your predictions. stick around, we will be here with a lot of other folks that we have monitoring this as the folks continue to vote on how they will run the impeachment, stick around with us for extended coverage of that. we are continuing our coverage, extended tonight of the ongoing impeachment, day 1. we've hit the night on the east coast, where technically getting into day 2. we want to bring in one of our legal eagles and matt schlapp, we are talking about this poll that is showing there is a 20-point spread in favor of people who think it's okay, they want to see more evidence in the trial and yet republicans are now arguing against that, it appears that is going to be their ultimate argument although we know the plan is to put off a vote on witnesses until both sides have made their cases,

which they have yet to start doing. >> i agree with that approach, this would be typical of a court of law. is there enough evidence of crimes to go forward and expand upon -- we've had three years of unattempt to try to get this president impeached. it's not like we suffered for any time, let's see what the case is, let's see if it merits getting deeper into it, i have no problem with people like john bolton testifying, i think it's going to be a big nothing burger. we have already heard from people who worked for john bolton -- staff sometimes disagrees with the president, shocking. sometimes people who work for somebody disagree with what they eventually decide, it doesn't mean you get impeached over it. as far as these holds are concerned, that is critically important. people are throwing around a lot of numbers. president trump's approval

rating has never been higher than during the week of this charade that is going on in the senate. what does that tell me? that tells me there's no political damage over any of this and there are a lot of open minded, fair-minded americans who want to make sure we have a good process. >> shannon: we have to take a quick break, it sounds like the next amendment the senate minority leader offering up is one in which they are going to talk about subpoenaing john bolton. >> notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution pursuant to rules five and six, when sitting on impeachment trials, the chief justice of the united states through the secretary of the senate taking the testimony of john robert bolton and the sergeant of arms

is utilizing the deputy services of the sergeant of arms or any other employee of the senate serving the subpoena authorized to be issued by this section. >> the amendment is arguable by the parties for two hours equally divided, are you a proponent? mr. cipollone, an opponent? mr. schiff, you may proceed coming you may reserve time for rebuttal. >> shannon: quickly, we understand this is a amendment to allow for subpoena of john bolton. >> this amendment will be the most radioactive, i should point out a provision in this deal would authorize mike singer who is the senate sergeant of arms to basically go get him if that is the case. that is a big deal where they

have that capacity, let's listen to jerry nadler on the senate floor talking about this. >> they insist the president has done nothing wrong but they refused to allow the evidence and hear from the witnesses they will not permit the american people to hear from the witnesses. and they lie and lie and lie. for example, for months president trump has repeatedly complained that the house denied him the right to call witnesses, to cross-examine witnesses, you heard mr. cipollone repeat this lie today. i have with me the letter i sent as chairman of the house judiciary committee last november 26th inviting the president and his counsel to attend our hearings to cross-examine the witnesses, to call witnesses of his own and so forth. i have the white house letter signed by mr. cipollone rejecting that offer.

we should expect at least a little regard for the truth from the white house but that is apparently too much to expect. ladies and gentlemen, this is a trial. a trials, the lawyers present evidence, the american people know that, most 10-year-olds know that if you vote to block this witness or any of the evidence that should be presented here, it can only be because you do not want the american people to hear the evidence, you do not want a fair trial, that you are complacent and president trump's efforts to hide his misconduct and hide the truth from the american people. ambassador bolton was appointed by president trump, he has stated his willingness to testify in this trial. he is prepared to testify. he says he has relevant evidence not yet disclosed to the public.

his comments his comments reaffirm what is obvious from the testimony and documents obtained by the house which highlight ambassador bolton's role and repeated criticism of the president's misconduct. in fact extensive evidence collected by the house makes clear that investo ambassador bt only had first-hand knowledge of the scheme but he was deeply concerned by it. it was described as a drug deal and he warned the president trump's personal lawyer rudy giuliani would blow everybody up. in advance of the july 25th 2019 call, ambassador bolton expressed concern that president trump would ask the ukrainian president to announce these investigations which was of course exactly what happens. of course there were to be no investigations, all he cared

about was the announcement, the smear of the political rival in the united states. he urged his staff to report their own concerns about the president's legal counsel as the scheme was unfolding. finally as national security advisor, he also objected to the president's freezing of military aid for the ukraine and advocated for the release of the aid. we know the impoundment control act makes it illegal the president's withholding of that aid after congress had voted for it but the president ignored the warnings about that because all he cared about was smearing a political rival, the law meant nothing to him. ambassador bolton has made clear that he is ready, willing, and able to testify about everything he has witnessed but president trump does not want you to hear from ambassador bolton. the reason has nothing to do with executive privilege or this

other nonsense. the reason has nothing to do with national security. if the president cared about national security, he would not have blocked military assistance to a vulnerable strategic ally in an attempt to secure a personal political favor for himself. no, the president doesn't want you to hear from ambassador bolton because the president doesn't want the american people to hear firsthand testimony at the heart of this trial. the question is whether the senate will be complicit in the president's crimes by covering them up. any senator who votes against ambassador bolton's testimony or any relevant testimony shows that he or she wants to be part of the cover-up. what other possible reason is there to prohibit a relevant witness from testifying? unfortunately, so far i've seen every republican senator has shown they want to be part of the cover-up by voting against every documented witness

proposed. ambassador bolton is a first-hand witness to president trump's abuse of power, as the national security advisor, he reported directly to the president and supervise the entire national security council. that included three key witnesses with responsibility for ukraine matters from testifying in great detail before the house. dr. fiona hill, tim morrison, and lieutenant colonel alexander vinvindman. it was his responsibility to oversee everything happening in the trump administration regarding foreign policy and national security. by virtue of his unique position, bolton had knowledge of the latest intelligence and developments with our relationship with ukraine including our support of the country and its president and that is why the president and

some members of this body are afraid to hear from ambassador bolton. they know he knows too much. there is also substantial evidence that ambassador bolton kept a key i on rudy giuliani. as we described, he communicated directly with mr. giuliani at key moments, he knows the detail of the drug deal he would later warn against. perhaps most importantly, ambassador bolton has said both that he will testify and that he has relevant information that has not yet been disclosed. a key witness has come forward and confirm not only did he participate in critical offense but he has new evidence we have not yet heard. that is precisely what ambassador bolton has done. his lawyer tells us ambassador

bolton was "personally involved in many of the events, meetings, and conversations as well as relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimony so far." ambassador bolton was requested as a witness in the house inquiry but he refused to appear voluntarily. his lawyers said they would take the matter to court if issued subpoenas as his subordinate did but the ambassador changed his tune, he recently issued a statement confirming if the senate issued a subpoena for my testimony, i am prepared to testify. the question presented as to ambassador bolton is clear, it comes down to this. will the senate do its duty and hear all the evidence or will it slam this door shut and show that it has participated in the

cover-up? because it fears to hear testimony from the former national security council advisor to the president because it fears what he might say. it fears he knows too much. consider this as well, why is president trump so intent on preventing us from hearing ambassador bolton, his own appointee, his formally trusted confidant. he knows his guilt and he knows he doesn't want people to know about it to testify. the question is whether republican senators here today will participate in that cover-up. the reasons seem clear, president trump wants to block the witness because ambassador bolton has direct knowledge of the ukraine scheme which he called a drug deal -- let's

start with a key meeting that took place on july 10th. just two weeks before his famous july 25th call with president zelensky, ambassador bolton hosted senior ukrainian officials in his west wing office. who did dr. hill, lieutenant colonel vindman, ambassadors sondland and volker and the energy secretary. they asked when the white house would schedule a meeting for the newly elected ukrainian president because it was very important, the new president of an embattled democracy invaded by russia to show that he had legitimacy by meeting with the united states. dr. hill testified that ambassador sondland blurted out that he had a deal with mr. mulvaney for white house

visits provided ukraine first announces investigations into the president's political riva rivals. ambassador bolton immediately stiffened and ended the meeting. dr. hill's testimony is on the screen. in other words ambassador bolton and others at the meeting, they were interested in the national security of the united states. they were interested in protecting an american ally against russian invasion. they couldn't understand why the sudden order was coming from the president to abandon that ally, because they didn't yet know. they didn't yet know of the president's plot. to try to extort the ukrainian government into doing him a political favor by announcing an

investigation of a political rival. when dr. hill reported back to ambassador bolton about the second conversation, ambassador bolton told the doctor hill to go to the national security council's legal advisor john eisenberg and told him i am not part of whatever drug deal sondland and mick mulvaney are cooking up on this. here is an excerpt of the testimony. speak out the specific instruction was i had to go to the lawyers, to john eisenberg sr. counsel for the national security council to basically say you tell eisenberg that i am not part of whatever drug deal that mick mulvaney and sondland are cooking up. >> what that you understand to mean by the drug deal? >> i took it to mean investigations for a meeting. >> did you speak t to the lawye? >> i certainly did.

>> these statements and events are reasonable enough to insist that ambassador bolton testify, he can explain the conduct that caused him to miss characterize the ukraine scheme as a drug deal and why he directed his subordinates to report their concerns to legal counsel. he can tell us everything else he knows about how ambassador sondland, mr. mulvaney and others were attempting to impress the ukrainians to do president trump's bidding. that is why the president fears his testimony. that is why some members of this body fear his testimony. ambassador bolton involvement was not limited to a few isolated events, he was a witness at key moments in the ukraine scheme and especially in july, august, and september last year. i would like to walk through

some of those events. please remember as i'm describing them that this is not the entire universe of issues to which ambassador bolton could testify. only examples that show why he is such an important witness and why the president is desperate to block his testimony. we know from ambassador bolton's attorney that there may be other meetings and conversations that have not yet come to our attention but to take one example, we know from witness testimony that ambassador bolton repeatedly expressed concerns about the involvement of president trump's personal lawyer, mr. giuliani. in the spring and summer of 2019, ambassador bolton caught wind of mr. giuliani's involvement in the ukraine and soon began to express concerns. ambassador bolton expressed strong concerns about mr. giuliani's involvement in the ukraine matters. when ambassador bolton described mr. giuliani as a hand grenade

that was going to blow everybody up, it was based on his fear that mr. giuliani's work on behalf of the president, his attempts to have ukraine announce these investigations, these sham investigations and his campaign to smear ambassador marie yovanovitch would ultimately backfire, it turns out he was right. >> did your boss, ambassador bolton tell you that giuliani was a hand grenade? >> he did, yes. >> what do you think he meant by his characterization of giuliani as a hand grenade? >> it was clear to me in the context of all of the statements that mr. giuliani was making publicly about the investigations he was promoting come of the story line he was promoting, the narrative he was promoting that was going to backfire, i think it has backfired. >> in june, as ambassador bolton became aware of mr. giuliani's

coordination with ambassadors volker and sondland, he told other members of the national security staff that nobody should be meeting with giuliani. he did not know of the plot as to why people were meeting with giuliani, the president's plot. dr. hill also testified that ambassador bolton was closely monitoring what mr. giuliani was doing in the messaging he was sending out but ambassador bolton was keenly aware that mr. giuliani was doing the president's bidding, that is also why the president fears his testimony. during a meeting on june 13th 2019, ambassador bolton made clear that he supported more engagement with ukraine by senior white house officials, but cautioned that "mr. giuliani was a key voice with the president on ukraine" he joked that every time ukraine is mentioned, giuliani pops up. ambassador bolton also

communicated directly with mr. giuliani in key junctures. according to records obtained by the house, mr. giuliani connected with ambassador bolton's office three times for brief calls between april 23rd and may 10th 2019. at time period that corresponds with the recall of ambassador yovanovitch and pressured ukraine into opening investigations that would benefit his reelection campaign. for instance on april 23rd, the day before the state department recalled ambassador yovanovitch from ukraine, mr. giuliani had an eight minute 22nd call from the white house, 30 minutes later, he had a 482nd call with the phone number associated with ambassador bolton. if called to testify, we can ask ambassador bolton directly what transpired on that call and whether that phone call informed his assessment that mr. giuliani

was a hand grenade that was going to blow everyone up. and we can ask mr. bolton why when there are approximately 1.8 million companies in ukraine, several hundred thousand of which have been accused of corruption, the president was focused on only one. he didn't care about anything else, he cared only about the company on which the former vice president's son had been a board member. can you believe that he was concerned about corruption and only one company when there are hundreds of thousands that were accused of corruption? although ambassador bolton didn't listen in on the july 25th call between president trump and president zelensky in which president trump asks the ukrainian president for a favor,

the favor to investigate one company and joe biden's son. we have learned from witness testimony that ambassador bolton was opposed to scheduling a call in the first place. why? because he accurately predicted in the words of ambassador taylor that there could be some talk of investigations or worse on the call. he didn't want the call to happen at all because he thought it was "going to be a disaster." how did ambassador bolton know that president trump would bring this up, that made him so concerned that a call would be a disaster? i think we know that only ambassador bolton can answer these questions. we also know based on extensive witness testimony that throughout this period, multiple people in the national security council staff reported concerns to ambassador bolton about tying american foreign policy to

president trump's domestic political errand as dr. hill so aptly put it. after he abruptly ended the julg in which ambassador sondland abruptly told the ukrainians that a white house meeting could be scheduled in exchange for the amounts investigations, ambassador bolton spoke to dr. hill and directed her to report concerns to the national security council legal advisor john eisenberg. at the end of august, ambassador bolton advised ambassador taylor to send a first-person cable to secretary pompeo to delay concerns about the holden military aid. ambassador bolton also advised mr. morrison, dr. hill's successor as the top of russia and ukraine official on the national security council, on at least two different occasions to report what he had heard to the national security council's lawyers and sounding so suspicious. on september 1st, ambassador

bolton directed mr. morrison to report to the national security council's lawyers on explicit proposal from ambassador sondland to a senior ukrainian official that "could help them move the aid so a prosecutor general would go to the mic and announced that he was opening the burisma investigation." on september seven, he had another conversation with ambassador sondland, this time he conveyed that the administration had not released the military aid unless president zelensky announced the investigations demanded by president trump, the investigations of one company because the president was so concerned about corruption in ukraine. one company that had vice president biden's son on the board, the president happen to pick that company from

hundreds of thousands to be concerned about corruption. the president also opposed the funding of corruption aid to ukraine. why did ambassador bolton tell his supporters to report these issues to the national security lawyers? what does he know about how the lawyers responded to the concerns of dr. hill or lieutenant colonel vindman. only ambassador bolton can answer these questions, and must assume they go to the heart of the conduct given the president's attempt to block his testimony. why would the president oppose the testimony of his own appointee as a national security council advisor -- national security advisor of the united states? unless he knew that that testimony would be to him.

those are other reasons the president fears ambassador bolton's testimony. i'd like to turn now to ambassador bolton's knowledge of and concerns about president trump's illegal withholding of the military aid to ukraine and we all know of course that under the anti-impoundment act of 1974, passed to prevent president nixon from refusing to spend money appropriated by congress, withholding money appropriated by congress is illegal. nonetheless, the president did it for obviously corrupt motiv motives. by july of last year, ambassador bolton was well aware that president trump was illegally withholding security assistance to ukraine and he and his subordinates tried to convince the president to pursue america's national security interests and release the aid instead of continuing to withhold vital military assistance.

instead of holding that vital military assistance hostage to the president's personal political agenda. throughout the rest of july, over the course of several interagency meetings, national security council repeatedly discussed the freeze on the ukraine assistance. as national security advisor, ambassador bolton supervised that process. these meetings worked their way up to the level of cabinet deputies, and every agency involved except for the office of management and budget supported release of the aid. omb said the decision was based on president trump's express orders, we know a number of individuals at omb and the department of advance raised concerns about the legality of freezing the funds, which we know is illegal. now we have explicit rulings from the government accountability office -- which

we didn't need, which we knew it -- that the freeze by president trump was illegal and he was told this and violated the impoundment control act. we also know after the meeting of cabinet deputies on july 26th, tim morrison talked through ambassador bolton and according to mr. morrison, ambassador bolton said the entire cabinet supported releasing the freeze and wanted to get the issue to president trump as soon as possible. when did ambassador bolton first become aware that president trump was withholding military aid to ukraine and conditioning the release of the aid on ukraine announcing political investigations? what else did he learn about the president's actions in these meetings? only ambassador bolton can answer these questions and again, we must presume that president trump is desperate for us not to hear those answers.

i hope not too many of the members of this body are desperate to make sure that the american people hear those same answers. we know ambassador bolton tried without success throughout august to persuade the president that the aid to ukraine had to be released because that was in america's best interests and necessary for our national security. in mid-august, we know lieutenant colonel vindman wrote a memorandum recommending the freeze be lifted based on the consensus views of the entire cabinet. the memo was given to ambassador bolton who subsequently had a direct one-on-one conversation with the president in which he tried but failed to convince him to release the hold. >> use it ambassador bolton had a one-on-one meeting with president trump in late august 2019, but the president was not yet ready to approve the release of the assistance, your

member that? >> this was to 26? >> i'm asking you did it happen or did it not? >> i want to be clear in characterizing it. i see. >> you testified to that. what was the outcome of that meeting between ambassador bolton and president trump? >> ambassador bolton did not yet believe the president was ready to approve the assistance. >> did ambassador bolton inform you as to any reason? >> no. >> ambassador bolton's efforts failed. by august 30th, omb informed dod that there was clear direction from potus to continue to hold it. what rationale did president trump give ambassador bolton and other senior officials for refusing to release the aid? for these reasons convincing to ambassador bolton and did they

reflect the best interest of our national security for the president's personal political interests? only ambassador bolton can tell us the answers. a fair trial in this body would ensure that he testifies. the president doesn't want you to hear ambassador bolton's testimony. why is that? for all the obvious reasons i've stated. the president claims that he froze the aid to ukraine in the interest of national security -- if that was true, why would he oppose testimony from his own national security advisor. make no mistake, president trump had no legal grounds to block ambassador bolton's testimony in this trial. executive privilege is not a spell the president can cast to cover up evidence of his own misconduct, it is a qualified privilege to protect senior advisors performing official functions. executive privilege is a shield, not a sword, it can't be used to block a witness who is willing

to testify as ambassador bolton says he is. as we know from the nixon case, the privilege also does not prevent us from obtaining specific evidence of wrongdoing. the supreme court unanimously rejected resident nixon's attempt to use executive privilege to conceal incriminating tape recordings. all these efforts by president trump must also fail. the president relies on a theory of absolute immunity that says he can order anybody in the executive branch not to testify to the house or the senate or to a court and obviously this is ridiculous, flatly rejected by every federal court to consider the idea, it's embarrassing the presidents councils would talk about this today, even if the president asserts ambassador bolton is absolutely immune from testimony, he has no authority to block ambassador bolton from

appearing here. as one court recently explained, the presidents are not kings and they don't have subjects whose destinies there entitled to control. this body should not act if as of the president is a king. we will see in the next vote on this question whether the members of this body want to protect the president against all investigation, against all suspicion against any crimes or not. the framers of our constitution are most concerned with abuse of power where it affects national security. president trump has been impeached for playin placing his political ambitions ahead of national security. to be clear, the record as it stands fully supports both articles of impeachment.

it is beyond argument that president trump mounted a sustained pressure campaign to get ukraine to announce investigations it would benefit him politically and 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 here today. only guilty people tried to hide the evidence. all of this is relevant only as this here today is a fair trial, only if you come of 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 if the president objects the calling witnesses, that is who he is. if he doesn't want you to see evidence or hear testimony about details of how he betrayed his office and asked a foreign

government to intervene in our election but we should be surprised that here 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 expect to be honest, we are expected to protect the interests of the american people, we should be surprised and shocked that any senator would vote to block this witness or any witness that might shed light on the president's misconduct. the president is on trial in the senate but the senate is on trial and the eyes of the american people. will you vote to allow all of the relevant evidence? or will you be betraying your pledge to be an impartial jury. will you present an entire record of the president's misconduct or will you be complicit in the president's cover up. so far, i'm sad to say i see a lot of senators voting for a

cover-up, voting to deny witnesses, it's absolutely indefensible and it's a treacherous vote. a vote against an honest consideration of the evidence against the president, a vote against an honest trial, a vote against the united states. a real trial has witnesses, we urge you to do your duty and permit a fair trial. all the witnesses must be permitted, that is elementary in american justice. either you want the truth and you must permit the witnesses or you want a shameful cover-up. history will judge and sold the electorate. >> mr. cipollone? >> thank you mr. chief justice.

members of the senate, we came here today to address the false case brought to you by the house managers -- sorry. we've been respectful of the senate, we've made our arguments to you. you don't deserve and we don't deserve what just happened. mr. nadler came up here and made false allegations against our team, he made false allegations against all of you, he accused you of a cover-up. he's been making false allegations against the

president. the only one who should be embarrassed mr. nadler is you for the way you've addressed this body. this is the united states senate. if you're in charge here. let me address the issue of mr. bolton, i've addressed it before. they don't tell you that they didn't bother to call mr. bolton themselves. they didn't subpoena him. mr. cooper wrote them a letter, he said very clearly if the house chooses not to pursue through subpoena the testimony of dr. kupperman and ambassador bolton, let the record be clear -- that is the houses decision.

they didn't pursue ambassador bolton and they withdrew the subpoena to mr. kupperman. for them to come here now and demand before we even start the arguments that they ask you to do something that they refused to do for themselves and then accuse you of a cover-up when you don't do it, it's ridiculo ridiculous. talk about out-of-control government. let me read you a quote from mr. nadler, not so long ago. "the effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. there must never be a narrowly about it impeachment or unimpeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other.

such an impeachment would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come. and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions." you've just seen it for yourself, what happened, mr. nadler? what happened? the american people pay their salaries and they are here to take away their vote. they are here to take away their voice. they have come here and they have attacked every institution of our government. they have attacked the president, the executive branch,

the judicial branch, they say they don't have time for courts, they have attacked the united states senate repeatedly. it's about time we bring this power trip in for a landing. president trump is a man of his word. he made promises to the american people and he delivered over and over and over again. they come here and say with no evidence, spending the day complaining they can't make their case. attacking a resolution that had 100% support in this body and some of the people here supported at the time.

it's a farce, and it should end. mr. nadler, you owe an apology to the president of the united states and his family. you owe an apology to the sena senate. but most of all, you owe an apology to the american people, i yield the remainder of my time to mr. sekulow. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate. chairman nadler talked about treacherous come at about 12: 10:00 a.m. january 22nd, the chairman of the judiciary committee in this body on the floor of the senate said executive privilege and other nonsense. think about that for a moment.

"executive privilege and other nonsense." mr. nadler, it is not nonsense. these are privileges recognized by the supreme court of the united states. to shred the constitution on the floor of the senate to serve what purpose? the senate is not on trial. the constitution doesn't allow what just took place. look what we've dealt with for the last now 13 hours and we hopefully are closing the proceedings but not on a very high note. only guilty people try to hide evidence? so i guess when president obama instructed his attorney general to not give information, he was

guilty of a crime. that's the way it works mr. nadler? is that the way you view the united states constitution? that's not the way it was written, that is not the way it is interpreted, that is not the way the american people should have to live. i'll tell you what's treachero treacherous. coming to the floor of the senate and saying "executive privilege and other nonsense." wield the rest of our time. >> the managers have 27 27 minus remaining. >> shannon: this is about subpoenaing john bolton, at authorizes the senate sergeant of arms to actually go get bolton, they are still arguing

here, both sides get time but this will come to a boat and i imagine it may end like many others tonight 53-47, let's bring back in something you've already seen tonight, others are fresh and new for you after midnight on east coast. let's turn to fox news contributor mollie hemingway and joining us now republican congressman from arizona who sits on the house judiciary committee and i want to start with you. you had a front row seats to this whole thing and tonight what congressman jerry nadler the chair of the judiciary committee said this. he said if you vote against subpoenaing bolton, you are voting for a cover-up. he said the g.o.p. is too afraid because bolton has things to say, your reaction. >> i think it was interesting because bolton was one of the witnesses that jerry nadler asserted he wanted to hear in the house but he refused to

issue a subpoena, he refused to bring it to the committee for a boat and he refused to go through the normal process. if bolton would have refused or there would have been privileged to exercise at that point, normally we would go to court and you would have that litigated and determine whether the privilege was valid or if it needed to be narrowed but he didn't do any of that spirit he suppressed witnesses for the republicans and he also prevented documents, they are withholding documents yet that came up in the intelligence committee hearings and for him to say "if you don't bring this forward then there's a cover-up" maybe he knows what a cover-up is all about, because he just engaged in one. >> shannon: what about the point that if you really thought he was so critical to hear from you subpoena him, you allow that to play out. the system is there for a reason, you spent a lot of time litigating in it so why if it wasn't important enough to force a subpoena in the house is it a

different story? >> if it went to the court system it would've dragged on for months and almost certainly would have gone past the general election in november. this isn't an impeachment about relitigating 2016 and russia collusion, this is an impeachment process, a trial now over the president's attempts to corrupt the 2020 election in which he is a candidate, who conspired to commit bribery. >> shannon: there's no bribery article. >> the article impeachment is abuse of power which has been done before i'm getting a bad connection here but the house judiciary committee lays out the elements for conspiracy bribery. the aide, in order to get something of personal value, the launching of investigations or the announcement of investigations into the bidens. that is what this is about and

that is why they didn't want to spend three years fighting over this in the courts, it's already taken months in the mcgahn case it's taking forever. >> shannon: that is how the court system works, sometimes it's to your benefit and sometimes it's not. john bolton has said if you subpoena me, i'll show up, why not? >> i would like to first mention that i happen to be sitting next to jerry nadler on a train the day after the 2018 elections where he described in detail the entire ride from new york down to d.c. his plans to impeach both the president and justice brett kavanaugh, he talked about the people he was on the phone with and i wrote an article at the time. i think it's important to remember that jerry nadler was someone who had to decide on impeachment long before any of these things we are talking about with ukraine. as for bolton testifying, it seems like there are witnesses you would care about having, namely the whistle-blower who got everything started.

adam schiff said the whistle-blower had to testify until that precise moment that it was revealed when he coordinated with the whistle-blower to get everything going on then you can tear from the whistle-blower at all or hunter biden or other members of the biden family that are dealing with ukraine including joe biden, there are a lot of witnesses that people might want to hear from. as for john bolton, it's a good reminder to people that sometimes when you think a witness is going to go a particular way, you might be wrong. it's true that john bolton was fired by the president and he is a disgruntled former employee and he likes to talk to reporters about his dislike of the president, at the same time i think it's unlikely that he would be saying anything that would be particularly harmful for the president in large part because we've had a ton of witnesses and they're all hearsay and whatnot and they have it alleged in a at all. there are people who don't like that the president's president and he has a different ukraine policy that they do but no one has alleged in a crime and they didn't mention one in any of the articles for that reason. this is a trademark of that

russia type style investigation, you keep claiming there's going to be a smoking gun just around the corner and it never, ever appears. that smoking gun never happens, whether it's schiff or nadler, they keep claiming they will finally prove this elaborate conspiracy. >> shannon: it seems like the lead manager, the chairman of the house intelligence committee adaadam schiff probably knows what's going to happen here but there should be an asterisk by it, this is what he said to. >> in january 2020, we still don't have a decision, the present will be acquitted, not because he is innocent, he is not. but because the senators will vote by party and he has the votes, the votes to prevent the evidence from coming out and make sure the public never sees it. >> shannon: just about everybody agrees, the senator

barring some bombshell allegation or revelation we don't know about yet, the senate is not going to remove the president but he says he wants the american people to be on notice, it's because they didn't get the full story. >> the reality is there are two aspects, let's get to two of them. mr. schiff himself withheld evidence and he's the one preventing the whistle-blower discussion and the ig who took that testimony, he is preventing that documentation from coming out to the american public. he is withholding evidence himself that is critical. they prevented evidence from coming forward, they prevented republicans from bringing forward evidence in the house. the second aspect of this is majoritarianism. they have no problem running roughshod over republicans in the house because they are the majority, i understood that, we didn't like it, they don't like it in the senate because the

majority is there. that is the beauty of the american system. we are talking bilateral realism and i will make another point about what the gentleman said earlier. when you are in an impeachment inquiry or hearing, if you have a question that needs to be resolved the federal courts, there are ways to get that expedited. it is not going to go three years like he said, it's not going to go past the next election it's going to happen quickly. they chose not to do that because as mr. schiff is saying this needs an asterisk, so it was in the house as well. they fought to prevent evidence from coming forward that we wanted to get forward. >> shannon: let's talk about that. as it was playing out in the house and what we heard in the media outlets from pundits and analysts is republicans have to stop complaining about it, they lost the house, the democrats control the house so they don't get to pick the witnesses and it seems like there's a very different discussion when the shoe was on the other foot in the senate, now there is this

outrage that something isn't considered more equal, maybe they can work out a deal -- i heard no suggestion of that benefiting the republicans when we were talking about it then the house. >> part of that is politics, part of it is the way the impeachment process always works is in the house, it's the equivalent of the grand jury. the prosecution gets to put forward all their evidence and the defense isn't involved in it at all. the fact that the house provides due process procedures to the president, they made it available to the president and declined to exercise it, they made it part of the impeachment process in the house is not available in a normal criminal proceeding which obviously impeachment otherwise is not but that's why it works that way. when it got to the senate, what the fight is over here is what you would normally see in the trial is additional information always comes out. and every impeachment, additional witnesses are always called, even in the clinton impeachment trial when there had been years of a ken starr

investigation and grand jury authority, there were still witnesses called. i want to make one quick point. adam schiff did not coordinate with the whistle-blower, he had nothing to do with the drafting of the complaint. they sought guidance like all whistle-blowers are allowed to do, and was referred to counsel. >> shannon: i'll give you a chance to respond to that, there's been a lot of discussion about what kind of connection it was, conversation with a staff member of the intel community and what do you want to say? >> when you're filing a whistle-blower complaint you have to say whether you have any communication with a member of congress or their staff. the whistle-blower didn't mark that but even adam schiff admitted after lighting previously that his staff had had contact with the whistle-blower. it's important that people be honest about what's going on. obviously there's coordination and a year's worth long coordinated effort to get rid of this president and part of that is politics as you say but you have to be honest and not lie about the situation. >> shannon: i believe it was

"the washington post" that gave him -- on the assertion he made that there hadn't been any contact, correct me if i'm wrong i believe that was their assessment of that. do you think the american public will be swayed, do you think there are a handful of senators we keep talking about, those are people democrats have to convince to get the books that they need, everything is decided about 51 senate votes -- tonight everything has been along party lines. i do think the argument the democrats are making will persuade some of those g.o.p. senators that are under a white-hot spotlight, tough reelection battles and there's a lot of pressure on them tonight? >> if you're asking if there's going to be witnesses at any point along the way, i think this discussion before the senate is premature because you're going to get the presentations and there will be another series of votes. that's when you will see a real question, i don't know they ever get witnesses in and i don't think you're ever going to get

20 votes to switch sides so the democrats can remove this president. in that instance, it's the one time i heard adam schiff tell the truth when he said the conclusion is foregone. >> shannon: let's listen into the chief justice and what he is saying on the senate floor. >> in the 1905 swain trial, the senator objected when one of the managers use the word pettyfogging and the presiding officer said it not be used. i don't think we need to aspire to that standard but i do think those addressing the senate should remember where they are.

>> shannon: the chief justice of the united states was giving some type of admonishment to the senators, it has gotten a little heated their between jerry nadler and the president's defense team, let's listen into the senate majority leader. okay, they are now voting on this idea of whether or not there will be an amendment to subpoena john bolton and whether he will be called in as a witness and whether the senate sergeant of arms can go get him. we are going to let our panel go, thank you for working so late with us, we appreciate your time. please come back because this thing isn't going to be over anytime soon. for a little clarification of where we go from here, they go to the vote now. we would not expect anything

different than what we've seen on the previous amendments but what do we make about where we go? >> the most dynamic debate that we have seen in almost 12 hours that they have been at it that came at the witching hour when jerry nadler used some pretty strong language and then the counterpunch by pat cipollone the white house counsel, he tore personally into jerry nadler and said he should apologize and said you don't remember where you are here. this is what is interesting about the language that cipollone used against a jerry nadler, the language that he directed toward nadler is something you would not typically here on capitol hill between two members or your words will be taken down and he would not be able to speak the rest of the day on the floor. you couldn't say that an committee, you couldn't have a witness say that to a member, you probably couldn't have one counsel address the other counsel in a traditional court

case that way. it was interesting the chief justice john roberts initially did not weigh in but when the debate concluded on that amendment, you have john roberts for the first time in the 11, 12 hours that they have been added assert himself and he said to the councils for both sides, you have to remember where you are. this is the united states sent senate. that was some of the feisty is language we've seen on the senate floor but at any point in the impeachment process may be dating back to late summer. what they are doing right now is voting on a motion to table, the set aside this proposal by the senate minority leader chuck schumer to issue a subpoena to john bolton and authorize the senate sergeant at arms michael singer to enforce that subpoena. most of these boats have gone 53-47, all of these votes have gone 53-47, that is the breakdown. it is 1:00 in the morning, we

will see how much longer they intend to go. at the end of this boat they are about halfway through now do they decide to calls a day, do they have an up-and-down vote on the proposal one might think that the bold and subpoena amendment is the penultimate from the democrats' standpoint, really kind of bring the heat here. he is viewed as witness number one, and i think it is important to note, the idea of compelling him to attend and getting the senate sergeant-at-arms mike singer to enforce that subpoena appeared at the end of this vote, which should wrap up in about a minute and a half, i would say, we should probably lo the floor, see if there is any update from mcconnell and schumer on the lay of the land, and maybe they call it a night, maybe they actually have a vote to wrap things up tonight, shannon. >> shannon: there has been so much speculation about what role the chief justice would play in this. keep