coming up very shortly. coverage will continue all throughout the evening on fox. i'm martha maccallum. >> bret: i'm bret baier. "bill hemmer reports" start right now. >> bill: thank you, bret and martha. good afternoon. i'm bill hemmer live in new york city. when the next break happens in the next 15 or 20 minutes, we'll have the news of the day. we have a great legal analyst standing by. for now, head back inside as democrats continue to make their case on the charge of obstruction. >> in our democracy. president trump's invitation of foreign interference in the 2020 election for the purposes of helping him win an election undercut the constitution's commitment to popular sovereignty. americans are now left to wonder if their vote matters or if they're pawns in a system

working on behalf of corrupt interests of a lawless president. over the long-term this weakens our democratic systems capacity for solve governance by encouraging apathy and nonparticipation. cynicism makes it easier for enemies to influence our politics. undermine the national good. indeed this is precisely what vladimir putin intended when he meddled in the 2016 election. for us to become more cynical, for us to lose faith in the notion that the american system of government is superior to the corrupt autocratic model of government that he is erected in russia and sought to export to places like ukraine. these are not the free and fair elections that americans expect for demand if foreign powers are interfering. how can we know that our elections are free from foreign interference, whether by

disinformation, hacking or fake investigation? we must not become numb to foreign interference in our elections. our elections are sacred. we do not act to put an end to the solicitation of foreign entinterferenc interference, the effect will be corrosive. future presidents may belief too that they can use the substantial power conferred on them by the constitution in order to undermine our system of free and fair elections. that they too can cheat to obtain power or keep it. that way lies disaster for the great american experiment in self-governance. as you have seen, there's powerful evidence that president trump will continue to betray the national interests to a foreign power and further undermine our security and democracy. this creates an urgent need to

remove from office before the next election. to explain the nature of that continuing threat, let me describe russia's ongoing efforts to harm our elections. the president's refusal to condemn those athe attacks. his statements confirming that he welcomes foreign interference in our elections so long as it's meant to help him and his conduct proving that he will persist in seeking to corrupt elections at the expense of our security and at the expense of those elections. let's start with russia's ongoing attacks on our democracy. at the heart of the president's ukraine scheme is his decision to subscribe to that dangerous conspiracy theory that ukraine, not russia, was responsible for interfering in 2016. president trump and his men pressured ukraine to investigating this bogus piece of russian propaganda. in doing so, they ain'ted putin's plot to undermine our

security and democracy. special counsel mueller said that putin's plot is on going. >> is this in your investigation, did you think this was a single attempt by the russians to get involved in our election or did you find evidence to suggest they'll do this again? >> it wasn't a single attempt. they're doing it as we sit here. they expect to do it during the next campaign. >> not a single attempt, they're doing it as we sit here and they expect to do it in the next campaign. that was special counsel mueller's stark warning. we now know that director mueller was right, just the other week, we saw public reporting that russian actors could be using fishing e-mails to attack burisma presumably in search of dirt on joe biden. those are the same tactics deployed by the same adversary russia that special counsel warned about in the last

election. may be russia again attempting to sway our election for one candidate, this time through ukraine. indeed president trump to this very day refuses to accept unanimous assessment of intelligence community and law enforcement professionals that russia interfered in the 2016 campaign and poses a threat to the 2020 presidential election. instead, he used it from his own personal lens as an attack on the legit ma see. mueller found that individuals associated with the 2016

campaign of the president welcomed russia's off of assistance so candidate trump might benefit from russia's assistance. when they were subsequently asked by u.s. law enforcement, president trump's advisers repeatedly lied. in helsinki in july of 2018, president trump refused to acknowledge the russian threat to our elections. when a reporter asked whether he believed putin or the u.s. intelligence agencies, president trump said "i don't see any reason why it would be russia" and talked about the dnc server. >> so let me just say that we have two thoughts. you have goods that are wondering why the fbi never took

the server, why haven't they taken it, why was the fbi told the leave the office of the democratic national committee. i've been wondering that. i've been asking that for months and months and tweeting it and calling it out on social media. where is the server? i want to know where is the server and what is the server saying. with that being said, all i can do is ask the question. my people came to me, dan coats came to me and some others. they said they think it's russia. i have president putin, he just said it's not russia. i will say this. i don't see any reason why it would be, but i really do want to see the server. but i have -- i have confidence in both parties. i really believe that this will probably go on for a while, but i don't think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server. what happened to the servers of the pakistani gentleman that worked on the dnc.

where are those servers? they're missing. where are they? what happened to hillary clinton's e-mails? 33,000 e-mails gone. just gone. i think in russia, they wouldn't be gone so easily. it's a disgrace that we can't get hillary clinton's 33,000 e-mails. >> i'm sure you remember this. it was i think unforgettable for every american. but i'm sure it was equally unforgettable for vladimir putin. i mean, there he is, the president of russia standing next to the president of the united states and hearing his own kremlin propaganda talking points coming from the president of the united states. now, if that's not a propaganda coup, i don't know what is. it's the most extraordinary thing. the most extraordinary thing. the president of the united states standing next to the

president of russia, our adversary, saying he doesn't believe his own intelligence agencies. he doesn't believe them. he's promoting this cooky crazy server theory cooked up by the kremlin. right next to the guy that cooked it up. it's a breathtaking success of russian intelligence. i don't know if there's ever been a greater success of russian intelligence. whatever profile russia did of our president, boy did they have him spot on. flattery and propaganda. that's all they needed. as to ukraine, well, they needed to deliver a political investigation to get help from the united states. i mean, this is just the most incredible propaganda coup.

because as i said yesterday, it's not just that the president of the united states standing next to vladimir putin is reading kremlin talking points. he won't read his own national security staff talking points. but he will read the kremlin ones. it's not just that he adopts the kremlin talking points, that would be bad enough, it's not bad enough, it's not damaging enough, it's not dangerous enough to our national security that he's undermining our own intelligence agencies, it's not bad enough that he undermines those very agencies that he needs later that we need later to have credibility, we just had a vigorous debate over these strikes against general soleimani. the president has made his argument about what the intelligence says and supports.

how do you make those arguments when you say the u.s. intelligence community can't be believed? we've had a vigorous debate about what that intelligence has to say. that's not the issue here. the issue here is you undermine the credibility of your own intelligence agency, you weaken the country for when you need to rely on them. for when you need to persuade your friends and your allies. you can trust us when we tell you this is what the intelligence shows. how do you make that argument if the president of the united states, when you just told the world you trust the russians more than your own people? you trust russia more than christopher ray? how do you make that case? if you can't make that case, what does that mean to our security? but that's not the end of it. it's not just a propaganda coup, not just the undermining of our agencies. it's also that the buy-in to

that prop again that meant that ukraine wasn't going to get money to fight the russians. i mean, that's one hell of a russian intelligence coup. they got the president of the united states to provide cover for their own interference with our election. they got the president of the united states to discredit his own intelligence agencies. they got the president of the united states to drive a wedge between the united states and ukraine. they got the president of the united states to withhold aid from ukraine in a war with russia, in a war that is claiming ukrainian lives every week. has there ever been such a coup? i would submit to you in the entire length of the cold war, the soviet union had no such success.

no such success. and why? because a former mayor of new york persuaded a president of the united states to scratch all of that for a cheap shot at his political opponent. for a smear against his political opponent. was it worth it? i hope it was worth it. i hope it was worth it for the president. because certainly wasn't worth it for the united states. now, you can see president trump did not blame vladimir putin and the russian intelligence agencies who interfered in our election for the question surrounding his victory. he did not blame the people that worked for his campaign and subsequently convicted of lying to our law enforcement agencies. no, he blamed the investigators.

special counsel mueller, the man charged with getting to the bottom of russia's interference in 2016. he chose to believe vladimir putin, a former russian intelligence officer rather than his own intelligence agency. you see a pattern here? president trump solicited in the interference from russia as a candidate in 2016 and his campaign welcomed russian interference in the election. in helsinki, president trump chose to believe putin over his own agencies. i don't see any reason why it would be, referring to russia. instead of denouncing russian interference, he denounced those against him. he raised the familiar dnc crowdstrike server thing. i really do want to see the server. i don't through we can go on without finding out what

happened to the server. that's the exact same server that president trump demanded ukraine investigate in his july 25th call with president zelensky. when the president talked about the dnc server in president zelensky, he was talking about the same interference in 2016 that putin repeatedly promoted. let's look at this "washington post" article from july 2018. in the end, trump's performance alongside putin in the capitol seemed like a tour through his most controversial conspiracy theories. tweets and off-the-cuff musings on russia, except he did it all abroad standing feet from putin. the leader of one of america's most greatest geo political

foes. spectacle in helsinki showed his willingness to flout the own intelligence community that russia interfered in the elections and his apparent fear might cause doubt. white house officials told "the washington post" that his remarks in helsinki were counter to the plan. that's another understatement of the century. if that sounds familiar, it's because the witness who testified before the house as part of the impeachment inquiry, they all said the same thing about the july 25th phone call. president ignored vital national security issues he was supposed to raise and instead raised his proven conspiracies about 2016 and the dnc server, the very same russian propaganda that he

publicly endorsed in helsinki. you think it's going to stop now? do you think if we do nothing it's going to stop now? all of the evidence is to the contrary. you know it's not going to stop. president just told one of the members of this body he still wants biden investigated. it's not going to stop unless the congress does something about it. president trump's betrayal began in 2016 when he first solicited russian interference in our election. >> russia, if you're listening, i hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. >> that betrayal continued in

helsinki in 2018 when we saw he rejected the intelligence community's assessment and russian interference in that same election. when he criticized u.s. officials invest greating the russian interference and instead promoted putin's conspiracy theory about ukraine. the betrayal continued in 2019 when he carried out a scheme to cheat in the 2020 election by demanding the leader of ukraine, a u.s. partner under military attack by russia announced an investigation into the same theory about a dnc server and the bogus allegations about vice president biden. and the abuse of power continues. he is still trying to cheat in the next election. even after the scheme came to light, even after it became the subject of an impeachment inquiry. it continued. the false statements about it continued. president trump repeatedly asserted that he had a

prerogative to urge foreign nations to invest gate u.s. citizens who dare to challenge him politically. you know, just for a minute, we should try to step into the shoes of someone else. my father used to say, you don't ups a person until you step in their shoes. i always thought he invented that wisdom himself until i watched "to kill a mockingbird" and found out that the finch said it first. let's step in someone else's shoes for a moment. let's imagine that it wasn't joe biden. let's imagine it was anyone of us. let's imagine the most powerful person in the world was asking a foreign nation to conduct a sham investigation into one of us. what would we think about it then? would we think that is good u.s. policy? would we think he has every

right to do it? would we think that is a perfect call? let's step for a minute into ambassador yovanovitch's shoes. and we're the subject of a vicious smear campaign that no one in the department that we work for, up to the secretary state thinks has a shred of credibility. let's step into her shoes for a minute. spend our whole life devoted to public service, served in dangerous places around the world. we're hounded out of our post. one day someone releases a transcript of a call between the president of the united states and a foreign leader and the president says there's going to be some things happening to you or to you or to you or to you or to you. how would you feel about the

president of the united states? would you think he was abusing the power of his office? if you would, it shouldn't matter that it wasn't you. it shouldn't matter that it was marie yovanovitch. it shouldn't matter that it was joe biden. because i'll tell you something, the next time it just may be use. it just may be you. do you think for a moment that any of you, no matter what your relationship with this president, no matter how close you are to this president, do you think for a moment that if he felt it was in his interest he wouldn't ask you to be investigated? do you think for a moment that he wouldn't? if somewhere deep down below that you realize that he would, you cannot leave a man like that in office when he's violated the constitution. shouldn't matter it was joe biden. could have been any of us.

may be any of us. shouldn't matter that it was marie yovanovitch. some other diplomat tomorrow for some other reason. goes to what mr. jefferies said. it goes to character. you don't realize how important character is in the highest office in the land until you don't have it. until you have a president willing to use his power to coerce an ally to help him cheat. to investigate one of our fellow citizens. one of our fellow citizens. yes, he's running for president. he's still a u.s. citizen. he's still a u.s. citizen. he deserves better than that. of course, it wasn't just ukraine.

it wasn't just russia. there's the invitation to china. to investigate the bidens. it's not going to stop. september 19 rudy guliani was interviewed on cnn. probably all seen the clip. when asked specifically if he had urged ukraine to look into vice president biden, mr. guliani replied immediately of course i did. of course i did. shouldn't matter that it was joe biden. wasn't hunter biden there. it was joe biden. shouldn't matter if it was hunter biden or joe biden. we're talking about american citizens. shouldn't matter which american citizens. and he hasn't stopped urging ukraine the conduct these

investigations. mr. guliani hasn't, donald trump hasn't. to the contrary and consistent with everything that we know about the president, he's done nothing but doubled down. during his first week, the first week of december, mr. guliani traveled to ukraine, hungary to interview the corrupt normer ukrainian prosecutors who had been pushing these false narratives about vice president biden and this cooky conspiracy about 2016. mr. guliani met with current members of the parliament that advocated for that same fraudulent investigation. june of last year, president trump told abc news that he would take political dirt from a foreign country if he was offered it again. if he has learned anything from the tumult of the last three

years, he can get away with anything and do it again. can't be indicted, can't be impeach. can't, if you believe our attorney general, even be investigated. our up theeders worried about a situation just like this. james madison put it simply, president "might betray his trust to foreign powers." in his farewell address, george washington warned americans to be constantly awake since history and experience proved that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foals of a republican government. john adams said you're apprehensive of foreign intrigue and influence, so am i. as often as elections happen, the danger of foreign influence

recurs. or to quote the president's chief of staff, "get over it, there's going to be politics in foreign policy." i don't think that was john adams point. i don't think that was james madison's point and i don't think that was george washington's point. if it was, they would have said get over it. but they recognized, as i know we recognized, what a profound danger that would be. for that to become the new normal. another election is upon us. ten months voters were undertake their most important duty as citizens by going to the polls and voting for their leader. so we must ask what role will

foreign powers play in trying to influence the outcome? if they take the president's side, who will protect our franchise if the president will not? as charged in the first article of impeachment, president trump has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the constitution if allowed to remain in office. and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. based on abuse of power for which he was impeached and his i don't know going efforts to solicit foreign interference, both directly and through mr. guliani, there can be little doubt that president trump will continue to invite foreign interference in our elections again and again. that poses an imminent threat to the integrity of our democracy.

our founders understood that a president like donald trump might one day grasp the reins of power. an unreforceful, overreaching executive, faithful to himself only and willing to sacrifice our democracy and national security for his own personal advantage. his pattern of conduct repeatedly soliciting foreign interference in our elections for his own benefit confirms that he will stop at nothing to retain his own power. he chose to place his own interest above the country's and the intech great britagrity of . he has stone walled congress, agencies that work for the american people, not for the president, to join in his obstruction. he deployed mr. guliani to ukraine to continue advancing

his scheme that serves no other purpose than advancing his 2020 re-election prospects. he attacked witnesses, patriots that stayed true to their oath. he continued to urge foreign nations to investigate american citizens that he viewed as a threat. the threat that he will continue to abuse his power and cause grave harm to the nation over the next year until a new president is sworn in or until he would be re-elected is not hypothetical. merely exposing the president's scheme has not stopped him from continuing this destructive pattern of behavior that has brought us to this somber moment. he is who he is.

that will not change. nor will the danger associated with him. every piece of evidence supports that terrible conclusion that the president of the united states will abuse his power again. that he will continue to solicit foreign interference to help corruptly security his re-election. he's showed no remorse. if you can believe that july 25 was a perfect call that asking for investigations of your political opponents and using the power of your office to make it so as perfectly fine, then there is nothing that would stop you from doing it again. president trump has abused the power of his office and must be removed from that office. mitch mcconnell, i yield back. >> the majority leader is

recognized. >> mr. chief justice, i suggest a 15-minute recess. >> with that, so ordered. >> bill: good afternoon. i'm bill hemmer live in new york city. house managers making a case to remove president trump from office and adam schiff hitting that point. they have about six hours left on the clock and the president's legal team is expected to start in part anyway on saturday. so as we have a moment, 15 moments it appears, let's get a gauge as to where we stand right now on this trial. political analysis with juan williams, dana perino and james freeman. legal analysis with martha maccallum and bret baier. bret and martha, you have been nailed to the chair for four days. i hope they're comfortable. >> martha: very. >> bill: as we come to the conclusion later this afternoon, early tonight, bret, the question is this for those senators in the middle or how

they're feeling in their chairs themselves. have democrats taken a hammer to a paper clip? which is it? >> bret: depends who you talk to. a few republicans acknowledge the actual presentation has been well-presented as far as strung together in this narrative form. it's been tied together in a very lengthy way, but in a way that keeps them engaged. others say, you know, they're not engaged. they hear the same things again and again and again. it's like hitting the nail on the head. i will say the closing argument has been similar from adam schiff a couple of times now. actually, i counted three times that he ends similarly that the president's misconduct cannot be trusted at the ballot box. one day ago, he said the president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won. that raised all kinds of

questions about what that means. essentially he dismounts his speech by saying he needs to be removed from office now because he hasn't expressed regret and he hasn't acknowledged wrong doing for what he's done. >> bill: let's get a crack of everybody here. a few senators coming up to the cameras. martha, your comment about what you think the critical question. effective or too much? >> martha: one of the things that keeps coming up is joe biden. i think that is a difficult moment for him. everybody has spend a lot of time rehashing this ground. on this side of the equation, talking about why there was nothing there to investigate with joe biden. i think there's a lot of people that will agree with that line of thinking. but what that has done is sort of invigorated the president's defense. i think you may see them go in much harder on this topic than they would have otherwise perhaps. also all of these other investigations fearing up to this. so it becomes a longer conversation that extends beyond

this process and i think that you're going to see a very aggressive defense or a very aggressive reasoning on why the president want topped pursue that line of investigation. you know, adam schiff said it could be you. he could investigate you next time. we need to remove this president right away. as you lay down this marker, you'll see a very aggressive defense on the other seem. >> we expect two hours from tractor trailer president's attorneys saturday. we'll see it then. but here in new york, dana perino what did you hear? >> i've heard a lot and heard it over and over again. so i can see -- i said in the break, i feel like i better understand now why president clinton's popularity went up during impeachment. >> bill: how come? >> dana: we know impeachment is supposed to be a last resort. it's political, it is very divisive. that's why you don't go to impeachment without some sort of broad bipartisan consensus that it needs to be taken up.

in this case, there's no bipartisan consensus on it and the other thing, i was a little baffled by adam schiff. he wants to talk about russia and collusion with russia and he talks about that in his summation and he says going back through the mueller report without actually then saying what the mueller report said concluded, which was no collusion. i think this was much more of an election argument rather than an impeachment argument. most people in america have been saying, let's have this battle in ninth months at the ballot box than here in the senate. >> bill: that's come up repeatedly. stand by. by in mike brawn of indiana. we have a moment. how is it going inside on day three, i would say, of the democrat's argument? are you still paying attention? are you taking notes? are your colleagues doing the same?

>> yeah, i listened to this three times, the house version and the constitutional experts. the good news, 18 hours in and six more to go. >> bill: what about witnesses? would you vote to see them, call them? if so, who would that be, senator? >> i think we'll get the witnesses. another this point, i think if you do this the same way they did it in the clinton proceedings, you know, they had televised witnesses. we have already had 11 that we've heard from the house side. and if -- i have not heard anything new. it's all repackaged, framed with audio visual. nothing new. most of us when we get to that crossroads will probably feel we heard enough. i'll remain open-minded and listen. when you get to the 18th hour, it's a long stretch. same thing over and over again. >> bill: when you have your private conversations with your

colleagues, how do they feel? >> i think they feel almost the same way. i mean, you have some people that maybe didn't pay as close attention in the house versions that are picking up some new information. but if you haven't gotten it through the first 18 hours because literally it's been the same thing repeated in different fashions four to five times. i'll give them this. they put a lot of circumstantial evidence together, but you know, the quit -- quid pro quo didn't happen. they're building a flimsy case on circumstantial case. i don't think it was muster. i don't think that new witnesses will make a difference. we'll see. >> senator, one last thing here, a photo that came up with you and lev parnas. rudy guliani is in the photo also. do you want to explain what was behind this? >> well, tell you what, that was

back in the campaign, a month or so before the election in november of 18. a grass roots supporter in indy area said rudy guliani is coming in to do a cameo appearance at one of the campaign stops. i regular that. do not remember lev. the indy star brought that up about four months ago. all i can tell you is rudy gets around and he has some cosmopolitan friends. that was a surprise. >> bill: are you saying you don't know parnas? >> no. i mean other than when -- we took a picture there with rudy. i don't know him other than that and don't remember the pick childr -- picture nor talking to him. we got back on a bus and tour memorial day towns throughout indiana that day. >> bill: how are you holding up?

we ask everybody that question. >> holding up fine. it's the drudgery of hearing the same thing over and over. hear getting near the end and the big dynamic difference will be why haven't heard from the president's team. i think it will be much more concise, easier to understand and not swamped with the same information over and over again. >> bill: thanks for your time. mike braun from indiana. our analysis continues. first, to the white house with john roberts. he came across a clipperrier today. we have reaction from president trump. good afternoon. >> good afternoon to you. abc news had a report that back in april of 2018 the president had dinner with lev parnas and with his partner, igor fruman. the president was told that the former ambassador to the ukraine, marie yovanovitch had been bad-mouthing him to which the president allegedly said in

response, get rid of her. get her out tomorrow. i don't care, get her out tomorrow. take her out. do it. it's unclear who the president was giving that direction to. in an exclusive interview to air on the ingram angle tonight, the president was asked if he was talking to lev parnas about it. listen here. >> were you telling parnas to get rid of her? you're head of state department. >> i probably wouldn't have said that. i said rudy, there's something. i make no bones about it. i have every right. i want ambassadors that are chosen by me. i have a right to hire and fire ambassadors. >> the press secretary stephanie grisham tweeted out, every president in our history has had to place people that support his policies in his administration. i spoke to a source everier today, bill, that was familiar with the recording that was made by igor fruman. when you listen to that part of the conversation and the overall

context, it is clear that the president was not really being serious about it. i mean, even though ambassador yovanovitch was eventually removed. don't forget that dinner was in april of 2018. yovanovitch stayed on as ambassador almost 14 months after that so it's clear if the president was giving some direction, it wasn't something somewhat happened for more than a year after that. but it does sort of contradict the president's statements that he didn't know lev parnas. if he was actually having a dinner with him and just a few other people. bill? >> bill: thanks, john. back here in new york, a natural cyst with james freeman, the "wall street journal." what have you heard for four days? >> i'm hearing a progressive stream of consciousness from add dim schiff. i don't know if this is persuasiveness. he's talking about candidate trump 2016 press conference, bringing up the old discredited

collusion claims and also dragging james madison in this. a lot of distortions here. september 1787 it was madison said let's have a tight definition of impeachment. you don't want a partisan effort alleging no crimes the get rid of a president. i could go on here. but martha's comment about why is he bringing china with the bidens in this? the bidens couldn't be happy about that. if this goes to witnesses, are we going to talk to the chinese partners and the private equity firm that five years after they went in business with hunter biden couldn't explain what he did there? i just -- i can't believe this is where they want to go. >> bill: smart strategy, juan? >> juan: i think right now what you're seeing is also a political narrative.

it will drive beyond the impeachment. so this is a message being sent to the american people about president trump. in that regard, the key struggle right now is over witnesses. it remains the question should witnesses have -- appear after the president's team puts on their defense and -- >> bill: at the moment, are you inclined to hear from witnesses or not, would you say? >> juan: what we're hearing but listening to the people you interviewed, bill, it seems repetitive to me. but i look in "the washington post," it says 66 person of americans right now say they would like to see witnesses and the introduction of evidence, and i think when you hear adam schiff say oh, this business about executive privilege with regard to john bolton is a refuge for people that want to conceal evidence. that's the real message hidden in its terms of the larger presentation that in terms of american politics, in terms of the 2020 election, don't forget

that president trump did something wrong. >> bill: elections have come up repeatedly. joe manchin from west virginia on the hill. sir, thank you for getting to our camera. how will you vote on the two articles? >> oh, bill, i don't know. i've entered this in impartial. very impartial about, this a lot of evidence has been presented by the prosecution led by adam schiff. a rule of law in america is innocent until proven guilty. i'm awaiting the president's response and then we have questions and i'll make a decision after that. >> bill: so right now you're undecided. is that right? >> totally undecided. >> bill: and i believe -- >> i believe we should have witnesses. >> bill: i'll get to that in a moment. i want to ask specific questions. it's a delay here.

do you believe anything that you've heard, senator, rises to the level of impeachment and removal from office? >> well, the abuse of power, the way it's been presented and the intertwining of basically ukraine denying an ally and putting an ally out, those are very alarming and troubling and we're looking at that. i want to hear the other side. there's always another side to that. that's the rule of law who we are. the constitution, i want to make sure that we are true to the constitution. that's the oath we take. we take an oath of impartiality and oath to defend the constitution. i want to live up to my oath and hear the evidence. that's why i want to see the people that have first hand knowledge. i want to see the evidence. that would help a lot of us that are very impartial on this. basically haven't made up our minds because we haven't seen all of it. >> bill: you mentioned witnesses. give us a name or two.

who do you want to hear from? >> well, you know, the bottom line is, you know, definitely who is involved is mick mulvaney, john bolton and might be other ones. i believe that supreme court justice roberts, when people want to throw this? should determine who has direct involvement and against the charges brought to the president that should be called. there should be someone, a fair referee that says this is fair game, this isn't fair game rather than everybody playing their back an forth. >> bill: one last question. i know you have to get back inside. do democrats have the votes to get the witnesses now? >> bill, i swear, i don't know that. i just know that everybody has to search their own soul. everyone should want your president to succeed no matter who he or she may be if you voted for them or against them

but nobody is above the law. >> bill: thanks, senator. let you get back inside. joe manchin, the democrat from west virginia. a quick break. we'll be right back. hey, saved you a seat.

this round's on me. hey, can you spot me? come on in. find your place today, with silversneakers. included in most medicare advantage plans. enroll today by calling the number on your screen or visit getsilversneakers.com

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.

>> bill: back with our analysis before the senate begins again. james, welcome to our coverage. let's try to advance the conversation just a bit here. today feels a little bit like a holding pattern, waiting for the next phase of the trial to get underway. that will happen we believe saturday. we're being told that the attorneys for the president will go for a couple hours on saturday, but may likely reserve a lot of their time monday. how do they begin their case based on what they have gone through for three days here? where do they start? >> they have to stick with their

script no matter what they heard the last 24 hours. they have to talk about the insufficiency of the impeachment articles, about adam schiff in particular, the unfairness of the process and last place the facts. one thing i kind of picked up from these last few hours, sometimes when a litigant doesn't have great facts, when their proof of a crime is not that powerful, they broaden out the focus into more theme things. that's what mr. schiff was doing today. he broadened this out and got away from the facts to talk about character. the republicans have to hit back and say in this country, we don't convict people on their character or on predictions of future crimes. we convict people on their past conduct. so they can pretty much have a pretty aggressive attack or attack mode when it comes to mr. schiff that points out some things that are indisputable in terms of where they are versus what his approach was. >> bill: did you hear anything from senator manchin?

>> i her a steady nonanswer. i don't know that i'm bringing any great enlightenment to that. it's appropriate for him to say he's not made of his mind. the witness battle is a huge battle. that's what we're gearing up for, to hear the need to reopen a case and add on to the 11 witnesses that we have testimony from with new information. i expect a lot of people will resist that. >> bill: i know you're not in the business to give prosecutors advice but how do you think they have done the past couple days? was there case effective or has it gone on in what -- i guess senator murkowski said was a lot of reputation. >> that part is true. litigants, lawyers, politicians, if you tell them they have 24 hours, they need 23 hours and 59 minutes. if you told him he had eight, he could do it in 7:59. there's going to be a lot of

repetition. the republicans would be smart to really lock in, assume people will understand their arguments without spelling it out over and over again and kind of avoid the repetition and duration that accompanied mr. schiff's argument. >> bill: do you knock it down by 50%? take half the time or less than that? >> i'd say more. be lean and mean. using some audio visual aids is a helpful thing when you have a long presentation. they should trot out a bunch of adam schiff pronouncements about collusion. mostly they want to keep it lean and tight and say this doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. we're done here and they have to anticipate the witness battle by saying why there's no need for witnesses going forward. >> bill: one last question on their strategy here, whether it's cipollone or alan dershowitz or sekulow, do you hear that they will develop a theme in their argument when

they present. >> >> it's not hearing it. i know that they have enough experience where they know how to do it. i'd expect it to be well-organized, some element of audio visual to drive home certain points at adam schiff's expect and repetitive in a helpful psychological wall encitied of a chinese water torture water where people will get it and move on to the next chapter without a lot of overplay. >> bill: thanks, jim trusty from washington. we continue to wait for the senators to come back in the chamber. while we do, let's go back around the horn. dana perino, juan williams. brett and martha in washington d.c. let's get to with six hours left, how much ground is there to cover. let's go there. >> turn the page the article 2, obstruction of congress. they'll say why the administration didn't how many times they didn't provide documents and witnesses. i want to say one thing about the focus on these moderate

senators. there's moderate democrats in the mix here. you have doug joins in back back, you have kirsten cinema in arizona, gary peters in michigan and you just talked to joe manchin in west virginia. they factor in as well. the democrats have them on -- in the vote for witnesses to make the case there needs to be more information but we don't know that. the more and more we hear from capitol hill, the more it seems like they may wrap this up next week. >> martha, what is your sense? >> martha: just want to add to that that kind of adds to that argument. over the past couple days, we heard so much about the witnesses that they wanted. they wanted john bolton, mick mulvaney. we saw that lane of discussion drop off a little bit today. i don't know if that was just in terms of what adam schiff laid out and when they were going to discuss what topics but it wasn't something that we heard a lot of. what we heard a lot of today is

to make sure that the president is removed immediately and an election is too far away to remedy this problem. it feels at least in terms of what we're kind of picking up across the board here that the witness question has -- has been dampened a little bit. lamar alexander is one person that is a person to watch in this. he has a very close relationship with mitch mcconnell. he has his legacy to think about as he heads into the end of his term as a senator from tennessee. he's somebody to watch in this. you know, i think the witness question is less and less of a front burner issue unless we get a surprise, bill. >> bill: martha, thanks for that. joe manchin seems open to it. i don't know how significant that may or may not be. you need 51 votes to get anything through this process, james. >> yeah, you need a reason why witnesses should be called. i also -- in terms of going after themes, i think this -- it should be noted and i would expect it from the president's attorneys doing forward, that

this claim that ukraine was victimized, which the government of ukraine denies, they tonight think they were victimized, it really is not based in fact. you have a very stark contrast between more assistance for ukraine, a tougher policy to rough under the trump administration than the obama administration and the ambassador who has been tasked as the hero of ukraine in this drama, you look back at her senate testimony in 2016, she was not saying they need help, they need weapons, the javelins, they need to fight russian tanks. so the -- beyond the rhetoric here from mr. schiff, the theme he's building is not based in fact. >> bill: we'll see when we get to that. the one question that joe manchin, does anything here rise to the level of impeachment. trusty he characterized it as a nonanswer. it's in that category. that's something that they have to answer for here ultimately. >> dana: remember, he's

constituents are watching as well in west virginia. the senators have to be impartial. they signed the oath, swear to the oath. i don't think that any of them will show their cards beforehand. if i can read some tea leaves, to martha's point, the witnesses' vote is looking like that won't pass. as adam schiff and his team turn to the second article, which is obstruction of justice, that is even weaker. they won't be able to peel off any of those other republicans for that vote either. >> bill: juan? >> i have a difference sense that right now what we just heard from joe manchin is that the democrats will persist. i think they're going to persists on the witnesses in large part because public opinion is on their side. public opinion therefore would punish democrats and republicans especially moderates going to 2020 who want to retain their seats. if they're seen and portrayed by democrats as covering up for the president. >> bill: juan, thank you. dana, nice to be with you.

james freeman, welcome to the panel. bret and martha will continue and so too will neil cavuto. he takes on "your world" right now. have a terrific friday afternoon. six hours left inside the senate chamber. here's neil. >> all right. thank you, bill. we do pick up everything in washington. roughly another five hours to go. could be more than that. day four where the senate is hearing from house managers making their case for the president of the united states to be impeach. the early read on this is it's not really changed any minds. republicans are going to get a crack at this tomorrow. although they will likely not use up the full 24 hours to state their case. right now, the focus will be on the argument that the president has abused his power, obstructed justice. it's in detailsnd