gillian turner, thank you. busy day in washington, busy day on wall street. >> some new records for the s&p and nasdaq. >> the u.s. stock market hitting record highs. >> interesting, can i take tomorrow off? >> no you cannot. our coverage continues tomorrow. now, "outnumbered." >> harris: we are less than an hour away from the opening statements of the president's impeachment trial. tempers were hot just after midnight. house impeachment manager jerry nadler clash with president trump's legal team after nadler demanded senators support an amendment to immediately subpoena former national security advisor john bolton. watch. >> the president sometimes 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. obviously this is ridiculous and flatly rejected by every federal court to consider the idea, it's embarrassing the president's council would talk about this today. >> you don't deserve and we don't deserve what just happen 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 will, for the way you've addressed this body. >> harris: and you know what? it got even hotter. chief justice of the

united states john roberts then scolded both sides after a tense exchange. >> it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the house managers and the president's counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body. one reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse. >> harris: and it was on. "outnumbered" now. i'm here is faulkner. here today, host of "kennedy" on the fox business network, kennedy herself. lisa boothe, executive director of the serve america pac and fox news contributor marie hart. and in the center seat, this is former assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york and fox news

contributor as well, andy mccarthy. we say he is "outnumbered." they were just short of throwing the toys out of the crib, it was a little hot last night, why is it so he did like this and is it necessary? >> andy: probably more proof that nothing good happens after midnight. applies to impeachment like it applies to pretty much every thing else. think the frustration, especially for people who are experienced lawyers and particularly for someone like chief justice roberts is if you look at what happened yesterday, all of the different motions can be really categorized in one way. it wasn't like you had however many there were, ten or 11, wasn't like they were all categorically, topically different. they were all lined up along the lines of the republicans and the president wants the house impeachment investigation to be a closed box that can be added to, the democrats want to have additional witnesses and

investigation. all of the motions are -- and the resolution doesn't resolve anything. we will have a trial and then we will revisit this at the end. in that sense it's much ado about nothing. in a normal court case, this would be done on paper. a district judge would say all right, let's have a half team a half an hour oral argument, they'd make their case and they'd rule and we've met we would move on. we spent 11, 12, 13 hours on this yesterday. do you want to shoot yourself. >> harris: talk to me a little bit about the timing and what was decided, they have 24 hours and they were going to go by the clinton model back in the day but now it's consecutive but democrats want them to break it up. >> andy: our friend dana perino made a great point about this yesterday, this could have been teed up for susan

collins to have a win yesterday. she is now in a tough race up in maine and she needs to be what i think she is which is sober and considerate and caring about the integrity of the process. the original rule was 24 hours over two days. she put pressure on mcconnell and he instantly caved and it became 24 hours over three days. that doesn't change anything, they are still going to be able to make the same case but she can say she's bucking her party a little bit, she cares about the integrity of the proceeding, doesn't want the trial to be a kangaroo court and that's a result she got and that's probably right. >> kenney: it feels very repetitive. to your point, how nice would it be if they didn't have eight hours and a stretch where they were making the same point over and over and over again because i don't know that they filled in any of the space for people who

were on the fence. granted, people who were on the fence, there were very few of them but still, i think that's an important group and the way that both sides kind of comported themselves yesterday, there were some points scored and they had a couple good turns here and there but in the end it was very repetitive. is that intentional? >> andy: this is part trial and part political performance and that is an uneasy match at times. when it did get repetitive was when the politics overwhelm to the legal aspect of it. the president's team was much better when they cut to the chase and sat down and didn't use their time and that basically signals that we don't think this case is much of anything. >> marie: democrats, what they are trying to do is get republicans on the record saying voting over and over and over again that the call witness abcd.

it makes clear that there are some senators who aren't interested in this point in getting more information and part of this is a political undertaking. so i think it is instructive for people to see, as you mentioned, the polling in maine is overwhelmingly in support of getting witnesses so every time she votes against hearing from a witness -- >> kenney: it's not that she's voting against hearing fou a w witness. >> marie: i'm okay with the repetitiveness, i don't think we need to rush through it, i'm okay with this taking time. >> harris: the president apparently really happy with his team, he was asked this morning about the spat, watch. >> i've known him a long time, he is a sleazebag, everybody knows that. pat's abalone is high quality human being.

he's a brilliant guy but i've never seen that emotion and that's real emotion because he knows this is a hoax and i was very proud of the job he did. >> harris: lisa? >> lisa: i agree with the president, look at the argument patsy baloney made yesterday, democrats have been saying, this case is closed, there's already enough evidence today to convict the president yet while simultaneously saying, however, we need new witnesses, we need new information so there contradicting themselves end of this entire thing is a sham. the articles of impeachment aren't even crimes, based on the phone call that president trump took the initiative to declassify, talking to a president who has said repeatedly, president zelensky said he never felt any pressure over aid that was released in the time period and constraints provided by congress. also, aid that went further than the previous administration,

something that obama never gave to ukraine. from my point of view this is all a colossal waste of time. we know the senate will never get the7 votes to convict so the democrats are wasting our time on the most partisan impeachment in history. >> marie: look. there's so many places i could go with this. there is overwhelming evidence that the president used aid that had been passed by congress to get political favors from the ukrainians against joe biden end of the biggest example of that was when witnesses divide that the investigation didn't even have to happen, it needed to be announced publicly. the fact that the aide was only released after they knew there was a whistle-blower and they had political pressure, i think both -- >> harris: this is an abbreviated version of "outnumbered," we've got to get

out now. president trump is weighing in on whether john bolton and other top officials should actually testify. but could a new poll that put gg pressure on vulnerable republicans? stay tuned. ♪ every american wants their dollars

to work as hard as they do. however, since 2000, the buying power of the dollar has dropped by over 31% - that means the dollar is only worth about 68¢ now compared to 2000. had you owned gold, your value would have increased over 400% and owning gold is easy... with rosland capital - a trusted leader in helping people acquire precious metals. gold bullion, lady liberty gold and silver proofs, and our premium coins, can help you preserve your wealth. call rosland capital at 800-630-8900 to receive your free rosland guide to gold, gold & precious metals ira and silver brochures. with rosland, there are no hassles, no gimmicks,

and we have the fastest shipping around. dollar down. gold up. pretty clear. make gold your new standard. call rosland capital today at 800-630-8900. 800-630-8900. that's 800-630-8900. and with the sxfinity stream app, screen is your big screen. which is free with your service, you can take a spin through on demand shows, or stream live tv. download your dvr'd shows and movies on the fly. even record from right where you are. whether you're travelling around the country or around the house, keep what you watch with you. download the xfinity stream app and watch all the shows you love.

>> i would rather go the long way. i would rather interview bolton, i rather interview a lot of people but the problem with john is that it it's a national security problem. i'd love to have mike pompeo but it's a national security problem. love to have rick perry, he knows this is all a hoax. >> harris: that's the president weighing in on the

senate's decision to delay a possible vote on impeachment witnesses until later in the trial. he says he would like his top officials to testify. this is new monmouth university poll that's come out, look at this. 80% say members of the trump administration should be asked to testify in some way. what does that mean? >> andy: it means as contemplated by the resolution which is ultimately what's going to happen here. after all the gas bagging that goes on for the next three have been six days, they are going to vote on witnesses and they're never going to want to take up a solid position that there will be no witnesses so what they will say is let's get three or four witnesses, interview them outside the presence of the big senate trial just like they did in the clinton impeachment and they will play video snippets of

the testimony. >> harris: who gets to choose the snippets? >> andy: they will negotiate between them and a lot of it will depend on what's relevant, what privileges -- >> harris: i have got a little experience with editing, you've got to be careful. >> andy: by then we will have had almost two weeks, they will be so anxious to get done with it and get on with it that i think that will be the easy pa part. >> marie: president trump first started with the classification issue when he talked about john bolton. there are many ways to deal with that. you can have all the senators interview them in a classified room. executive privilege is a little bit of a different ball game here, the trump administration i would argue has grossly over used that in. i love that they have already been to, engines of obama, i have a tally for today about how

many times his name comes up. it is true coming you mentioned the monmouth pole, both nationally and in states where there are key senate races. they know that john bolton, mick mulvaney, these are the people that have first-hand knowledge in the president's team keeps saying perfect phone call. we haven't heard from anyone with firsthand knowledge. guess what, people exist. >> harris: i want to go to kennedy about this. compelled, asked, not compelled, add it all up, it is 80%. what is making that numbers well? >> kenney: people want to hear the truth and make up their own mind. i don't have a problem with that at all, i'm always for more transparency and more information. my problem is i want those decisions to be made by objective adults. the nursery is overflowing right

now. when you said that at the beginning of the show, that's what's happening. you have a bunch of cranky people all throwing fits and we have to remember what chief justice roberts said yesterday, this is the greatest deliberative body in the world. i don't disagree, i would like to hear from john bolton, i would like to hear from mick mulvaney and i think that not only helps this administration but future administrations. while we've got this whole thing cracked open and are setting precedents, let's make sure we do it responsibly for the future so this doesn't happen over and over. >> lisa: i think democrats lost their argument on that. if you wanted to subpoena john bolton you should have done it during the house investigation. they can't say only now that it's a senate investigation that somehow this needs to look like a new investigation. they had their opportunity, they said this was imperative, of urgent concern and withheld the articles of impeachment for 33 days and let's not forget that yes, there are republicans with political considerations to be made here like susan collins but

there's also democrats like doug jones running for reelection in a state that president trump won by double digits or even gary peters who is facing john james who is neck and neck in the polling with him. >> harris: what about the one the one-on-one match of witnesses, you bring in hunter biden, do you see that happeni happening? republicans get hunter biden. >> andy: people would always rather hear the witnesses than the lawyers but i would tell you, if you are trying to get a witness' testimony in a regular trial, the first thing the judge would say to you, you are telling me that this is an essential witness, what's his testimony? and the democrats when asked what is bolton's testimony go "we don't really know what is going to say." that's not a good way to get relevant evidence into your trial. >> harris: it's dangerous politically for them because you don't know, you don't ask on the stand -- you got to do it

beforehand. i apologize for having to get in there and referee but we've got a really short show. >> marie: you're good at it. you're good at it. >> harris: opening statements get underway in the presidents of senate impeachment trial. before that, check this out. hillary clinton seeming to walk back her brutal comments on former rival bernie sanders after a big backlash from fellow democrats. president trump waiting as well. ♪

>> harris: this is all happening right now, senators are beginning to arrive on capitol hill ahead of the opening statements in the impeachment trial of president trump. chief justice john roberts should also be arriving soon. we will try to show you that as it happens because our cameras are live all over the hill. both sides have 24 hours to make

their case -- over the course of three days, we are already in the middle of it. proceedings are set to kick off at 1:00 p.m. eastern. we will bring that to you live as it happens. so -- >> secretary clinton is entitled to her point of view. >> kenney: bernie sanders responding to the disk turned team occurred around the world, hillary clinton in an interview saying "no one likes bernie and no one wants to work with him" after plenty of backlash, no one hillary tweeting. "as i always have a viable do whatever i can to support our nominee." some 2020 candidates taking issue with hillary's initial comments, including tulsa gabbard who said it's time to grow up, this isn't high school. we are talking about real challenges our country needs to

address and the need for real leadership to focus on them. asking the president president today if democrats are trying to hurt bernie sanders, watch. >> are they really trying to take him away from him, when hillary says nobody likes him, nobody likes her. that's why she lost. she had every advantage, she had this big machine behind her, she had everybody behind her and it wasn't even close. look at 306-223. she's the one that people don't like. >> kenney: a new national poll showing sanders in the lead for the very first time but well within the margin of error. marie, i will go to you because clearly this does to bernie sanders what attacks on president trump does for his supporters, they get more excited, they get more vociferous, they want to stand up and shout from the mountain tops that this guy is having to

face not only the political establishment but the media establishment in places like cnn who decided his denial was false. >> marie: i think hillary's point that senators and members of congress don't like working with the bernie, he doesn't work well with others to get policies achieved which is actually true. she went on to talk about the senators and how nobody wants to partner with things, she actually did in the longer quote. that's what she was trying to say. the point is that bernie has a very loyal and vocal set of followers, many of whom aren't democrats. bernie himself is also not a democrat. he has a very strong group of folks. one of the things that was coming out in hillary's comments is that those supporters are often very nasty online to other women. they are being very nasty to elizabeth warren right now, to amy clover shire, cyber bully

people. his supporters are not good democrats inside the tent trying to get us all to work together, they are actually quite nasty and i think that's some of what she was getting at, too. >> kenney: she was never able to reach these people, when she was the nominee many of them voted against her. the same thing happened with bernie sanders because right now it looks like a concerted effort to tank his candidacy. >> lisa: i think people are underestimating bernie sanders. he won new hampshire by double digits and i think the challenge for joe biden if he loses the iowa caucuses, he loses new hampshire and the premise of his argument as i am the most electable candidate. can you wait to prove that point? or do you get abandoned after losing iowa and new hampshire? i think people are underestimating bernie sanders and i think even --

>> marie: the democrats feel like bernie didn't do enough to bring together his folks with her folks to help her win. >> harris: the only difference between him campaigning for hillary and elizabeth warren is that he didn't wear the same blue pantsuit on the same day. >> marie: there was a lot of evidence he wasn't helping that out. >> andy: miss congeniality says mr. congeniality is very congenial. i miss impeachment, i really do. >> kenney: bernie sanders saying "my wife likes me on a good day" is very funny. >> harris: i remember then candidate barack obama saying "she's likable enough." oh, my goodness, we've got to scoot. this half hour goes by so fast. annie mccarthy, thank you. we are going to turn it over in

just a few seconds to martha maccallum and bret baier. our live coverage in washington, d.c., begins of the senate impeachment trial of president donald j. trump. watch. ♪ >> martha: this is special coverage of the senate impeachment trial of president donald trump live from washington once again today. hello everybody, i martha maccallum. >> bret: i brett bayer. senators will your opening arguments from house impeachment managers just moments from now. we expect them to continue fighting for more documents and witnesses including former national security advisor john bolton. here's chuck schumer from earlier. >> of the house managers made a very clear and compelling case not only on the glaring need for

evidence but on the gravity of the presidents offenses. in stark contrast, the white house defense were unprepared, confused, and totally unconvincing. this does not bode well for the president's. >> bret: in the meantime overseas president trump in switzerland this morning ripping into the democrats in defending his legal team. >> jerrold nadler, i've known him a long time. i was very impressed with pat, he had great emotion yesterday. pat's a brilliant guy but i've never seen that emotion and that's real emotion, he knows this is a hoax. i was very proud of the job you did. >> bret: i don't think he held back there. >> martha: "sleazebag." >> bret: our all-star panel is

with us. chris wallace, katie pavlich, anchor of "the daily briefing" dana perino and juan williams. chris, did you watch at all? >> i'm sensible and i went to bed but i got a full report on what happened. i think we learned a couple of things yesterday, mitch mcconnell has at least at this point the solid republican caucus, 53 votes to proceed without a trial as he wanted with a couple of exceptions, three days for each side to make their opening arguments instead of two days. the caucus, the g.o.p. caucus, the majority's standing firm. on the other hand, the fact that he did have to back down on a couple of relatively minor points it seems to me about a

dozen senators, lisa murkowski, susan collins and a new name who apparently made a stink about rules, rob portman, a conservative republican senator from ohio. i come away at this point saying we are going to get through the opening arguments, get through the 16 hours of questions and we are going to get to the big issue, the real dramatic moment in this trial and that is going to be, while the senators, the majority call for witnesses and more documents, but the end game, whether there's going to be a vote to remove president trump, i don't see any indication of that at all. >> you look ahead to whether or not, if president trump were at her win second term, would he have a republican senate? and that's the nitty-gritty of the decision being made over

witnesses here. susan collins is sort of leading the way you are making these tough decisions in a couple days. >> there's a balance in the politics of the scum the public perception of the white house, susan collins in colorado, it's also tough on democrats like doug jones who will be up for reelection. witnesses are not being taken off the table completely, it's important to remember that the resolution allows for witnesses after the opening arguments are made if senators decide to vote for that. it's important to remember that when this polling comes out, when the house is voting and going for the impeachment process, there was a big fight within the white house and the white house legal counsel. whether they should go for a shorter trial o trial or whether they should give the president

of full and lengthy trial with witnesses like hunter biden, adam schiff to get to the bottom of why this impeachment inquiry started in the first place. they settled on a shorter trial, the white house is prepared for a short one. they've also said they are open to a longer one, a lengthy one in calling witnesses on behalf of the republicans, the democrats go down that path. we will have to see what happens. >> bret: chief justice john roberts arriving, admonished both sides telling them that they need to respect where they are and understand that they are in the floor of the united states senate. kind of an interesting moment from the early hours of this impeachment trial. dana perino. one of the things being reported now as there is a consideration for a one to one trade for witnesses, perhaps. and adam schiff was on the floor last night saying this shouldn't be like fantasy football, shouldn't be trading 1 for 1 but

it may be in the cards. >> there was this reporting yesterday, we will give you biden if you give us john bolton. and then they tried to walk that back and it makes me ask this question, what did the democrats really want here. i think schumer was outplayed by mcconnell yesterday. you are outplayed on every single vote, these people might be at each other's throats by 2:00 today, maybe give them until tomorrow before they start to lose it because it's not going anywhere. on the biden friend, you had something very bizarre happened. all of a sudden yesterday his campaign releases of video trying to explain, and add trying to explain biden's role in ukraine.

he has been given this open hole where he can just run the ball because all of his competitors are in the senate trial, health care, the economy, frankly what he's always says. now they have this video out there reinserting him into the ukraine story, i thought that was kind of strange. when it comes to witnesses i feel like people think that's the only thing we are waiting for. it's a long way to get there from now until then. we finally have this question i will there be witnesses. i don't understand what the democrats want in terms of key people's attention. they had day one and i imagine a lot of people at this point were like, that was a really long day. take it from us, it was a long day. >> martha: juan williams, there is a school of thought that it would be beneficial for joe biden to get out there and tell his story on this and it would make the president look

worse. it also comes to mind when you look at this witness situation, the reason democrats didn't go for it is because of the timeline. it's not like three days from now, and the next day hunter biden or joe biden is going to walk in there and john bolton is going to walk in there, we know that's not the case. >> that's right. you have a situation where i think there is a contrasting point of view with regard to biden. as biden get ahead of this? i think people in some cases have chided him for not being sufficiently aggressive and just saying, he has never been found or charged with anything with regard to the ukraine. when he intervened despite what you hear from the white house, not only of our congress saying you've got to do something about corruption in the ukraine but also our western allies who are invested in doing something about the ukraine. on that level i just think the question is when does biden

really stand up and does he need to stand up? he felt there was some necessity to get ahead of the story. overall as we look towards these opening arguments i think we need to just stop and look at what we heard yesterday because i think the democrats took advantage of yesterday knowing that so many of those votes were going against them ten nonetheless present to us, the american people on television the argument that you know what, if the president is innocent, why not have witnesses? why not have the evidence presented to us? why are we being blocked and kept away? i think they are making a very strong case. >> martha: thanks, juan. >> bret: we are about moments away from the house managers making their opening statements in the senate trial. we've got you covered on all aspects of this as fox news continuing coverage of the trial of president donald j. trump continues here. when you move homes, you move more than just yourself.

that's why xfinity has made taking your internet and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.

>> martha: back live here in washington, d.c., lindsey graham, chairman of the judiciary committee talking about the process. >> they withdrew from the deputy national security advisor case, the deputy national security advisor went to court and said tell me what to do, judge. they didn't want the court process to stop the impeachment train. they would have the united states senate create an impeachment process by the president would not be allowed to go to article three court to argue privileges that have been argued in every other impeachment trial and have been argued by presidents since george washington. that is the story of the

institution of the president as we know it. it would allow a handful in a 300 plus million country people along partisan lines to impeach president without independent judicial review. before i came here i use to try cases. we have a lot of good lawyers in this body. all i can say is when the court date was set, if i showed up and i asked for a bunch of subpoenas and documents to be produced on the day of trial that i had not pursued before the trial and in a serious way, i would get tossed out. what did we do yesterday exactly what happened in the clinton impeachment trial. we are going to hear the house case, the president's response, we are going to ask questions and decide among ourselves, do we want to know anything more?

yesterday was about 11 hours of them telling us how bad their case was in my view. they did not pursue these witnesses because they knew the president who would seek a judicial redress and it would literally stop them impeaching him before the election. so the only thing i can tell the american people when it comes to replacing this president, nine months plus from the election, you've got an uphill battle with me because i really do believe that the best group of people to pick up president are the voters, not a bunch of partisan politicians. every day we are here doing this is a day we are taking away from things that really matter. when they say it was like

clinton, no. when they say the courts have no place in impeachment, it's all going to be done by the house and senate without any independent judicial review, god help us all. speak of the trial in america, it should involve the calling of witnesses, the house should have the opportunity to prove its case. and if we prove our case, the senate should convict and remove the president from office. but the senate should allow us a fair trial. the senate should allow us the security of the american people. one thing that was clearly established yesterday is the senate is not a court of appea appeals. the senate is not a court of appeals and must deal with the dry record from the court below. the house charged to the president, the senate tries the

case, the trial involves witnesses and we lay out exactly why these witnesses are important. what we expect they would have to say, we lay out the documents he administration is withholding and see how the senate they are doing impartial justice should want to see those documents. the president late last night or early this morning depending on where you are in the world bragged that he thought things are going well because they had all the materials. indeed they do have the material headed from the american people. that is nothing to brag about. and if the senators are serious about wanting to learn all the facts, these documents and witnesses will need to be produced. let the american people hear what john bolton has to say, let the american people what mick mulvaney has to say, secretary pompeo, they want to know, the american people overwhelmingly

want to hear from these witnesses and for a very good reason because they can shed light on the president's misconduct. so today, yesterday we made the case for the witnesses and the documents, today we will begin our trial with the factual chronology, go into extensive detail about what happened and when and how we know it happened. we did not assume that everyone in the senate was able to watch all of the house testimony. we cannot assume the senators are able to do that. let alone that the american people were able to do so. we will lay out all the facts and chronology and we believe we will make an overwhelming case for the president's depiction on both article one and article two and with that i'm happy to take a few questions. >> mr. nadler, the republicans have been going -- >> i'm going to respond to the questions. >> are you open to in principle the witness exchange so that

republicarepublican scan for ine call on hunter biden? >> this isn't some fantasy football trade, this isn't we will offer you this if you will give us that, we will offer you a witness that is irrelevant and immaterial who has no relevant testimony but a witness will allow us to smear a presidential candidate if you want to get a legitimate witness. that's not a trade. trials are into 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. that's not what they want, they want to effectuate the scheme

they were unable to do when they tried to get ukraine to smear the bidens, they want to use this trial to smear the bidens. that's not the purpose of this trial and the senator should not allow it to be abused in that way. >> had they made up their minds? >> i can't speak for the senators. i would hope they have an open mind. as i said yesterday, whatever they may have thought in the past, whatever they may have said in the past, there is an event of constitutional dimension that supersedes all of that and that is the oath they took at the beginning of this trial so i have to hope that some if not all of the senators will abide by that oath and will hear us. >> bret: we will be hearing a lot from the house manager starting at the top of the hour as they make the opening arguments in the senate trial. it didn't go late into the

morning hours. there was one exchange that really caught everybody's attention. >> martha: the supreme court justice had to jump in, at one point he sort of tried to pull jerry nadler and patsy pallone back into an arena he thinks is more effective and more proper for the united states senate. watch this. >> and they lied and lied and lie and live. for example, for months, president trump has repeatedly complained that the house denied him the right to call witnesses, to cross-examine witnesses and so forth. >> 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. >> i think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the house managers and presidents counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body. one reason it has earned that title is because its members avoided speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse. >> bret: strong letter to follow there. we will see what happens as this begins in earnest. let's bring in republican congressman lees alden, also a member of the president's impeachment defense team. your thoughts as this gets ready to get underway and we hear the opening statements from the house managers? >> what we will see over the

course of up to 24 hours over the next three days, the house impeachment managers will be telling their story. what you will see is a reliance on presumption, on hearsay and some case lies, they won't give important context as they talk about one particular witness or the other, for example. they might reference an ambassador, odds are they won't talk about the president telling him he didn't want anything from ukraine, no quid pro quo, probably won't tell the senate or the american public that he admitted that his claim that there was no quid pro quo was just a guess. that's just one particular witness and if the american public is listening over the next couple days, it's important to realize adam schiff's track record, he was just called out on another lie yesterday, misrepresenting some information involving his case. unfortunately at the end of that

process you will see the president's team have an opportunity to tell the rest of the story, the other 97% of the story. i am sure many of them already have their mind made up, others may be more open-minded to hear that the arguments presented to the american public. i'm sure most people are ready for our country to move forward. >> martha: it does seem like a lot of people want to move forward. on the other hand, according to the polls, there's a majority that would like to hear from witnesses. how concerned are you as we are seeing that if you are not open enough time making sure this is this is a very fair process, very transparent process, everyone can feel decently good about in the end. that it might come back to bite republicans?

>> the senate has decided to hear opening arguments. one of the main issues with the articles of impeachment as they don't actually allege a violation of treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors as required by the constitution. there is an opportunity for the house impeachment managers to state their case in the senate will decide after the opening arguments which is exactly the precedent we saw during the clinton impeachment. i was very involved on the house side. i was in the closed-door depositions, attended all the open hearings by the intelligence committee and judiciary committee. what we saw throughout that process from the closed-door depositions where it was withholding key facts, cherry picking leaks come out right lying in other cases, understand that at no point did any republican witness that was requested actually be granted by adam schiff or jerry nadler other than the people who were

actually on the democratic list, i'm sorry with regards to adam schiff specifically during closed-door deposition. the president's council couldn't be present. yesterday when adam schiff is saying that the president didn't exert executive privilege during that process, what he will forget to point out because that's how he rolls throughout this process is that he didn't allow the president's council to even walk in the door to hear the testimony. for questions asked of fiona hill about a conversation fiona hill has with the president of the united states, the president's counsel isn't there to exert executive privilege. you are requiring fiona hill or her to me to do that for her. the last point, if a member of the republicans were try to exert executive privilege, guess how adam schiff ruled every time in closed-door depositions? every time there was an objection, he always ruled in his own favor. >> bret: last thing,

congressman, do you know, are there efforts behind the scenes to talk to some of the republicans who may be considering witnesses to prevent them from doing that? >> some of the republican senators, that is? >> bret: yeah, the moderates who may consider voting for witnesses after these opening arguments happen. >> i'm sure that conversation will be had. the first thing structurally on the legal argument is that the house managers failed in their presentation to the senate to actually allege that violation of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. and then the senate as a deliberative body whether you are conservative, moderate, liberal, democrat has an opportunity under the procedures to decide whether or not they need to hear from additional witnesses. by the way, i'm not convinced john bolton would be that good of a witness for the democrats. so be careful where they really

want to go here because if i was getting into business with calling witnesses, i would want to hear from hunter biden. i would want to hear from the whistle-blower who started this. i would want to hear from edom adam schiff and jerry nadler who are the two most important material fact witnesses if you want to dig in to the obstruction of congress charge. it's a slippery slope and i'm not sure they will want to go down that route. between now and then, it's up to the house impeachment managers to even explain whether even as a constitutional violation and they failed to do that so far. >> bret: senators making their way into the senate chamber. commerce and lee zeldin, we appreciate your time. >> martha: here comes mitch mcconnell, senate majority leader. it's 1:00 in the east and you're watching fox news coverage of the senate impeachment trial of president donald trump live from washington as we get ready to get this underway. i am martha maccallum. >> bret: i am bret baier. house impeachment managers set

to begin. day one of opening arguments just moments for now we are watching the senators come into the chamber, getting ready to begin the next session here as we start to hear the opening arguments. they see dianne feinstein and senator bernie sanders who obviously has his own challenges. he is now the leader in the national polls, according to a new poll out. when it comes to the election. back with our panel. chris wallace, katie pavlich here in washington. chris, your thoughts on the second day. really the first day of the opening arguments. >> well, it's the first official day of the opening argument but is actually the second day of the opening arguments because during the endless marathon yesterday when it was supposedly about motions, should you hear this witness, should you get this document, i thought the house democrats made good use of that time. they used every minute of the