leader said, the republican leaders resolution is based, partisanship and politics of the moment, today i will be offering amendments to fix the many flaws in leader mcconnell is deeply unfair resolution. beginning with the amendment to have the senate subpoena white house documents, let me be

clear. these amendments only seek one thing. that means relevant documents, that means relevant witnesses. everyone in this body knows it. each send impeachment trial in our history, all 15 brought to completion future witnesses, every single one. the witnesses we request are not democrats, they are the president's own men. the documents are not democratic documents. we don't know if evidence will be exculpatory to the president or incriminating. we have an obligation, a solemn obligation, to seek the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

my republican colleagues have offered several explanations for the start of the trial. none of them has much merit. republicans have said we should deal with the question of witnesses later in the trial. afterward, decide if the senate should hear evidence. the evidence was supposed to inform arguments not after they're completed. the constitution gives the senate the sole power to try teachers. not the sole power to review, not the sole power to rehash, but to try. the republicans called our request for documents political. if seeking the truth is political, the republican party is in serious trouble. the white house has said that the articles of impeachment are brazen and wrong.

well, if the president believes his impeachment is so brazen and wrong, why won't he show us why? why is the president so insistent that no one come forward, that no documents be released. if the president's case is so weak that none of the presidents men can can defend him under oath, shame on him. and those who allow it to happ happen. what is the president hiding? what are our republican colleagues hiding? if they weren't afraid of the truth, they would tell you to go right ahead, get out the truth. in fact, at no point over the last few months, have i heard a single solitary argument on the merits of why witnesses and documents should not be a part of the trial no republican is explained by this evidence is better than more evidence.

the first impeachment trial in history without witnesses that rushes to the arguments as quickly as possible, in ways both shameful and subtle will conceal the truth from the american people. the housleader mcconnell claimse house has run the most rushed, least thorough and unfair impeachment trial in history. the senate has before it a very straightforward question. the president is accused of coercing a foreign power to interfere in our elections, to help himself. it's the job of the senate to determine if these very serious charges are through. the very least we can do is

examine the facts, hear the witnesses and try the case. not run from it, not hide it, try it. if the president commits high crimes and misdemeanors and congress refuses to act, refuses to even conduct a fair trial of its conduct, this president and future presidents can commit impeachable crimes with impunity and the order and rigor of our democracy will dramatically decline. the fail-safe, the final fail-safe of our democracy will be rendered moot. the most powerful check on the executive, the one designed to protect the people from tyranny will be erased. in short time, my colleagues, each of us will face a choice about whether to begin this trial in search of the truth or in the service of the president's desire to cover it up.

whether the senate will conduct a fair trial and a full airing of the facts or rush to a predetermined political outcome. my colleagues, the eyes of the nation, the eyes of history, the eyes of the founding funders are upon us. history will be our final judge. will senators rise to the occasion? i yield the floor. >> under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess subject to the call of the chair. >> bret: senator chuck schumer there, the minority leader. i saw senator cruz sitting, oversight of the senate. the case here is historic, only the third time in american

history that the u.s. senate has had a trial, and impeachment trial but it is the first time that that trial has been run by the same party as the president being impeached and there you see the minority saying it's not fair, we need witnesses, we need evidence. one thing happens, you have to have the votes. right now to begin, senator mcconnell does. our all-star panel is with us, host of fox news sunday, chris wallace. town hall editor and fox news contributor, katie pavlich. cohost of of what the five," dana perino," most of "the five," juan williams. chris? >> oh how the rules have changed, how the roles have flipped. remember a few week ago in the e intelligence committee and the judiciary committee where the republican minority was arguing about how unfair process was and doing everything they can to come up the works? now it's the democrats in the senate in the minority and they are the ones who are arguing

about process. remember back then in that house when you heard republicans say, adam schiff, the chairman of the intelligence committee and the lead house floor manager here, the prosecutor, he's a fact witness, he should have to testify. now you are hearing the democrats say that the lead defense lawyer for the president is a fact witness and he should have to testify. i expect today to be very nasty. you're going to hear the lawyers from both sides argue, i expected to be very nasty because one of the points the democrats are going to try to make is how unfair this is, try to build up public support and put more pressure on this moderate republican just in the house as republicans try to put pressure on the moderate democrats. the one thing i don't think is in doubt is the final outcome because exactly as you said, the republicans have the vote, however long it takes today when the final vote comes the mcconnell rules will go into