but it is always positive. >> sandra: i have seen it, and i agree with it. follow it bad on twitter, by the way. watch out for ed. that is it for us. ed, i will see you later, buddy. "outnumbered" starts right now. >> harris: we begin with this fox news alert, and we are awaiting the final round of questioning. ahead of of a showdown expected whether to call impeachment witnesses for the vote expected tomorrow. republicans have reportedly become more confident that they do in fact have enough votes to block democrats push for witness testimony as senate republicans say, it is time to put the trial behind them. >> i am increasingly optimistic that republicans will move to a final verdict before tuesday. we are not blocking anybody's

witnesses. we are just not going to legitimize the house choosing not to call the witness. >> it's time to move to a vote on acquittal as soon as possible. >> i think we have all heard enough. i believe these people are tired. both republicans and democrats are tired of it. >> i'm ready to go to final judgment. >> harris: it's been a busy morning because just a short time ago, senate majority leader chuck schumer said that it could not be higher. >> the fate of much of the future of how this republic conducts itself is on the shoulders of four republicans. i believe senate republicans and the president's team are worried about the vote. >> harris: meanwhile, senator chris van hollen is planning to force a vote tomorrow on a motion involving documents that he deems relevant and rule on any claims of executive privilege. let's get started.

this is "outnumbered." i'm harris faulkner. here today, melissa francis, fox news contributor, lisa boothe, fox news contributor, jessica tarlov, and david avella is with us. on a big day, as they all seem to be. you are "outnumbered." i want to get your top thoughts as we hit the last day of questioning. to be five more vote to acquit the president then republicans will vote for witnesses. democrats want this over as much as republicans, and the great irony of all of this is that one of the men at the center of this whole kerfuffle is joe biden. and why? because the democrats think that the president was getting some kind of dirt on him to using the election. joe biden is going to be out of the presidential race in two weeks after bernie sanders beats him, and donald trump won't even be they want to beat him. bernie sanders will be. >> harris: wow. you have given this some thought.

now, we saw lindsey graham, and he actually had some pretty fiery things to say. it >> melissa: you talked about what does this have to do with joe biden? and he said that he thinks that you would see john bolton get up and testify to the fact that yes, the president wanted to look into corruption, and he wanted to look into the biden player less. there is every reason in the world you want to look into the bidens. he stood up and said that time is over. he said that at the exact same time that his son was getting $3 million from the sector. he said that statement and his son's job undercut u.s. interests in the region very clearly. he said that's a legitimate line of concern, and he put it out there so plainly as to why the president would be looking into this. >> harris: the other thing i heard senator lindsey graham singh, jessica, which i think is important to the 2020 democrat

rollout. some of the senators we haven't seen much of it in the senate. but for joe biden, what lindsey graham was saying, we can deal with this, you know, in the senate trial. we can take a look at joe and hunter biden. as david was pointing to, this could be a real problem for joe biden. what is the answer back from the party, do you think? >> jessica: the answer back from the party is what you heard joe biden sang on the campaign trail. in iowa and new hampshire, which is not the president is scared of going up against me, which is why he did this. and i did nothing wrong. if you watch this week's defense from the trump campaign, i honestly thought it was embarrassing for them. they are up there trying to impeach hunter biden. then he is unaware of the fact that he is ken starr, and he did what he did in the '90s. >> melissa: it doesn't bother

you? that moment? >> jessica: no. because the timeline doesn't add up. and that is important here now, it actually doesn't. joe biden was making it harder, actually, for his own sound bites going after them. the entire international community, everyone we are allies with want to the prosecutor out. it is also really important what alan dershowitz that's, much like mick mulvaney -- there was quick quote. and that makes it okay. >> melissa: the corruption -- >> harris: i want to get lisa's voice and hear. i am miss the sound of your voice. >> lisa: the democrats have done an insufficient job of making their case. white house deputy legal counsel made the most salient point that i have heard, and what they said is that he can't be threatened without knowing that he is threatened. there can't be the quid pro quo without the quo.

all these witnesses have said that the ukrainians were not aware that money was being withheld until after the july 25th call. until the political article that came out at the end of august. you have that kurt vogler thing, the gym morrison thing, the laura cooper thing. all of these witnesses saying that to their knowledge, the witnesses weren't aware, so how is everything dumb like anything being leveraged if they weren't aware? it's ridiculous. >> david: this outcome is known. there are not 20 senators who are going to vote to convict a president, so all of this show that we have had until then -- and i say show because if this were in two weeks and joe biden were out of the presidential race, there would not be a single democrat who would vote. all of this talk about nancy pelosi being a grand strategist, this is like saying that the guy who flooded the titanic was a master boat captain. >> melissa: are you saying that the other democrats want to get joe biden out of the race?

two weeks from now, they wouldn't want -- >> david: no, this all started, melissa, because they were concerned when joe biden was a front runner that somehow donald trump was going to do something to advantage himself against joe biden, who they want to be the nominee. at least the establishment of the democratic party want him to be the nominee, and now that plan is all falling apart. >> harris: i will come right to you, just compute senator schumer was talking about the additional witness testimony. look at this. is this a preview of what is to come? watch. speak out now, remain hopeful that four republican senators will join us in supporting witnesses and documents in this. it is an uphill fight, as i have always said, but the public is on our side, and truth above all is on our side. and that is why we are still in the fight. >> harris: is senator schumer there getting everybody ready to see this not pass with a foregone conclusion that the majority will like what the president, which is what has

been set all along? >> jessica: i think he is setting us up for what we saw from chris van hollen, that motion to get chief justice john roberts to subpoena the witnesses. i don't think that john roberts wants to be involved in this. he is kind of sitting back. >> harris: that's not his job, read? >> jessica: well, it is his job. it is within his rights, and it was very interesting. two nights ago, political article, 9:00 p.m. mcconnell doesn't have the votes to black witnesses. and then by the morning, suddenly, he did. i thought that the -- did the president mention corruption before he was in this race. the answer from trump's defense team was no. that means it was about his political opponent. alan dershowitz -- >> lisa: can i go in on that? i think you are misleading. he said that president zelensky

was not aware that it was being -- but here's what alan dershowitz was saying. you cannot impeach a president when there is some sort of mix of national security interest with political interest. if you make that argument, any president could be impeached. president trump froze aid from the country for a period of time. should he then be impeached for that? or any member of congress who fought for appropriations of money where it could benefit a key constituency or donor, then should that be a political liability? >> harris: i have been saying this all along with our coverage as we have gone up against 12:30 p.m., we have an abbreviated show. we are glad to have everybody. we will continue to hash it out. keep watching. but we've got to move your new video calling into credibility john bolton as they push for him to testify in the impeachment trial. how the fight is shaping up ahead of tomorrow potentially

calling witnesses. with va mortgage rates near 50-year lows,

one call to newday can save you $2000 a year, every year. activate your va refi benefit now and start saving.

>> no one from inside the white house or outside the white house told us that the publication of the book would be problematic for the president. i think we assumed that mr. mr. bolton was disgruntled, and we didn't expect that he was going to be saying a lot of nice things about the present, but no

one told us anything like that. >> melissa: all right, a member of the president's legal team yesterday, the battle with former national security advisor, john bolton over claims in his upcoming book. though white house is bolton's manuscript contains classified information and cannot go to press as is. bones lawyer denies this and is demanding to know what information is in question. democrats are saying bolton must testify on what the president told him regarding military aid to ukraine. meantime, president trump declaring game over, tweeting out a video of bolton from late august where he makes no reference to any attempt at quid pro quo with ukraine. here is a bit of that. >> i will be meeting president zelensky. he and president trump have already spoken twice. the president called him on his election and then his excess in the parliamentary election.

they were very warm and cordial calls. we are hoping that they will be able to meet in warsaw and have a few minutes together. >> melissa: we've got to get to this breaking news, though. adam schiff is speaking right now in front of the microphone. let's listen. >> the integrity of our elections. as long as it is in our interest, that's okay, and there is nothing that congress can do about it. what's more, if part of that quid pro quo involves an investigation of his political arrival, the fact that his political rival is running for president gives a greater legitimacy, not less. because it would be more consequential. that is the most absurdly dangerous argument that could have been made. and the fact that they must resort to this level of desperation is the result of the fact that the house managers proved the defendant's game involved with holding aid, withholding of a coveted

white house meeting with the president of ukraine in order to course, to extort, to blackmail that country into conducting or announcing the sham investigations. it to helping him cheat in the elections. they went on to say that soliciting, inviting, coordinating foreign officials in an election, notwithstanding what the fbi director says or any self-respecting american says, that they view that is perfectly fine. it is the normalization of lawlessness. but that is what they have had to resort to you, as the evidence has continued to pile up of the president skills. and when that evidence threatened to get even greater with the testimony of john bolton, they have gone to extraordinary lengths to put a muzzle on john bolton. to avoid calling him as a witness, to avoid letting the american people hear what he has to say. to try to stifle his book. two attacking him publicly.

because they fear what he has to say. because they already know the president scheme has been exposed. , that's where they are. we will continue today to make the case. a case that has already been made to the american people but needs to be made to the senate, and that is a fair trial as far as witnesses. fair trial, and impartial both requires witnesses. and that is what they should deliver for the american people. no trial, no vindication. no vindication for the president or anyone else. the constitution requires a fair trial, and that's all we are asking. i will be responding to questions. >> regarding potentially the whistlwhistle-blower and the nao you have any tughts on what should be done? >> well, as i said yesterday, we protect whistle-blowers.

we needed their cooperation. we neither support. in making the country work. and i am not talking specifically about this whistle-blower. i'm talking about whistle-blowers generally appeared we rely on people of good conscience to report misconduct. the only point in outing this whistle-blower is to satisfy the desire of the president for retribution, and that is not something that the senate should come down. >> some republicans are pointing to the steele dossier. it is not legitimate -- that the dnc was involved in the steele dossier? >> you know, honestly, going down the steele dossier rabbit hole, i don't even understand what the logical connection is supposed to be. the president is on trial right now for withholding military aid from allies at war appeared trying to coerce them into

achieving the next election and to continue -- that may gratify the president, again, part of what the president's lawyers are doing is meant to persuade the senators. it is not meant to persuade the american people, and it isn't. it is meant to gratify the grievances of the president. by talking about christopher steele or james comey or peter strzok or lisa page. none of those people are responsible for the president's misconduct. only donald trump is responsible for his misconduct, and he must be held to account. thank you. >> john bolton -- >> melissa: so that was impeachment manager adam schiff there, talking about how the constitution requires witnesses and making the case, among other things, for why john bolton needs to come and testify. but he hasn't always been a huge fan of john bolton. he hasn't always had the most respect for him. here is that same adam schiff back in 2005.

>> particularly, given the history where we have had the politicization of intelligence. why we would pick someone who the very same issue has been raised repeatedly, and that is john bolton's politicization of the intelligence in cuba and on other issues. why would we want someone without lack of credibility, i can't understand. >> melissa: credibility then. he has credibility now. here's what killed me. everybody on both sides, total hypocrites. republicans, democrats fear they'll do this get somebody is totally credible when it will help their case, and then they are just a boldfaced liar when they are not on their side. >> harris: that has been the sticking point with this whole process, that it is more political than anything else. and i go back to senator lindsey graham who spoke earlier. and it didn't -- i don't believe it was retaliatory. but i want to understand if it might have been. it was definitely a shot. wait until republicans are in

the position opposite a democratic president. i am paraphrasing him, but the experience of what he said is right in these words. he said you know, looks, do you really want to start this? you want to go on down this road? i would hope that i would take the high road. >> david: much of that also during the clinton impeachment. let's keep in mind with this whole deal with ambassador bolton that "the new york times" is not the referee here. they are not an interested observer. >> harris: are they ever? >> david: they have a side that they are on. and we know about john bolton's book from an accept that they have decided to give us. we don't know what the next page says. we don't know what john bolton had said in this. and beyond that, you wonder -- democrats always in the last hour try to throw out these bombshells. yesterday, eliot engel came out and sent ambassador bolton called me. and you just wonder -- there are

two more examples. why schiff? why engel? why did nancy pelosi have jerry nadler go in there when he was going to insult the u.s. senate? why did she have him go in the there? >> jessica: he is the head of the judiciary committee. he has a long, storied career. nancy pelosi is a grand strategist, which is how we wipe the floor with republicans in the 2018 midterms, using her strategy of focusing on health care. there have also been a number of times where republicans have had to admit that nancy pelosi out came the president peer to your point about "the new york times," we know what side they are on. hillary clinton's email server scandal that came from "the new york times." stop saying that it is just a liberal outlet for all of that. in terms of john bolton, yes, people flip-flop on these things. it doesn't look as good the next day. there is a strong case to hear from him. he's all lindsey graham getting very uncomfortable with the insulting of him.

john kelly, who said i believe john bolton, and he is on his others. i don't think it is the truth at -- >> harris: lindsey graham said that yesterday. if you pick on john bolton, you will get to the point where everyone wants to hear from that witness. >> melissa: the point lindsey graham was making was let's stipulate that what john bolton is going to say is that he wanted to investigate the bidens. and he made a very good case, lindsey graham did, of why anyone with half of a brain would want to investigate what happened with them when you have joe biden controlling money to the ukrainians, saying the day for correction is over at the exact same second that his son is getting $3 million. that's coming you know, undercutting american interests at the entrance of your family. >> lisa: he said that the president had deep-rooted concerns about corruption in ukraine, which is consistent with what we had heard from the legal defense team. look, we have heard from witnesses.

they spent 17 witnesses, over 100 hours and testimony appeared we don't need to hear from anyone else at this point, and i think she made this point on twitter today. why won't democrats release the transcripts of the intelligence community inspector general? they are saying that we need to hear from new people, but they haven't even released all the pertinent information from the testimony on the witnesses we have already heard from where they have already heard from, so i want there release that? and according to her tweet, what was confirmed is that there is a political bias that took place with the whistle-blower. that is what she said in a tweet. why are they calling for additional witnesses and information when they want even released -- >> harris: i am glad you are asking that question. >> i would go one step further to say even if everything in bolton's book happens to be true and everything he testifies to happens to be true, if he happens to be called, i still do not believe that that rises to the level of the impeachable

offenses -- >> containing top-secret information that should be released to the american people. excuse me if i'm suspicious. the john bolton manuscript is now in the same gesture as the president tas tax returns. >> melissa: let's just stipulate that everything we think john bolton is saying is true. i am still not voting to impeach. and then you have him saying now it looks quite suspicious, though they are single, his book all of a sudden, there is national security concerns. we can't possibly have it when -- i don't know. you have to think ambassador bolton knows what a national security concern is and would not have put it in the book, right? >> harris: one would hope. by the way, and letters with his tweeting to bed, and he said you know, people are kind of jumping on what he said. a different sector of the party started.

i did not say or imply that the candidate could do anything, only that seeking help and reelection is not necessarily corrupt, exciting and obama example. he doesn't cite them in the tweet, but critics have an obligation -- kind of what lisa was pointing out. >> david: there is not as single senator in that chamber that is going to think -- that might change my opinion. that certainly had an impact on lisa murkowski and lisa collins. the fundamentals of those haven't changed. there are not 20 republicans who vote to convict, and of joe biden wasn't running for president, this would never have. >> jessica: well, right. he only cares because of joe biden. because he is trying to protect his own electoral interest, and that is exactly what alan dershowitz said. he said if it is in the national interest -- are you comfortable with that, david? do you think asking --

>> david: do you believe the founding fathers set up impeachment over a campaign finance violation? that is exactly -- then what law was broken? >> jessica: what law? that he took aid, that he got help in his -- >> jessica: that he put his personal interest over the interests of the nation. you could make the argument, of course, that it is in the national security interest to find out if another foreign power met over an election. it is a national security interest of the person running for president is corrupt. those are international security interest. this is not the first time that it has been frozen, reviewed, or canceled. the legal team has pointed out several interest. the northern triangle countries. that is not a new concept. to >> jessica: where any of the people that that's what heart running for president? see you i just got -- >> jessica: are you kidding me?

>> harris: we are going to run out of time. whoa, whoa -- i am going to ask a question, then we will wrap it up. i have a question. what you just set about the burden of proof, if you will, about whether or not the president put his interests ahead, do you think democrats have proven the point, and do you think that they have proven the point that when average americans watch in between all the things that they are balancing in their lives, they get it? because polling would suggest that perhaps they don't. maybe you can make a point better than adam schiff. >> i have all the respect of the world for adam schiff, and i think he has made the point. 61% say that he should be impeached and removed from office. that is consistent -- >> melissa: real clear politics average says 47%. it is higher than that do not do it. >> jessica: that is the most recent polling on it. >> lisa: he did a focus group.

only 80 minutes and did they mention impeachment. >> harris: david avella, it was great to see you. thank you. we turn it over to bret baier and martha maccallum for special coverage of the senate impeachment trial right now. ♪ >> martha: this is special coverage of the impeachment trial of president trump. i am martha maccallum in new york city. >> bret: i am bret baier in washington. my thought, was it something i said? >> martha: i will be back tomorrow. >> bret: president trump's lawyers and some republicans predict a fine vote tomorrow night. on removing the president from office. >> martha: that would mean the majority of the senators voted against new witnesses, such as john bolton. david paredes as his g.o.p. colleagues are pushing to end this trial as soon as possible. >> we are working hard to make it