the facts? the american people paid a lot of money for those facts, they paid a lot of money for this investigation. and they didn't bother to tell you, ask yourself why. if they don't want to be fair to the president, at least out of respect for all of you, they should be fair to you. they should tell you these things. and when they don't tell you these things, it means someth g something. so think about that. impeachment shouldn't be a shell game. they should give you the facts. that's all we have for today. we ask you out of respect to think about, think about whether

what you've heard would really suggest to anybody anything other that would be completely irresponsible abuse of power to do what they're asking you to do. to stop an election, to interfere in an election, and to remove the president of the united states from the ballot? let the people decide for themselves. that's what the founders wanted, that's what we should all want, and with that, i thank you for your attention and i look forward to seeing you on monday. >> the majority leader is recognized. >> i ask you unanimous consent the trial adjourned until monday january 27th and constitute the

adjournment. >> without objection the senate is adjourned. >> all right. this is a short and sweet, about an hour less than the time the republicans were supposedly going to be granted to state their case, but truncating it to a few points, and this is something the president had a right to do and did so when it came to south korea. left out in that argument is why in this particular case, it was withheld, but that wasn't the point the president's power to do this, has routinely done it and as some of his predecessors. and also the president's skepticism to do anything based on findings of the intelligence community after the mueller report. jay sekulow mentioned again and again that the president had reason to doubt some of the so-called evidence or findings of those in the intelligence community and not necessarily

heed their advice. the defense also argued that ambassador sondland had only assumed a quid pro quo and kept playing tapes to that extent, that he thought there might be a quid pro quo, but he had no proof of that. they want today hammer that point again and again as if to say that going after material on joe biden or hunter biden was tantamount to withholding aid until they got just that. much was made of the democrats' push say these were impeachable offenses about you these were common everyday executive rights that the president of the united states had. and on the capitol right now, chad, this ended up about being an hour shorter than the time they were originally granted to discuss this. i suspect that this will be the rule now and they will not eat up all 24 hours they're allotted. what do you think? >> well, that's part of the contrast that the president's

defense team is trying to mount, when they go up against the house democratic impeachment managers, that they don't need to be as exhaustive and the white house counsel pat cipollone indicated at the beginning of his remarks, this is a little bit of a jab at the democratic managers and he to the senators, we'll be respectful of your time. they get out an hour early. one of the main things was refuting the democrats' case and also the fact that they have last change here, okay, you heard them for 24 hours, let's go back and assess what they say. this is something from mike purpura of the deputy white house counsel, says there is no evidence that president trump ever linked security assistance to any investigation and he also went to undercut the chain of custody about what some of the democratic witnesses, who they brought in during the hearings in november and december, actually knew about this alleged issue how the ukraine aid was held up and purpura said the following, most democratic witnesses have never spoken to the president at all let alone

about ukraine security assistance here. the other thing i was struck by, and this came in the opening remarks of the trial, barry black, the senate chaplain usually says something poignant and caught my ear as soon as they gavelled in, said, quote in the prayer we trust the power of your prevailing providence to bring this to the conclusion you desire. a what this sets up, monday and tuesday the defense continues their argument and they may go deeper. and i was struck by the fact they showed republican members. house posing questions fot witnesses compared to the democratic clips over the past three days, when they were having democratic members pose the questions to the witnesses there and then they get to the issue of questions. these are written questions, that the senators would direct through the chief justice and then maybe late next week, wednesday, thursday, friday, the issue of witnesses. front and center, is the question about the bidens. >> when i spoke with angus king,

an independent senator from maine yesterday, you know, a lot of republicans think that the democrats opened the door, the democratic house managers to the bidens because they talked about them so many times, citing them 226 times in the presentation on thursday, and he said, you know, calling hunter biden is about like calling him to be a witness in the oj trial. that was the quote from senator king. he says it comes down to relevance. so, if they ever get to a vote on witnesses, one wonders if this will be a question that the chief justice will have to resolve, obviously, they'll have to vote. when you talk to senators here neil, they talk about that vote maybe being right on the razors edge. lindsey graham, the senator from south carolina, chair of the judiciary committee indicated he would not be for calling the bidens, he would maybe like to investigate the bidens outside of the scope of this trial. if they vote for witnesses, it's ollie, ollie offen free. we have no idea how long it could go. if we work through the questions

next week and vote for no witnesses, again, it could be a vote, i want this witness, voted down or up. or want this witness, voted down or up. it's not like you're voting for witnesses at large. there are a couple of different ways. this could be wrapped up by next week and it can be you don't actually have a vote on articles of impeachment, there could be a motion to dismiss. the problem, there are some republicans senators who might like to do that, that does not fully exonerate the president and wonders if the white house and wonders if the president, wonders if some republican senators might say we might have the votes to dismiss, not saying they're there now, rand paul the republican senator from kentucky indicated he thought 45 there, but might say let's vote on charges because obviously you need 67 to convict and remove and they're nowhere near that right now. again, one final point here, what is resonating in the

capital were remarks from adam schiff, the closing argument here. kevin cramer, a republican senator from north dakota said the following about schiff's closing remarks, he says adam schiff's best two hours when he opened on wednesday. that was the best two hours that adam schiff put forward and the worst were the last ten and he left a bad mark going out the door. and what we've seen here does not appear as though any of the remarks by the democratic managers have swayed any republican senators. nobody even kind of toggling on the fence. >> if you don't mind, it seems to be a strategy of part of the president's legal team to get some of those republican senators who might be contemplating witnesses, you know, off that fear if they don't, they don't look like they're doing their job. by never focusing on the bidens at all in this response to say,

you have plenty of room here, not to even consider witnesses because the legal arguments that have been presented by the other side have been tilted and left out key testimony that they didn't bring up. >> right and that's something that heard from the white house defense team today. they tack a tact similar to the republicans in house of representatives, criticizing the processes and parroting language from jim j jordan, republican from ohio, and these were down in the bunkers and something the democrats contend. and richard blumenthal, democratic senator from connecticut indicated that if he don't vote for witnesses he could see basically democrats are weaponizing those role call votes against the republican senators saying if you're not voting for witnesses and additional documents, then you're part of a coverup and this is where senator blumenthal says that that's something that some republicans will have to, you know, answer for in november.

looking at those swing state republicans who face competitive reelection bids this fall. joni ernst in iowa, martha mccall sally, susan collins in maine, just a few. those votes are going to be criticalized into the campaign and one other paint i want to make that's paramount. usually in election year we look at the debates, maybe the conventions, iowa, new hampshire as being the pivotal events in an election year. they aren't the pivotal events this year, it's this senate trial and what comes out of this senate trial, what's said and what the roll call votes are. that will play in every house race, every senate race and also in the presidential contest, neil. >> all right, thank you very, very much. senators have been filing out. you know, to just sort of move on with their day, they've got about an hour early start on that, but maryland democratic senator ben cardin was kind enough to chat with us. senator, what did you think?

>> neil, good to be with you. we're now hearing from the president's attorneys, they're disputing some of the facts and i thought a point that was raised today was very important, the importance of cross examination as they were talking about the president's due process. it's important that we hear from the house managers, it's important that we hear from the president's attorneys, but i think it's most important that we hear from those witnesses that had the direct information so that we can hear from them direct lit. we're conducting a trial. you need to hear from the witnesses themselves if you're going to have a fair trial. >> are you worried, senator the way that certain testimony wag presented by, you know, congressman schiff, it left out some very crucial details. like ambassador sondland and notion of quid pro quo that he assumed that that was the case, but when pressed on that, couldn't say so unequivocally, had nothing to back that up outside of a gut feeling. i believe that's how he termed it at the time, and an assumption. and that that wasn't a fair presentation, it was tilted on

the part of mr. schiff? >> well, i can assure you, i'm taking very good notes of everything that's being said and i expect that the house managers are trying to present the strongest case that they can. i expect the president's lawyers will be presenting strongest case that they can. i want to get to as much source information as possible, so that's why i say documents and witnesses to me are key. and again, the point that was raised by the president's lawyer that the ability to hear and cross examine witnesses is critical to finding out the truth and i would just hope that we would have a chance to talk to the witnesses particularly those that did not testify in the house. >> do you find the way that the trump defense team tried to frame the president's support for and backing of ukraine not only because of his long-term defense commitments, but contrasting that with president obama's, to say, you might argue quid pro quo, but this is a

president who in the end gave ukrainians the aid that they needed and had a history of being very vigilant in that regard and with when it comes to holding off aid, which of course is a presidential right, he's done it with other countries, south korea comes to mind. what did you think of that? >> well, neil, that's probably the central factual issue in this impeachment trial. i'm going to withhold full judgment until i've heard from all the evidence i can get, but i'll tell you this, the support for ukraine by the united states is critically important to our national interest. democrats and republicans have supported to. this administration has provided lethal aid to ukraine, that's very important. the obama administration provided the-- when invasion took place, the immediate response to the united states to impose sanction. our actions republicans and democrats to support ukraine because we know how important it is to our national security. how it relates to this impeachment trial deals with whether it was used for an

appropriate partisan political purposes and that's a central factual issue that will wait-- i'll wait for judgment until all the evidence is presented. >> senator, it's more of a funny type question, but how do you go through this process? you guys apparently can this milk, water, candy and that's about it. what do you do? >> i tell you it's tough on your body. i mean that sincerely. senators to stay quiet for several days on end. [laughter] >> it is, it's a challenge and to be separated from our electronic devices, i think many so senators would need to take some medication to keep themselves calm without their iphones. so it is a challenge. so there's no question about it, but i tell you i keep myself busy because i'm trying to get as much of the factual information. this is a very serious issue, the most serious issue of impeachment and i hope we take it seriously. >> i'd still eat the candy, thank you, senator. have a good weekend. to mark at the white house, do we know, ma, whether the

president was watching any of this, taking it in. >> neil, he was tweeting about it, and he tweeted out a link for people to watch it. the president was certainly teeing up what was happening in the senate chambers. we expected this to be a shorter session today and that's exactly what we got. the sources close to the legal team had told us they expected two to three hours and as we just were seeing, it went on a little more than two hours today. the white house was also making it very clear that they feel impeachment has been paul about politics, not necessarily about facts and i thought it was interesting that the white house counsel pat cipollone started out the gate, saying that they believe this is a case for democrats toover turn the 2016 election and r really hinder the president going into 2020. they felt that the president had simply been undersiege ever since he came into office back in 2017. and we even saw some of the president's lawyers bring up the mueller report, and the constant questioning that the white house feels they think has really been unnecessary. it's also interesting, as the president's lawyers went through

the transcript of the president's call with president zelensky of ukraine back in last summer that the president's lawyers argued that house democratic case managers have been kind of omitting key points and feel they've been trying to read between the lines as opposed to going through the facts of that transcript. of course, this is exactly what we expected the president's legal team to do because there's so much buildup to what we saw today. what's interesting as we've been talking about, really this was a preview what we expect to hear a lot more about on monday. why is that? because the president tweeted yesterday afternoon he felt that saturday was simply death valley in television, that fewer people would be watching and this would be not be the best chance for the president to present his defense, for his team to present his defense. so, the president seemed a little perturbed this was going to be happening on a saturday and maybe that's why we saw that shorter session of just about two hours or so. the white house was arguing that they felt that house democrats have not been really playing fair with the proceedings, that

have been taking place on the house side the last couple of months. now, whether or not that's really going to have any impact on what the senators will decide are course is still yet to be seen because the white house refused to sunday over documents to the house, they've blocked testimony from certain white house officials and neil, as you can imagine that has certainly led to this other charge that we've seen obstruction of congress. as for the president though, we have not seen him on camera today. it's kind of a cold and raining earlier day here in washington and we don't expect him to leave the white house so we don't expect him to be headed out to the golf course or making any comments on camera, but we'll be watching on twitter to see if he has response from his lawyers today. neil. >> i was surprised by the take that saturday ratings are death valley in tv. [laughter] >> . >> we're always working exactly. >> this show gets higher ratings than my daily fnc show. there may be a strategy to that. i'm curious what you think or

what you've heard no matter how you slice what we're in store store next week. the republicans are not going to take up 24 hours. they have 22 hours they could obviously use, they're not going to do that and they don't feel they have to. what do you think of that. >> the other interesting thing, neil, the white house has been saying, we're going to focus on things other than impeachment. the president is going to hit the road next week, campaign rallies in new jersey, one in iowa and still talk about the usmca signing next week. and it's interesting, while this has bb playing out on the hill, you've seen the white house trying to counter program, focusing on the business of the nation at hand and we saw the president continue with his trip last week to davos, the economic summit. that's interesting, it came on the first day as the senate why beginning impeachment proceedings. so we've seen that as the white house is ready to say there's a lot more going on behind the scenes than just what is happening with impeachment. you're right, neil. we did not expect the president's defense team to take up their allotted time. and we also heard, of could,they

felt a lot of arguments the democrats made in the first three days were repetitive and it could have been shortened up. we heard from the democrat case managers on the house side. the democrats argue the stakes are so high they have to make this case, they have to make this so clear-cut there really is no room for error and make sure that everybody understood what was at stake here. as i m he thinksed though neil, nothing on the president's schedule for the weekend so we don't expect to see him at least today. neil. >> great job as always, mark meredith at the white house. if we get any news from there, we'll pass it to you. florida senator rick scott with us right now. senator, what did you think? >> i think that adam schiff got knee-capped. i think the white house counsel showed there was no due process in the house. it was a complete, just fabrication what he did and what they did, they explained there was mow quid pro quo. there was no obstruction of justice so i think he did a great job. neil, i think why nancy pelosi

held the articles of impeachment for 33 days. this whole thing helps joe biden. all of this is to keep bernie sanders, elizabeth warren off the campaign trail and help joe biden. i think this is all, no different than what happened to sanders back in 2016, so, i'm looking forward to hearing more from the white house counsel on monday and tuesday, and getting our questions in and finally making a decision. >> you know, it is interesting, too, senator about whether part of the strategy, the legal strategy here -- i'm not a lawyer i'm passing along some insights that others have passed to me -- that this might be a way of sort of laying out a groundwork and a case for senators in your party who are open to the idea of witnesses that there's no need for that right now, that enough doubts have been raised about the democratic presentation that you don't have to. what do you think? >> well, neil, this is the house's job. i mean, they're the ones that

came in, there was overwhelming evidence, a clear-cut case. they're the ones who rushed this through and didn't even-- didn't subpoena john bolton. they keep saying they want to hear from john bolton. why didn't they subpoena him? they were rushed because this is a partisan deal to changed election 2016 and trying to kick donald trump off the ballot in 2020. i mean, let the voters decide this. so, this has just been a partisan hack job of the president. >> do you think, senator there might be an opportunity for republicans who were a little ticked off about how the house handled it to these people, flush out even ambassador sondland, all right, we saw again and again your comments about the perception there was a quid pro quo, didn't see as much, and the tape that was also available that you were making a gut call. in order that some of your colleagues might be intrigued to

have witnesses to clarify that? >> they might. i mean, look, we're going to have a fair process. i think what mitch mcconnell proposed, it was a fair process. i'm shocked the democrat didn't go along with it, it's what we did in the clinton case. we will have a fair process, i don't know if we'll have witnesses or not. the process, listening to the white house counsel and is a good process. based on what i heard this morning, i think it's pretty convincing this was just a rush job try to get this president and i think nancy pelosi's trying to help joe biden here. >> we'll see because those four democratic senators are running for president will now be able to hop on the next flight to iowa. we'll see what they do to take advantage of the 48 hours they have. senator, thank you very, very much. >> thanks, neil, have a good day. >> reminding you that all the senators have to be there throughout this entire trial. this one ending trillion today as it has hey louse them, of

could,we're talking prominently about senator sanders, senator warren senator klobuchar, senator bennet, who can go to iowa if they so choose, can move the needle a week ahead of caucuses. and with us is andrew mccarthy. good to have you. >> neil. >> i think a lot comes down and you're the expert here, i obviously defer to you, to another strategy to help those senators who are in a box and should i, or shouldn't i, on witnesses, to take the onus off them by presenting a legal argument, we don't need witnesses. we don't need to go to that next step. what do you think? >> well, i do think that ought to be a go, neil. what i'm baffled about with the strategy and pre face this by saying, i think they did a fine job poking some holes in the democrats factual presentation. you know, if your goal here is

to not extend this with witnesses and documents, i don't know if i would of come flying out of the box engaging on quid pro quo. i should say that, you know, my aisesment of the case for what it's worth is that i'm willing to accept at least for argument's sake that the president was squeezing the ukrainians to have investigations that i don't think anybody should be offended by, certainly looks objectively like there's something worth investigating in connection with the bidens. the u cranes were all in the 2016 elections and it's something personal reasonable for something to look into. >> andrew there was another distinction, the legal representation made here, that he has every right to do that. they're arguing he has every right to do that and we might argue over if this was a means which he could, but other presidents before him had,

addressed aid or readdress aid for countries for a variety of reasons. how do you think that that, you know, impacted senators sitting in that room? >> well, what i'm saying is that i would accept as a given that that happened and say that it's absurd to think that we would impeach a president under circumstances as the president's lawyers pointeded out today. the ukrainians virtually didn't know there was a hold on any aid. they got the aid. there was no compromise to the ukraine security. they didn't have to prom any investigations and even zelensky got his visit ultimately with the president even though it wasn't in the oval offense, it was at a very high profile meeting in new york. so to me, this is an opportunity to point out bottom line here, these articles of impeachment are woefully insufficient to

remove a president of the united states particularly just a few months before the election, and then i think i would have been trying to hit some of the premises of the democrats case which i don't think that anybody has looked at. for example. >> all right. >> it's just ridiculous to think that an investigation by the ukrainians of joe biden would have any effect on the american election. who would-- >> i don't mean to jump on you. chuck schumer is responding to developments today. let's listen in on that. >> they made a really compelling case why the senate should call witnesses and documents. they kept saying there are no eyewitness accounts, but there are people who have eyewitness accounts. the very four witnesses and the very four sets of documents that we have asked for. they made the argument that no one really knows what the president intended, it's speculation what the president intended when he cut off aid,

but there are people who do know. mick mulvaney knows in all likelihood mr. blair knows, mr. bolton may know. why shouldn't we have witnesses and documents here? i thought -- and one other point about witnesses and documents, they make the argument the president's counsel that the president couldn't participate in the house process because they believe, i don't believe it's right, but because they -- the house -- the president couldn't participate in the mouse process-- . we're monitoring everybody here and trying to be fair to everybody here, lindsey graham also speaking right now. and swing vote, i say swing because earlier on he had shared the concern of some of his colleagues who might entertain witnesses. let's listen in. >> i'm ecstatic it's only two hours. i think they did what a defense

team would do, which is to go after some factual statements that won't stand scrutiny and tell you some things you didn't know, that you think are relevant or at least they hope you think are relevant. i think the body dd take a break, right, john? go home, exercise a little bit. come back monday and we're going to listen to what they have to say, and about witnesses. >> senator, are you going to see president trump at all this weekend? >> not that i know of, but i'm looking for a free meal in case you're in town. yeah, i've got to eat somewhere. but here is the bottom line, i am more intent on ending this thing now with my vote. i know a lot of people from our side want to hear from hunter biden and i understand why and litigate that whole issue. i think it's best for the country to vote on the record established because if you go down the witness road, you run into executive privilege in a way that no one is in uncharted

territo territory, nobody has been in the box before, ap i really don't want to turn it into a circus. there's way to look at hunter and joe biden-- >> you're looking at lindsey graham, one of those not interested in hearing from the bidens, joe biden or hunter biden, the case it what it is and let's vote on what we have and not sympathetic or the empathetic to the idea of witnesses period. there's enough there to exonerate the president. you'll see this back and forth on the need to more information and respond to the latest developments and maybe look for more witness testimony. i think just to remind you, assuming all 47 democratic senators were for witnesses, they would need to peel off about four republicans to get to 51 necessary to proceed to that. we are not there yet and they might be laying the groundwork on that next week when

republicans resume. let's get the read from michigan democratic senator debby stab gnaw. senator, thank you for taking the time. what do you think of the republican argument today. >> first of all, it's a pleasure talking to you and i would of to saw at the outset that the question before us in terms of possible removal of a president of the united states, coupled with questions of going to war probably are the most important decisions that we have to make. so i take this very seriously. i think over and over again when we've heard differences about what was said, what was in people's minds, what was, what were people talking about, it reaffirmed to me that we really do need to hear from the relevant witnesses that know that the president's acting chief of staff, mick mulvanemul the people at office of management and budget with. i think we need to hear from them. we're in a unique situation because we don't even have to go

through subpoenas and courts at this point. we have the chief justice of the u.s. supreme court that is sitting right in the room and he has the capacity to rule on whether or not a witness is relevant right away on the spo t the-- on the spot. whether there's executive privilege with regard to a witness right away. and this doesn't have to take extra time and i think to be fair and do this right we need to hear from the relative -- the relevant witnesses and get the documents. >> all right. now, senator, i'm sure you heard the republicans argue the house managers had the chance to get these folks and they failed and right to point out the president might have prevented them from speaking, but it is what it is. and i'm wondering given the information you have now and the arguments that trump counsel would have said that schiff used in his presentations, that he

wasn't quite telling the truth to the american people. what do you say? >> well, this is how we're going to, as this proceeds hear from the white house counsel, and then there will be 16 hours of questioning back and forth, where we can ask the house managers to respond, the white house to respond and so to me, we're listening to all of it to move forward. what i would say is that there are differences between what the white house managers talked about today in terms of other times of withholding aid because congress was involved and notified and supportive of those other times working with a president to withhold aid. what is disturbing to me is that this is a case where the president did break the impanelment control act and we don't talk about that every day, but put in price after president nixon because he withheld fund without the consent and knowledge of congress so he did actually break the law and so

i'm going to be interested in hearing how the white house responds to the fact that in this particular case, contrary to all the other things they listed, congress was not enveloped and not involv-- cong was not informed and involved which is the process legally. >> i'm no lawyer, senator, but i'm told that other presidents, including this one and including his predecessor, when they've sort of rethought aid, delayed it or adjusted it before they get back to congress on that, what did you make of that. >> well, neil, i'm not an attorney either so you and i are in the same spot here, but what i will tell you is that this is the first time to my knowledge i have been in the united states senate since 2001, where the government accounting office has said that the president actually broke the law on this. and so, yes, there's going back and forth and that's fair that-- . >> well, that same accounting office as you know, senator said the same about barack obama in

almost a similar incident here. i'm not here to justify their word is golden, but i'm saying there's enough precedent here where the jo has raised these type of concerns with other presidents, right? >> i think they're legitimate regardless who they raised them with. >> okay. >> and i think that's part of what we have to address. but most important to me, i want to hear the specifics and the wlous was white house was talking about it today, the facts with the call, withholding the funds, how that happened and certainly i will say this, i feel great sympathy for new young recranion reformer president who is now caught in the middle of this because he's trying to do reforms in his country and doesn't surprise me at all that they were quiet about what they knew about withholding funds for a long time hoping it would never be public. they don't want a fight with the president of the united states or the congress. they wanted to keep things quiet and try to work it out. and so i have great empathy for

the position that this new young reformer is in. >> all right. senator stabenow. thank you very much. good having you. >> thank you. >> we're going to take a quick break and keep you updated. this has ended in the senate and the republicans had a chance to testify 24 hours, house managers sort of laying out a case of impeachment of the president united states. and when this resumes, anyone's guess. maybe we'll get a read from senator mike lee of utah right after this. sfx: [sneezing] i am not for ignoring the first sign of a cold. i am for shortening my cold, with zicam! zicam is completely different. unlike most other cold medicines, zicam is clinically proven to shorten colds. i am a zifan for zicam! oral or nasal.

>> not exactly short and sweet. maybe shorter and sweeter. the republicans had up to three hours today to state their case to the house managers case.

and maybe it's a sign of things to come that the republicans won't take nearly the time allotted. and that's only everybody's guest with the mix of this, comments i should say, whether that would be an approach to take for the witnesses, that there's no need for that. utah senator mike lee joins us right now. senator, do you think the issue of witnesses will even come up? >> i think the issue of witnesses will come up in the coming week. i don't think we're going to have witnesses and the reason is simple, it doesn't make a difference. i know that there are additional people who the democrats think would be helpful for us to hear from, but that isn't the question. the question is whether they would make a difference. in a civil litigation context we'll call that a general question of material facts. we don't have that here. we don't have enough factual disputes to necessitate of taking additional live witness testimony so i believe we're going straight to the decision on the verdict and i believe the president is going to be held not guilty.

neil: all right, you've heard from many democrats, sir, they were saying it wasn't as if they didn't try to get more officials to testify. they were stopped, stymied, ignored, blocked as one democratic manager described it. how do you think it will go in the end. republicans maybe for perfectly valid reasons opt not to go the witness round? >> we've heard this morning, the the democratic managers are accurate. what they've said over and over again, the president and white house categorically refused to cooperate. that isn't true. they didn't go through the proper steps and didn't have the authority to do, and the republicans and democrats are starting to see that. neil: i'm not here to play anyone's poart. you're quite right the administration has every right to respond the way it did, but

that their argument is, we tried, we were blocked and we think now it's in the senate they should at least try themselves. you say? >> first of all, they're try. their attempt in the house of representatives was half-baked and without authority. had they really wanted to get at it, they could have done it and the white house would have fully cooperated had they gone through the proper steps. in any event they've got more than enough evidence on which we could, should and will make a decision in this case. what this shows is that president trump didn't do anything wrong here. he succeeded with are barack obama tried and failed for years to convince ukraine to investigate the corrupt ukrainian energy company called burisma. that's not wrong. that's certainly not impeachable. neil: were you surprised that the legal tacts that the president's lawyers took today not to even address the bidens, joe or hunter, and that make the argument today about, i think under the main headlines here,

no need to go the witness route. no need to even mention the bidens, no need to even get into that? >> well, look, i'm sure they're going to be talking about the bidens, there is no question about that. today was a shorter presentation. they got right to the point of what they believe are some of the fatal flaws in this case and in particular, the fatal flaws in the argument that the house managers have been making over and over again that this was obstruction by the white house. that's nonsense and made that clear by their presentation. neil: a lot has been made, as well, senator, about what ambassador sondland meant and what he was either inferring or outright stating when he suspected or in his gut felt that there was a quid pro quo, that the president was withholding or thinking of withholding aid to ukraine because they might not be forth coming. s that the ukrainians, of getting the information the president wanted on the bidens. now, they show tapes of the republican lawyer showed tapes to say, what was left out was

that that was his gut feeling, that was his opinion. he had nothing to base it on. but that was largely left out, even though he said it to this house committee, it was largely left out in the presentation of the democratic house managers, you know, relayed. what did you make of that? >> yeah, no, it's exactly right. the statements were often clipped, particularly with regard to the testimony of ambassador sondland. they would show the house democrats asking him a question and then he'd say yes, or comparebly short answer, but they weren't very fair in acknowledging the fact that he said over and over again, yeah, this is requiring some conjecture on my part or assumption or pre assumption or conclusion on my part. and they certainly didn't tell us that he said repeatedly, i was never told that one thing was condition for another. neil: all right. senator, thank you very, very much. we appreciate it. >> thank you. neil: all right. that aforementioned house

manager adam schiff. his name came up quite a bit. he's just tweeting about president trump's legal team. we'll have more on that. kids cover your ears. the reason why. it lets you shortcut the loan process and refinance with no income verification, no appraisal, and no out of pocket costs. one call can save you $2000 every year. call my team at newday usa right now.

>> all right. apparently adam schiff is not impressed with the republican arguments raised today. let's step into this. >> what you do see is the following, they make the argument there's no mention of security assistance or military support during this call. but of course, one of the first things that zelensky brings up on that call how grateful they are for the military defense support and how they are ready to buy more javelins. now, the president's team acknowledges just how important those javelins are, what a great weapon those javelins are

against tanks. but what they don't really want you to pay attention to is immediately, as in the very next sentence, immediately after president zelensky brings us this desire to get what the president's team acknowledges among the most important weapons they get from the united states, where does trump go? >> all right, we're monitoring this and trying to be very fair for everybody here, this is a chance for democratic senator bob casey to weigh in from the pennsylvania state of pennsylvania. thank you for taking the time to join us. he argues, that the facts are what they are and obviously people of different persuasions can disagree over that. do you get a sense that it's not, as this continues building, it's not changing any minds? >> well, neil, look, i hope that people would remain open-minded and part of that is hearing both sidesment i was surprised though

that in the initial presentation today, and we've only heard two hours so i don't want to pass judgment on all of it yet, but in the initial presentation we're still getting this argument that the president did absolutely nothing wrong, and i just don't think that that is a credible argument. now, you can present facts as they began to do that contradict some argument the other side made and that's part of their argument. but i think the most important inning we've got to do in the next couple of days is have a vote to make sure that we have both witnesses, four relevant witnesses, mr. bolton, mr. mull vane, mr. duffey, mr. blair, that would shed light on the six initial arguments that they were making. neil: so when republicans counter, you've had your chance, not particularly you, senator, but to get in the house and do just that and now you're trying to make up for the sloppy work you do there and putting the onus on the senate. what do you say? >> well, i'd say this, the

senate is charged by the constitution to conduct a trial, every senate trial's had witnesses. in fact, the trial 21 years ago had three, we're asking for one more than that and i think this is a case of greater consequence for the nation in terms of national security and the president's conduct. so i think it makes sense. it's having relevant witnesses and only those four we've asked for, we didn't ask for 44. i think the andrew johnson trial was around 40. i don't think we need anywhere near that, but i think that would shed light not just on the arguments by the house managers, but also shed lights on some of the points the president's defenders are trying make. neil: senator, do you think with your colleagues, of the witness thing sort of falls back here. that whatever your strong views, that you want four witnesses, they want witnesses of their own, they've talked about joe biden, hunter biden, others, you know how it goes, that that's

just not going to happen? >> well, i'm not sure, neil. i'm hoping. look, i was disappointed in the initial vote. i thought that republicans not only substantively or for good reason should vote for reasons and should have voted a couple of days ago, but just mechanically, in other words, if we had voted the other day getting more than 50 votes for witnesses, that process could have started. they could be lined up already and they'd be ready, but it's still a fact that we can get witnesses in plenty of time. even if they were challenged by the president's lawyers, i think chief justice roberts could manage that and go through the process of having questions presented to mr. bolton and mr. mulvaney. if there's an objection about executive privilege argument or some other argument could be set aside and they could continue the examination and cross examination. i think a lot of americans, including a big number of republicans if not overwhelming numbers, believer we should have witnesses and documents.

everyone knows that what a trial should be and i think it's a reasonable request. neil: sir, we shall see. senator, thank you for taking the time. >> thanks, neil. neil: all right, senator casey. and jim joins us, a former justice department prosecutor. jim, whenever i've got you, you leave me speechless. let me get your take on what you made of the relatively swift presentation today. there might be a strategy to that or it might be a sort of alternative to the more long-winded democratic strategies. what do you think? >> oh, i think it's a conscious effort. the bottom line, pointed repetition, at key moments can be helpful and make people remember your key points. droning on and on and acting like you're going to wrap up, and you don't wrap up. i think they'll stay lean and mean, i don't think we will be in the double digits. neil: is there a risk?

that? some argue less is more. in my case, with weight. i wonder if you miss something by giving the other guys all the extra time they got? >> i don't think-- i think there's a point of diminishing returns when you're talking 15, 20, 21, 24 hours. the human being is not going to take in new information at some point. so, again, i really think it's smart to keep it lean and mean and kind of goes back into what andy mccarthy was saying a few minutes ago. i hate to agree with an ex-dc -- guy when i'm an ex-maryland guy. what they really want, what the president wants from my perspective is a summary judgment. there's no way as a matter of law that these charges are impeachable and that the evident could ever be established to support them. and so, you really want to come on strong with this idea that essentially as a legal matter

this case should be dismissed without witnesses. i think that's a better saturday message if they'd left it with that. when you look at the senators that go on, well, the facts are tangled. maybe we need to clarify. i mean, they've gone down the robert hole factually that allows the democratic senators to now demand witnesses, even mother. because that's where we were today. so again, it wasn't that it was a bad performance, it was retorically well done and well-organized i'm not sure i would have led with that and i'm sorry that's where andy is. there's time to talk about the summary judgment area and i thought that would be the area they would spend more time on. and the attacks on the process pointed and factual could have gone a little more personal. they could have spent a lot of time talking how adam schiff made very non-judicious decisions in the house and shouldn't be rewarded the do-over of new witnesses. neil: and they did go from the outset from your point, jim,

showing his remarks when he opened up the committee hearing, the made up story, almost compared the president to a mob figure. it was just done for effect, but obviously it left a chill in a lot of people's minds. i'm curious when it gets to the witness issue, how do republican lawyers, are 0 those working with the president, get those wayward senators who are concerned, the republican senators off the hook. if they want to get off the hook and be given some ground to not have them, how do they do that? >> well, i think it's partly factual, saying, you know, look, why are we disagreeing with the president of ukraine who says i had no idea anything was being withheld? i mean, if you believe the ukrainians, you essentially say there's no crime. so i think you can kind of start with the fundamentals going back to that idea of essentially a summary judgment, that this case was never there to be made, no matter what the small factual distinctions are between the parties. look, that's a political issue.

i think the horse trading is fascinating, right. in a civil or criminal trial you don't have 0 prosecutor and a defense attorney standing up and saying i'm going to use the cop who took the confession and other say i'm going to use the all alley-- alibi. the threat of the bind bidens, and i think that's a double edged sword for the democrats to get any witnesses. neil: and we would let you know that adam schiff was not a fan of the process and legal arguments raised by the president he is a legal team. let's dip back to him. >> one of the most extraordinary arguments though and this really takes your breath away, and this also, i think, underscores the real danger to this country boy this president's continued occupancy of the oval office is the argument that jay sekulow made essentially that the president has good reason not to

trust his own intelligence agencies and the correlary of that is he has good reason to trust vladimir putin more. that is hard to wrap your head around, but that is the argument of the president's lawyer. he has every right to disbelieve his own intelligence agencies and there by accept the opinion of our adversary vladimir putin. everything is perfect, including the president's performance in helsinki, apparently. now they say that it's a false choice to say, well, if russia intervened in the election, why couldn't ukraine have intervened? never mind that that contradicts what our own intelligence agencies, what our own fbi director, our own bipartisan senate intelligence committee found, what the democrats on the house intelligence committee found, what the republicans on

the house intelligence committee sometimes admit and sometimes not. never mind all of that, they say, why couldn't both countries have intervened? well, first, they didn't, okay? there was only one systemic interference in our election, that was by russia, second, what they're talking about here, what the president is talking about here is the server, is the server. well, unless we're to believe that both russia and ukraine hacked the same server and were responsible for the same hacking and dumping campaign, then we are talking about one country's interference and that is russia. and that the president continues to this day through his lawyer to say that they should trust the opinion of vladimir putin and russian intelligence propaganda over their own intelligence agencies of the crowdstrike kooky crazy theory, ought to alarm every american.

they also, and this is overarching argument continued to maintain the president did nothing wrong. this may be the most dangerous point they make because that means basically you can seek, as president of the united states, to get a foreign nation to help you cheat in an and you can do it through any means you like. that is destructive of the integrity of our elections. it is hard to overstate the matter. one last thing that stood out to me, something that wasn't said, a name that was never mentioned and that is make mulvaney. they say no democratic witnesses were conditioned. i don't know what they consider

democrat witnesses. that statement is wrong too. there were a number of witnesses who testified the exact opposite, that security was conditioned and it is a simple is 2 plus 2 equals 4. they put it in writing and testified about it, they neglected to tell you gordon sondlasnd said no quid pro quo, but, here is the quid pro quo. no quid pro quo but zelinksy should want to. that is the quid pro quo. maybe they don't -- maybe they consider him a democratic witness. what about mulvaney? no words from the