martha maccallum. >> bret: i'm bret baier, bill hemmer reports a starts in 14 seconds, i will be back at 6:00, martha you will be back at 7:00. see you then. >> bill: thank you, brett. thank you, martha. i am bill hemmer. come t trumps lawyers wrapping p their testimony, now it is time6 hours of questions that will follow starting tomorrow. meanwhile, the push for john bolton's testimony continues to gain steam. president insisting he never told bolton the aide was tied to the investigation and denied doing anything wrong. today one of the president's lawyers saying that bolton's manuscript should be admissible in the impeachment trial. chad pergram gets it started for a brand-new hour and good afternoon to you. i am told that republicans know they have a big decision to make

very soon on witnesses. i am told that earlier today, i am told they plan to meet later today after the session over dinner as well, they are gauging the question of witnesses and whether or not they go down that road and if they do, what are the ramifications for it and what are the legal questions that remain as a result of it. why don't we start our hour there. >> we have to figure out what the witnesses want when they get done with the question and answer period and then they go to this overall question, do you want to go down the witness and document root and if they get to that boat on friday about four hours prior to that, if they kill it at that stage, there are no witnesses, there are no documents they could potentially move on to final judgment on the two articles of impeachment. then if anybody's ball game after that. a lot of times, what you see if they put together what we sometimes call a devil's bargain where they compose a slate of witnesses or a slate of

proposals that are designed to fail and you can see the scenario here where it's not so much that you want to get what you want but you want to block the other side from getting what they want and so we saw this back in 2013 after the sandy hook shooting in 2012 where the two leaders put together this package of amendments so nothing could possibly pass because they wanted to block the other side. and this might be a way for them to say i voted for this, but i was blocked or i was for this, that gives them political cover. that's going be very important. one that we have all been reporting, to earthly republicans that seem to be leaning toward that way, toward witnesses. but that's only two or three and i can change as well. that brings us to the possibility that you could get a tie vote. how realistic is that? >> very possible because the mass in the senate right now is 53-47, 53 republicans and 47 senators who caucus with the democrats and you have susan collins i met romney right

now who are leaning in favor of witnesses and lisa murkowski who was indicating may be, you could get to 50-50. how do they resolve that in a senate trial? it's a little different. article one section three indicates the president shall break all ties. guess what, he is not here. the senate relies on precedent. you go to the senate trial of president andrew johnson in 1868, the chief justice of the united states, he broke 2 of 3 ties but by rule in the senate, a tie vote fails so if you get 50/50 it probably goes down. that gets into some very murky constitutional and impeachment waters. we don't quite know how they rule on that but i am told that he would probably stay out of that and by rule it fails. >> bill: 1:00 tomorrow, could be a week away for all me know, the expectation is eight hours of questions per side based on the rules. >> that's right. what they do as they toggle back

and forth. you've heard justice john roberts indicating with the clinton trial was to keep the answers to about 5 minutes, there is an agreement between mitch mcconnell and the senate minority leader chuck schumer on how they will craft these questions, both sides democrats and republicans have been crafting their own questions in a way that they get to the root of this and once you get through eight hours tomorrow, eight hours on thursday, friday is going to be a monster day. that's where they're going to decide on witnesses where they can't get an agreement you could have a final vote and we expect that to be a very late-night, possibly bleeding into the wee hours of saturday morning. i can do that first day when they were debating and voting on the framework last tuesday which went way into the wee hours of wednesday morning. >> bill: 1:52 a.m. back with you later this hour, thank you. with me in studio, "wall street journal," dana perino and juan williams for analysis. good afternoon to all three of

though. >> i think the closing arguments were appropriate in the sense that it is not just that we don't have a crime here still, we also have a very valuable charge and i think you saw the case that this was not with the framers had in mind, talked about hamilton and madison assuming that you would have crimes involved and not simply a partisan exercise and that's where i think you saw a lot of the comments referring back to the clinton years where it was largely a partisan event there as well. >> i thought the summation by pat cipollone was very well done. i just don't know if it would have persuaded anybody in the senate but remember, the administration set from the beginning they knew they had two juries they had to convince, one was in the senate and the other was the american people and i think overall as we all start to realize where the clock is that the election is coming in less than a week, we have the votes

in iowa and we are going to get to 2020 quite quickly that when they say trust the american people with this decision that this might actually be most persuasive for that other jerry, the american people. >> bill: has a line there is you know what the right answer is in the era of impeachment. >> he said it would potentially be damaging to the country which was fascinating to me because clearly if the founders had wanted it to be the case that you don't impeach a president an election year, they would have said so but they didn't say so. they said it's up to the u.s. senate. so to me, i appreciate the idea that this could be damaging to the country because we are in an era of extreme political partisanship and one side is going to be very angry at the other. which brings me to the last point i want to make witches in the political calculation on the part of the senators you have democrats who are saying even if we lose, we are going to say to you the american people come election time the republicans

engaged in a cover-up for this president. and on the republican side, they're going to say you sought to undo an election and remove in a sense a political coup this duly elected man. >> bill: both sides making that argument. want to bring in chairman of the senate republican congress, thank you for your time and your quick hostile to the camera and good afternoon to you. what is your question if you have one at the ready? >> i have a number of them at the ready and we are meeting with a group of republicans to come up with a whole list of questions but i want to know if it's appropriate for a president of the united states to investigate corruption especially with other countries when we know that the process up until that point hasn't been effective at protecting taxpayer money. i think it's appropriate, of course the democrats think it's not. but let me just back up for a second. what we've heard here is a very

strong case by the president's team pointing out how this is being done, not along the lines of the constitution but used as a political process and a partisan way that certainly in an election year they are already going to be voting in iowa on monday. we have a very successful presidency, a successful president, a booming economy and yet the democrats seem to say no, we need to get rid of all of this and eliminate the president not just from the office but the ballot. >> bill: it would appear the overall appetite from the vast number of republican senators is to end this quickly. however, there were a few that have perhaps withstood that temptation or risk at the moment. when is the next time that republican senate will have that conversation among themselves to figure out what is the best strategy going forward? >> you are right, the momentum is to end this quickly. we have a very fair process following along the lines of bill clinton's trial as opposed

to the very unfair process in the house. we have two more days of questioning and we are then going to come to a decision of we need additional information or have we heard enough to move to final judgment and what i've heard, it is overwhelming that we need to go through this process more quickly and that the president should not be removed from office. they did not make the case and even the articles they brought don't to my way of thinking rise to the level of impeachable offenses. >> bill: the outstanding issue comes back to the question of witnesses. what is the consensus you believe will be arrived at on friday? no one has yet answering that question are getting ahead of that moment, but what is your sense today as to whether or not you hear from john bolton and whether or not halter bite and ultimately makes an appearance during this trial. >> we have heard plenty from john bolton, the reports are out. we have heard on tape from

hunter biden. what i want to do is say i believe the american people and this is what i hear at home in wyoming, people have heard enough, people of lost interest in this process, they realize it is political monday realize it's about removing a president. i have heard enough, i read the transcript of the call so i am very comfortable with what i know to make that decision without hearing additional witnesses, additional documents at this point. >> bill: nonetheless, if you do not get your wish, does that legal fight follow the trail of 21 years ago where there is a quick expedited case that goes up to the u.s. supreme court? how do you play out the scenarios today? and how could that affect this trial? >> i think you could drag the trial on indefinitely, it could end up in what people call the twilight zone of a trial, a circus atmosphere. i don't think we need to go down that route. i am looking forward to voting this week on friday to say i have heard enough to make an

informed judgment and make a final judgment call and i'm hoping that the proper number of senators make that same boat so we could just move on to a final judgment and make sure that we can just -- every day we spent here we are not working to help do the work of the american people in terms of lowering drug costs. the highway built, transportation, roads, bridges, we need to do more to help our veterans. there is so much work to be done on behalf of the american people and while this impeachment trial is going on, none of that work is getting done. >> bill: i am assuming that we don't have an answer as to witnesses whether that happens or not today. >> people are going to listen carefully to the questions, i expected to be a long day, and then the final decision will be made with the vote on friday. >> bill: thank you so much, we will see what happens later today and what information we get and feedback from the hill, thank you for your time. republican senator john burress

with us. hearing the president's team wrap up their case and in a moment we will hear from the other side as the impeachment trial heads until the next stage which is questions filed through chief justice john roberts. i had a heart problem. i was told to begin my aspirin regimen, and i just didn't listen. until i almost lost my life. my doctors again ordered me to take aspirin, and i do. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. listen to the doctor. take it seriously. and i like to question your i'm yoevery move.n law. like this left turn. it's the next one. you always drive this slow? how did you make someone i love? that must be why you're always so late. i do not speed. and that's saving me cash with drivewise. my son, he did say that you were the safe option. and that's the nicest thing you ever said to me. so get allstate.

stop bossing. where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. this is my son's favorite color, you should try it. [mayhem] you always drive like an old lady? [tina] you're an old lady. colon cancer screening for people 45 plus at average risk. some things are harder than you thought. and others are easier. like screening for colon cancer with me, cologuard. i'm noninvasive and you use me at home. i'm also effective. i find 92% of colon cancers using dna in your stool. so why wait? cologuard is not for those at high risk for colon cancer. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your healthcare provider if cologuard is right for you. most insured patients pay $0.

our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition... for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-seven vitamins and minerals. ensure, for strength and energy.

va mortgage rates have dropped to near 50-year lows. newday usa can help you refinance your mortgage and save thousands a year. newday's va streamline refi makes it fast and easy because there's no income verification, no appraisal, and no out of pocket costs. i urge you to call newday usa now.

>> bill: back live on the hill, senator schumer on the microphone will bring you to house managers but first we promised us a moment ago, going to bring in sheldon whitehouse, thank you for your time and good afternoon to you. and the couple minutes that we have here, what will be your question filed through chief justice? >> we are still working out exactly how to do that, i think we have a number of important questions, there's a lot that we don't know still and there is a lot that the white house lawyers never touched on that we still need to understand to make their decision. a really good one is why did they never mention the edit that giuliani tried to get into president zelensky's talking points targeting the bidens and burisma.

pretending he was just a distraction. they say that bolton is just trying to sell his book, but general kelly said bolton is more reliable on this than the president, and we know that bolton said this was a drug deal and we know that the president people including his agent tried to get this text about the investigation into zelensky's speech and none of that was even touched on. >> bill: so that is one question, why did you think of alan dershowitz its argument about the abuse of power. he said abuse of power throughout american political history is an accusation. >> he started off on a bad note because he told us that the standards we had to meet was proof beyond a reasonable doubt which every senator knows is wrong so that didn't get him off to a very good start. then when he started talking about how this had to be criminal, he had to say he is at the opposite before and that the

weight of current authority is completely against him and then he turned on himself and said we shouldn't be looking at the president's intent when in any criminal case, intent is at the heart of the proceedings. they snapped up as he said that. >> bill: you weren't convinced by his arguments. a few other things. >> it was embarrassing. >> bill: alan dershowitz's presentation was embarrassing? >> i thought so, it was really unfortunate. >> bill: if we move to the question of witnesses, i take it you like to hear from john bolton. would you also be open to hearing from hunter biden and his father? >> we got a couple hundred years of precedent and practice and tradition about how witnesses get selected and that is that the party selects the witnesses so what i want to see is we couldn't be fair about this if the house managers want three or four witnesses, not saying the white house shouldn't also get to choose three or four

witnesses, whatever it is, i am totally okay with it being fair but i don't want to get into a quid pro quo against what witness on principle and it's about a wheeler dealer quid pro quo deal. >> bill: so you don't want it either way. >> i wanted to be 1 for 1 in terms of both parties having the ability to present an equal number of witnesses. i think that would be a fair exchange but for us to be swapping out who the witness should should be, the white house should choose what witnesses and wants to present and if it wants to present hunter biden, live with that choice. we know who we want to present and it's witnesses who actually know what happened in this thing that bolton calls a drug deal. >> bill: thank you for your time. i hope you come back. the democrat from rhode island, thank you. adam schiff is now the microphone, the lead impeachment

manager. >> as i'm sure you've seen the president's own former chief of staff general kelly has stated that he believes john bolton and more importantly in and of itself that the former chief of staff and by implication does not believe the president of the united states worked closely with for such a long time but more importantly, he recognizes the importance of calling john bolton as a witness. they really cannot defend the president on the facts. they use their time on the floor today to go through a list of grievances it's unsuccessfully

not to do with the whole ukraine scheme attacked the managers and other distractions but in terms of the actual facts themselves, while they have at their disposal and a number of administration officials and agency officials who worked with the president for this whole period of time, did they choose to rely on any of them, hear from any of them that could come and testify and support the president's position and the answer is not a single one because none of them can and the one that has now offered to come forward, they are determined to try to prevent but i don't think frankly we could've made it as effective in the case for john bolton's testimony. part of the way they did that today was the bulk of mr. secular's argument was this

is a policy difference. that is all this is, seeking to impeach the president over a policy difference as if, as jay sekulow would have us believe, donald trump released the military aid because he was so grateful that the ukrainian parliament test and anticorruption court bill, and he was just waiting for that the whole time. no one believes that, no one believes that. i'm confident there wasn't anyone in that chamber or anyone in the country who would buy that explanation. they make very few bones about it, what of the g.o.p. senators remarking publicly today that we pretty much know the facts here. and we do. we know that the president withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid from an ally at war in order to force that ally to help him cheat in the next election.

is indefensible. so whether they have to fall back on the argument that okay, he did it. we all know he did it, but we are going to find a criminal defense lawyer whose expertise is not constitutional law and to admit he is out of the consensus on this to come in and make the argument that is effectively the constitution. the abuse of power, you cannot impeach a president for abuse of power as if article one simply reads abuse of power and sets have nothing further, as if he has been impeached for the mere label abuse of power, as if the article didn't charge him with withholding military aid, and seeking to get foreign help in his election to help him cheat. but of course, that's exactly what the article in charges.

up until this point, all of the senators have heard this argument, a fair trial involves witnesses and it involves documents. so the question that will now be before the senators, they will have questions for us in the next few days but the question squarely before the senators is will there be a fair trial? will there be a trial that americans will overwhelmingly want, those that are for or against the trial wanted to be fair. which means the calling of witnesses. so that is the threshold issue that the senate will have to decide. we know what those witnesses will say because they said it already, they said it during the course of our proceedings as we showed mick mulvaney admitting that the aide was tied to these investigations, admitting that while the president claimed no quid pro quo, he effectively described quid pro quo in order to get military aid, the

president of ukraine was going to have to go to the mic and announce these investigations on whether he should want to do it. so the question is with conduct that egregious, are we prepared to say that we will simply have to accept that, the idea that a president can so blatantly sacrifice the national security of his country in order to get help cheating in the next election. i think the founders would be astonished that anyone could even try to make that argument. let me make one other point with respect to mr. bolton because you have heard this also. the house should have taken the year or two years that it would have taken to force john bolton to testify. they should've forced him to testify. but i want you to hear what donald trump's lawyers at the justice department are saying not in the senate, but before the court of appeals on this

subject and this is in the committee on judiciary versus don mcgann. summary of argument, the committee lacks article three standing to sue to enforce a congressional subpoena demanding testimony from an individual on matters related to his duties as an executive branch official. so here they are, the president's lawyers are this duplicitous, they come into the senate which they refer to as a court and they say the house should have sued in court to enforce subpoenas on witnesses like john bolton and then they go to court and they say the house may not sue in court to compel a witness to testify. that is the legal duplicity of the president's team. and it is in black-and-white. are we going to get a fair trial or are we not? as a senate going to hear from

someone who all of america now knows is a key and important witness on the most egregious of the president's conduct or are we not? and i don't see how the oath of impartiality can be interpreted any other way than demanding a fair trial that includes witnesses and documents. i'll take some questions. >> are you confident enough that the senate will call witnesses and if so, how, argue yourself prepared to possibly be dragged into this? >> first, are we preparing? we have prepared for john bolton, we have a lot more work to do to prepare now that we know more of what he is likely to say, but we will be prepared when the time comes and i think that the most crucial is not the skill of his examination

or cross-examination but rather letting the senators evaluate his credibility of letting him tell a story and not tell it in a book. i we really going to require the country to wait until his book comes out to find out information senators could have used could make the right decision on conviction or acquittal. in terms of the sort of red herrings, if the house managers want to call relevant witnesses, we want to call the relevant ones because we want to pay a price for those that are at the heart of the scheme. that is not a game we are interested in playing. i can tell you what my testimony is, he is guilty and he should be impeached. and i think the idea is this is what you have to fall back on when you know just how damaging john bolton's testimony is going to be and i would say the same of hunter biden.

they want to do witness for witness then let them call mick mulvaney. mick mulvaney has said that he disputes what john bolton has to say. let them call mick mulvaney, let them call secretary pompeo, let them call people who are percipient witnesses to this scandal and this corrupt scheme. they want witness for witness but that is not really what they want. they want to distraction and i don't think the senators will allow that proceeding to be turned into a circus. >> republicans are now arguing that john bolton is not a credible witness, saying that his intentions might not be as clean as it is perceived to be. what would you say to that argument about bolton's credibility? are you concerned at all about how the american public will perceive him? certainly some republicans are trying to paint him as a person who has a vendetta.

>> let me turn -- he asked, please. >> the chairman has already so eloquently said that this trial and the republicans tactic is a great distraction to distort, deceive, distract. i would be more concerned based on the evidence that we have all heard about the president's credibility and if there are others, republican senators out there were anyone else who has questions about john bolton credibility where he said he would testify, he said he would come in and testify under oath, so let's subpoena him so he can hear what he says and the american people can make up their own minds about his credibility. but based on the evidence and overwhelming testimony that we have before us, i would be much more concerned about the

president's credibility. >> let me add two things. number one, it is fundamental in any trial that you listen to the witnesses and you make the judgment as to whether the witness is credible and telling the truth. not hear from the witness because maybe he's not going to tell the truth. he has a relevant witness, you hear from him. that's what courts do every day in this land. second of all, there is no reason to assume that mr. bolton is in telling the truth. in fact, john kelly until recently said this morning that he believes bolton's account. i don't think you could have a better statement of belief than from the president's chief of staff than what you are seeing is that anyone who testify against the president, going to say he is lying and we have to keep them away from testifying

but if we can't keep them away from testifying, they must be lying. this is just nonsense. [indistinct question] >> first of all, in terms of subpoenaing john bolton, we could have subpoenaed him, but we subpoenaed his deputy first and his deputy sued us and it was very clear that john bolton would tie us up in court for months or years and his lawyer made that crystal clear so there was little to be gained. he had made it clear at that point with respect to other witnesses that we had subpoenaed who are refusing to come and that we were not going to play this game endlessly in the courts and allow the president essentially to obstruct the congress with impunity which is

what he attempted to do by saying he was going to fight off subpoenas. so the fact that in the case we did bring against don mcgann, they are arguing you don't have a standing to sue in court to enforce subpoenas shows just how disingenuous the president and his lawyers are. so that didn't make much sense. in terms of impartiality. in the house of representatives, we allow the minority to suggest witnesses and they did. we called witnesses in the open hearings that were proposed by the minority in those supersecret depositions they keep complaining about, there were as many members entitled to be there as the entire body of the u.s. senate. they had every opportunity to ask all those questions and depositions and the hearings the same as the members of my party. and so they can complain and say it was partial orbit was not having the same due process, they can make the argument as

they have repetitively that we didn't get the same due process as in other impeachments but the reality is, they did. and i don't think those process grievances amount to very much. one last question. >> the senate does not decide to subpoena, is that something the house would do? >> i am not going to discuss what backup or fallback position there is. at the end of the day, nothing is sufficient if the senate doesn't decide to have a fair trial. you simply can't have a fair trial without witnesses. the resolution that senator mcconnell pushed through the senate says that the witnesses have to be deposed before they testify.

the fig leaf of a justification was given for that was they deposed witnesses before their testimony and of course in the clinton case, it was the salacious quality of that testimony that led them to want to have those witnesses deposed so that all of those unseemly questions that were asked at deposition didn't have to be asked before the senate. that is not the issue here. why if the senators have the opportunity to hear directly from john bolton with a number one not want to do it the number two wanted to be done in deposition form after all the complaints they've made about depositions, it is very ironic that they are making such a strong case for a deposition here but we are not in the investigative stage anymore. we are in a trial. and the triers of fact and the judges of the law and the senators of both should evaluate john bolton's credibility for themselves. they don't have to take our word for it. not exactly on the same policy

pages many democrats. they don't have to take john kelly's word for it, they don't have to take the president's word for it. they can make their own judgment. but they can't do that if they refuse to even hear what he has to say. thank you. >> bill: adam schiff with his first review of the president's lawyers, he said they did not and cannot defend the facts. interesting questions they are as to whether or not he is ready or prepared for john bolton, he said we have a lot more work to do and when he asked himself whether or not he was prepared to testify as a witness because many republicans have suggested that they would call adam schi adam schiff, he said eventually, got around to answering it and call that absurd. i want to bring in a former official the justice department of president trump and matthew whitaker, former acting ag and now managing director of public affairs.

he said a few more things there, could have subpoenaed john bolton that would have been tied up for months or years, that is the quote from adam schiff. to give our viewers a sense, what is the next move in this case? >> i guess that depends on what you're trying to do here. you are the democrat managers, then you want to keep forcing the issue on bolton because you want to get those republicans that may be on the fence devote for witnesses after we get through the question and answer portion. so that's what they're going to do. you're going to go out there and make the public pressure campaign on collins and lisa murkowski and try to get them to flip towards the democrat side when it comes to witnesses so all this is really geared towards those senators because if they feel they can flip them to get bolton on, that's the mission right now. >> bill: matthew? what's the next move? >> after listening to adam schiff, it is one of the reasons he is not well liked at

my people don't like lawyers very much quite frankly. this is the house's case that has failed on constitutional, legal, and factual basis and what's next as we are going to hear some pretty good questions from the senators that may tease out the weakness of the house case but also what this case is really about and one of the things that was very interesting to me when you had senator whitehouse on was what legal standard applies. every closing argument and every argument that i have participated in, beyond a reasonable doubt whatever it is, it is a very innocuous standard that they have to evaluate as fact because no crimes have been alleged here. >> bill: there is a few things on the table that have to be decided by republicans. what would happen then? what would chief justice roberts to? loaded he put it on a fast track the u.s. supreme court? what happens if you get the executive privilege card and that is played? what if you went on that count

of the u.s. supreme court more in turn, what if the president loses that hand? if that was the case, what with the white house play next? i am told all of that now was being discussed amongst senators to try to figure out what their next move is. >> one of the things, adam schiff kept talking about fair trial. what is a standard here, this is not going to be a fair trial. democrats are in charge of the senate, this would not be a fair trial for republicans. just sorry, too bad. is not the way things work with the rule of law country.

>> bill: what is your sense about the public views this man? if they see it as a fair deal or not? >> it's going to be in the eye of the beholder, what happens if there is this battle in the courts and i think that's what everyone's concerned about, we get off this vote by friday on acquittal and we do end up with witnesses and with witnesses claiming executive privilege for battling subpoenas, we can begin for the long haul. i don't think that's good for the republic quite frankly. the speedy trial is in our dna, and our constitution and i think fundamentally that's president needs an up or down vote on acquittal as soon as possible because we have seen all we need to see. >> bill: back here in studio looking at the quinnipiac poll that came out 40 minutes ago about public opinion. they are overwhelmingly in favor of hearing from some witnesses. >> the poll came out about an hour ago and basically says 75%

of people saying that they should have witnesses. that has grown since this process started and i think it probably might be because we are all talking about should there be witnesses and most americans would say yes, that makes perfectly good sense. to your question, would this have a lasting effect if they don't get witnesses, with the american people say that wasn't fair, possibly in for a while and both sides can go to the election with that debate because speaker pelosi already said the president is impeached, they are already going to go to the election saying this is an impeached president. in the president's people then turn out and say he doesn't really matter that there weren't witnesses? i think the republicans could get through that and but it be hard. it's a big number. >> you get a sense that what democrats really want is for republicans to say no more witnesses so they can walk home with their weak case and say

cover-up. i think we saw in your interview with mr. white house that it was crystal clear in the press conference, they are not eager for a john bolton or hunter biden trade. they want to try and structure it differently and that is because you get the interview with hunter biden once again as all along he will not be able to explain what he did for all that money he got from the ukrainian energy company and then this whole effort by adam schiff to define examining hunter biden as cheating in the next election. i think that falls away, the average person looks at that and says that should have been investigated. >> from a legal standpoint, how do you address the question of the time that is consumed through a long protracted legal battle? for bill clinton, it was fast tracked for two weeks, who knows how long i could take this time? >> that's absolutely right, these things could go on past

the election and i don't think the democrats want that. i am not even sure that having john bolton go in there and testify is really what they want. i think to dana's point, they want to be able to say this was not a fair trial and so as long as it's the status quo for them, they can go back to the electorate in 2020. i do think that's going to be a huge issue in 2020 but i do want to go back to the hunter biden thing because having hunter biden testify is going to be extremely problematic for the democrats because not only will that hurt biden in the general election if he gets there but it's going to give bernie sanders some ammo which is only then going to help trump so there is this three-way play here between what do we really want and who is this really going to hurt at the end. >> bill: speaking of conversations with some leading republicans earlier today, they felt the evidence against hunter biden was damning yesterday when they heard it. >> what was so effective about that presentation is making it

clear this is not a donald trump idea, this is not a republican idea. he had many people including adam schiff witnesses and the obama administration who saw this was a clear conflict of interest to have hunter biden on this board and then to have the vice president urging the firing of the prosecutor investigating that. >> bill: all of you stand by, let's get a quick break here, back to capitol hill and more in a moment when our coverage continues. but i did pick clarity by knowing i have a treatment that goes right at it. discover piqray, a treatment that specifically targets pik3ca mutations in hr+, her2- mbc. piqray is taken with fulvestrant after progression on hormone therapy and helps people live longer without disease progression. do not take piqray if you've had severe allergic reactions to it or any of its ingredients. piqray can cause serious side effects including severe allergic and skin reactions, high blood sugar levels and diarrhea that are common and can be severe, and pneumonitis.

tell your doctor right away if you have symptoms of severe allergic reactions or high blood sugar while taking piqray. your doctor will monitor your blood sugar before and during treatment, and more often if you have type 2 diabetes. before starting, tell your doctor if you have a history of diabetes, skin reactions, are or plan to become pregnant, or breastfeeding. common side effects include rash, nausea, tiredness, weakness decreased appetite, mouth sores, vomiting, weight loss, hair loss, and changes in some blood tests. ask your doctor about piqray. i need all the breaks as athat i can get.or, at liberty butchemel... cut. liberty mu... line? cut. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty biberty... cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. >> man: what's my my truck...is my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. ...with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

>> bill: fox news alert, earlier today the man accused of murdering his estranged wife, the mother of his five children said to be in critical condition. police in connecticut say they found him in distress in his garage when officers went to see why he was late for a bond

hearing earlier today. doctors are treating him for carbon monoxide poisoning, laura ingle reports live outside the hospital in farmington, connecticut. >> it has certainly been a chaotic day, as you mention police arriving at his home where they found him inside his vehicle, inside of her garage, we heard reports of the car was running, medics and police were able to pull him out where they did cpr on him outside of that garage trying to revive him. he was unresponsive. there has been numerous reports that at first it appeared as though possibly he had passed away and reports that he had that, he was brought here where it was confirmed he did have a pulse. he was revived and able to be transported just moments ago through a helicopter. he is being taken to a hospital in new york where he is being sent to be treated in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber. this chamber being used to help

rejuvenate the oxygen in his blood after the carbon monoxide poisoning. he was scheduled to appear inside court in stanford today on an emergency bond hearing after a prosecutor said his bond may be in question, might of been revoked which meant he might've been going back to jail today. so all of this transpiring just before noon today, of course the lawyers and authorities are going back and forth trying to figure out exactly what took place in the hours before he went into the garage, just taken away from here from uconn medical center going into new york city where he will be treated and we are waiting to hear more information, he is of course accused of murdering his estranged wife, the mother of his five children who are being cared for by her mother in new york city. >> bill: when a development that is, farmington, connecticut, with the update on that story. no more than 4500 confirmed cases of the coronavirus around the world. five of them here in the u.s.

health officials say at this point, americans should not worry about their safety. >> right now, there is no spread of this virus in our communities here at home. this is why our current assessment is that the immediate health risk of this new to the general public is low in our nation. >> bill: meanwhile in china, it has killed more than -- this map shows where the virus has spread the most in that country and steve harrigan live in atlanta at the center of disease control and prevention. are there signs that china is getting this outbreak under control? >> it is just the reverse on the numbers are startling. and they are beginning to spiral in china. we have seen now 4500 confirmed with the virus, more than 100 people dead. you look at this day by day, that's a jump of about 60% in one day in the real numbers could be even higher, a shortage

of testing kits so the actual numbers of those could be higher. you are seeing pleas for medical supplies from chinese medical officials, things like goggles and protective where, a real sense of desperation trying to build pop-up hospitals within a week, some dramatic efforts by hong kong to try to stop the spread. they cut off real transport with the mainland also eliminating flights as well. anyone there, businesses, diplomats, universities if you can pull your people out of china, you are doing it now because you are scared of what's ahead. >> bill: how effective has the quarantine been there? >> it is an amazing step, and authoritative step, basically quarantining more than 57 million people in city after city, some of those now like ghost towns. they've extended holidays asking people to stay in their homes, they have cut off public events but it is not succeeding by any

measure. has already spread to more than 19 countries although all the deaths are in china and all the economic consequences are starting to build. industries like tourism, travel, and movies are getting slammed inside china. >> bill: steve harrigan from atlanta, we will follow that, thank you very much. back now to impeachment in the final moments we have, dana perino to fill out the final few moments of our time here today. i will start with you. two matters at hand, republican senators meeting at the moment saying some significant things. one is their strategy in question and one would be witnesses. you are mitch mcconnell, how are you leading this? >> mitch mcconnell is very methodical, he is patient and it drives democrats crazy because he always seems to outplay them. i have to imagine that he has right now thinking about three steps ahead. i don't know where he will ultimately go but i would bet you that they are not just going to wait until something happens to them, they will try to

actually try to manage the process and be proactive. >> bill: how? >> i don't know but i imagine it's possible. they think that hunter biden -- the democrats don't want hunter biden on the republicans are like we don't want witnesses at all, maybe you get into some sort of compromise because there is mutually assured. >> after the bowl news, there's a lot of talk about a potential deal but i think it's possible when they take a deep breath there may be a lot of members of the republican caucus saying this case does not deserve any further action by the u.s. senate. they came over here from the house without a real case, without any alleged crimes, adam schiff said as if article one was only about abuse of power, that is pretty much all it is, a vague term. >> bill: some of them believe hunter biden is a fragile witness and that is under consideration at the moment as well. i've got about a minute, ian, finish this off. >> if they want to bring in hunter biden, we already know what john bolton is going to

say. it's in his book, it's been leaked to the press. we don't know what they're going to get out of hunter biden so if that's a deal for the trump presidency, i will take that deal. >> we know the president will be acquitted, it is just a matter of when and it is time for the senate to put this to an end so we can get onto the reelection of president trump. >> bill: what about the perception that it would be an unfair trial? you looked at the numbers, does that worry you? >> it doesn't because i saw with the house did which was completely unfair to the president which is outlined by the president's lawyers for the last week. >> bill: thank you. james freeman here from the studio along with dana perino and we will continue this again tomorrow. tomorrow, the first of 16 hours, the questions that will be filed on behalf of republicans and democrats to the chief justice john roberts who will see how that strategy emerges when those questions are posed. got to run for now, make it a

great afternoon. we will see you tomorrow and find out what we get when we arrive and until then, your world with neil cavuto follows next and the markets a bit of a snap back today. he is all over that coming up in a few moments. news for veterans. va mortgage rates have dropped to near 50-year lows. newday usa can help you refinance your mortgage and save thousands a year. newday's va streamline refi makes it fast and easy because there's no income verification, no appraisal, and no out of pocket costs. i urge you to call newday usa now.

and then what happened? where's our family from? was he my age? so nana and pops eloped? ...and then what happened, daddy? well, before us, there were your great,

great, great grandparents. turn questions you've always had into stories you can't wait to share; with ancestry.

>> neil: for republicans, less is more, more or less. they added 24 hours allotted to state their legal case, they used about 12 hours in total. democrats used every last minute of their 24 hours. what is it republicans ended briefly to say so distinctly. it is over. you make no case, house managers. that is where we stand. a question and answer session begins tomorrow. the devil is in the details and what they say about witnesses. welcome, everybody. i'm a neil cavuto and this is "your world" where they wrap things up