impeachment process means that the president is not the judge in his own cost. their own attorney general doesn't agree with their theory of the case. but again, we don't -- >> i'm bill hemmer live in new york. 3:00 on the east coast. noon on the west coast. here first, there's breaking news on the coronavirus. the world health organization declaring it a health emergency. the virus blamed for 170 deaths in china, blamed for sickening 8,000 around the world and a half a dozen in the u.s. and the cdc confirmed a person-to-person case here in chicago. as soon as there's a break in the trial, we'll have more on that. for now, back inside and congressman schiff. >> core offense and you didn't

put it under some other rubric, we won't even consider it if we're going to engage in that kind of legal sophastry, it leaves the country unprotected. that cannot be what the framers had in mind. the constitution is not a suicide pact. does not require us to surrender our common sense. common sense as well as morality tells us what the president did was wrong. when a president sacrifices the national security interests of the country, it's not only wrong but it's dangerous. when a president says as we saw just a moment ago over and over again, he will continue to do it if left in office. it's dangerous. the framers provided a remedy and we urge you to use it. >> thank you, mr. manager. >> mr. chief justice. >> senator from indiana. >> i ask the senate a question to the desk on my behalf and

senator barrasso for the president's counsel. >> thank you. >> the question from senator braun and barrasso for counsel for the president. the house managers have said the country must be saved from this president and he does not have the best interests of the american people and their families in mind. do you wish to respond to that claim? >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, while the house managers are coming before you in accusing the president of

doing things in their words solely for personal and political gain, in claiming that he's not doing things in the best interest of the american people, the american people are telling you just the opposite. the president's approval rating while we're sitting here in the middle of these impeachment proceedings has hit an all-time high. a recent poll shows that the american people are the happiest they've been with the direction of the country in 15 years. whether it's the economy, security, military preparedness, safer streets, safer neighborhoods, they're all way up. we, the american people are happier. and yet the house managers tell you that the president needs to be removed because he's an immediate threat to our country.

listen to the words that they just said. we, the american people, cannot decide who should be our president because as they tell us, these are their words, "we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." do you really believe that? do you really think so little of the american people? we don't. we trust the american people to decide who should be our president. candidly, it's crazy to think otherwise. so what is really going on? what is really going on is that he's a threat to them, and he's an immediate legitimate threat to them and he's an immediate legitimate threat to their candidates because the election is only eight months away. let's talk about the things the president has done.

we replaced nafta with the historic mca. we killed the terrorists, al-baghdadi and soleimani. we secured $738 billion to rebuild the military. more than seven million jobs created since the election. illegal border crossings are down 78% since may and 100 miles of the wall have been built. the unemployment rate is the lowest in 50 years. more americans nearly 160 million, are i'm employed than ever before. the african american unemployment, hispanic unemployment, asian american unemployment has the lowest rate ever recorded. women's unemployment recently hit the lowest rate in more than 65 years. every u.s. metropolitan area saw per capita growth in 2018. real wages have gone up by 8% for the low energy workers. median household income is the highest level ever recorded.

40 fewer million people live in households with government assistance. we signed the biggest tax cuts in history. since then, over $1 trillion has poured back into the u.s. 650,000 single mothers are out of poverty. we secured the largest ever increase for child care funding helping more than 800,000 low income families and high quality affordable care. we passed as manager jeffries will call, bipartisan criminal justice reform. prescription drugs have seen the lowest decreases in over 1/2 a century. drug overdose deaths fell nationwide in 2018 for the first time in nearly 30 years. a gallup poll from just 3 days ago says president trump's upbeat view of the nation's

economy, military strength, economic opportunity and overall quality of life will likely resonate with americans when he delivers the state of the union address to congress next week. if all that is solely in their words for his personal and political gain, not in the best interests of the american people, then i say god bless him, keep doing it. keep doing it. keep doing it. maybe if the house managers stop opposing him and harassing him and harassing everyone associated with him with constant letters and constant investigations, maybe we could even get more done. let's try something different now. join us. join us. one nation, one nation, one people. enough is enough. stop all of this. thank you. >> mr. chief justice. >> senator from colorado.

>> thank you. >> i send a question to the desk for myself and senator schatz and senator menendez. >> thank you. >> the question from senators bennett, menendez and schatz is the house members. if the senate accents privilege in the house impeachment inquiry, what are the consequences to the american people? how will the senate ensure that the current president or a future president will remain trans paparent and accountable? how will this affect the separation of powers? can you address the president's claim that the president's advisers are entitled to the same protections as a

whistle-blower? >> privileges are limited. we have voted to impeach the president for among other things article 2 of the impeachment is total defiance of house subpoenas. the president said in advance, i will defy all the subpoenas what toes this mean? no information to congress. if congress has no information, it cannot act. if the president can defy -- now, he can dispute certain specific claims. you can claim privilege, et cetera. to defy categorically all subpoenas to announced a vance you're going to do it and do it, to say that congress has no power at all, only the executive

has power, that's why article 2 is impeaching for congress. that's why much lesser degree of defense, richard nixon was impeach for abuse of congress for the same defiance of any attempt to -- by the congress to investigate. but this is -- what are the consequences? the consequences if this is to be -- if he's to get away with it, if any subpoena you vote in the future, any information that you want in the future from any future president may be denied you. with no excuses, announce in advance of the subpoenas, it eviscerates congress and establishes the executive department as a total dictator ship. that's the consequences. i also want to talk about and the motis. they're clearly dictatorial. since i have the floor, i want

to answer a question -- comment on a question that senator collins and murkowski asked yesterday. they asked about the questions of mixed motives. what if -- how do you deal with a deed, a president that may have a corrupt motive and a fine motive? how do you deal with it? professor dershowitz said you have to mix, weigh the balances. nonsense. nonsense. we never in american law looked at decent motives if you can prove a corrupt motive. if i am offered a bribe and i accept the bribe for corrupt motive, i won't be heard in defense to say oh, i would have voted for the bill anyway. it was a good bill. you don't inquire into other motives. once the corrupt motive and the corrupt act was established,

there's no comparison. all of this is just nonsense to point away from the fact that the president has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and the defenders don't even bother to defend. they just come out with distractions. it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. he abuses power by violating the law, to withhold military aid from a foreign country, to extort that country and to helping his re-election campaign by slandering his opponent. corrupt, no question. violation of the law? no question. factually, no question. they don't even make a real attempt to deny it. everything is a distraction. the one chief distraction is once you prove a corrupt act, that is it. you never measure the degree of maybe have decent motives, too. so professor dershowitz talking a about that and the absolute

power of the presidency is absent from american law or any kind of western law. >> thank you, mr. manager. mr. chief justice? >> the senator from georgia. >> i send a question to the desk for the president's counsel on behalf of myself, senator ernst and senator barrasso. >> thank you. the question from senator but due, earnst and barrasso for counsel for the president is as follows. please summarize the house of representatives three-stage investigation and how the president was denied due process in each stage. combined with manager schiff's repeated leaks during the

house's investigation. do these due process violation make this impeachment the fruits of the poisonous tree? >> mr. chief justice, senators, thank you for that question. the short answer as i think i have indicated a couple times that i've been up here, yes, this entire proceeding here is now the fruit of the poisonous tree. it is the fruit of a proceeding that was fatally deficient in due process from the start to the beginning. as a result of that, it produced a record that is totally unreliable. can't be relied on here for any conclusion other than a quitting the president.

let me detail the three phases. first, the first error, the house began the proceeding in a totally unconstitutional unlawful and illegitimate manner. they started an impeachment inquiry without any vote of the house to authorize that inquiry. i want to spend a second on this. the house managers have spent a lot of time today trying to go back and argue about why their proceeding was all right. but they're not actually engaging the real issues. in order for the house to exercise the power of impeachment, there has to be a delegation of that authority to a committee. the constitution gives power to the house itself, not to individual members of the house, not to the speaker. just as here in the senate, you wouldn't think the majority leader would say if an impeachment arrived, the majority leader would say, guess what? we're not growing to do a trial with the whole senate.

i'm just going to decide to have one committee, hear the evidence, provide a summary and then you all can vote. the majority leader doesn't have the authority on his own to do that. the speaker doesn't have the authority in the house to give the power of impeachment to any committee to start pursuing an inquiry. this is the key. there is no rule giving any committee in the house the authority to use the power of impeachment. rule 10 speaks of legislative authority. not the power of impeachment. all the subpoenas that were issued came with letters saying on them pursuant to the house's impeachment inquiry. they purport to use a power that hadn't been delegated to the committee. that's the first one. illegitimate, unlawful proceeding from the start. then the due process flaws. three stages of hearings. one, secret hearings in the basement bunker. the president is locked out. no opportunity to cross examine witnesses, to see the evidence. to present evidence.

then they go from that to the public hearings. really just a public show trial. the president is still cut out. totally unprecedented that there would be that second phase where the president is still cut out. can't present evidence. the minority members don't have equal subpoena authority. the third phase in front of the house judiciary committee they purport to have offered rights but i explained that. it was a losery. that already decided before the president had even was supposed to respond with what rights he would like to exercise, the speaker announced the result there would be articles of impeachment, the judiciary committee decided not to hear from any fact witnesses, no plans for hearings. it was all a foregone conclusion because they had to get it done by christmas. the third error, the chairman schiff was in charge of all the fact finding and he had an interest because of the

interactions of his office with the whistle-blower that we still don't know about to shut down questioning about the motive, the bias, the reasons that the whistle-blower, how this all came about. all three of those errors infected this process from the very beginning. they resulted in a one-sided, slanted, fact-finding that was rushed by a person controlling the fact-finding that had a motive to limit what facts would be allowed to get into the proceedings. and produced a record that cannot possibly be relied on here. we said many times, the supreme court has made clear that cross examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth. they didn't present the president the opportunity to cross examine anyone. that's an indication that the goal was not a search for the truth. it was a partisan charade intended to justify a preordained result and to get it done by christmas.

it's not a regard that can be relied on here. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. >> mr. chief justice. >> the senator from illinois. >> i send a question to the desk for the house managers. >> thank you. >> the question from senator duckworth for the house managers. if the hold on aid to ukraine was meant to be kept secret until the president could gather internal u.s. government information on ukrainian corruption and european cost sharing, then is there any documentary evidence of this? for example, is there any evidence that the president was briefed on those issues by the nsc, dod or state department during the period of the hold in

the summer of 2019 or any evidence that he requested specific information on anti-corruption reform measures in ukraine. prior to releasing the aid on september 11, 2019, did the president order any changes to administration policy to address corruption in ukraine or burden sharing with our european allies. >> chief justice, thank you, senator, for that question. let's just take a moment and address what the process should have looked like. because as we have already established and has president's counsel has conceded and we conceded, this does happen.

there is a legitimate policy process for review and for a determination on hold. because there is indeed legitimate policy reasons to hold aid. we have never said that corruption is not one of those or burden sharing wouldn't be one of those. what we're saying is there's no evidence that in what we're talking about today that the president was concerned or engaged that process. what would normally happen is congress would come together as we did, we passed appropriations businesses and made a determination that funding was appropriate for the aid. 87 members of the senate did this past year. the president would rely on the advice of government experts from the national security council, the department of defense, the state department and the office of management and budget regarding that aid. that's the interagency process

that we talked about. the process that we went through earlier last year and the conclusion of the interagency process it was determined that it had met all of the conditions nor the aid and all the agencies determined it should go forward. the president should seek permission from congress normally, if there was a reason, the president would go back and seek permission from congress to hold the aid. let me repeat that. if there was a reason to hold it, and the president has done this in the past as has president obama and prior presidents, would go back to congress under predescribed processes and make sure they're not violating the impoundment control act and seek permission to hold it. that did not happen. congress would weigh-in on the request by approving or denying the president's request. unless congress approves the request, the aid must be made

available. none of that happened. in this instance, a hold was put in place. we don't know exactly when because the president and his agencies have prevented us from getting that information and a hold was put in place, no reason was given. in fact, the only one within the united states government that apparently knows why that hold was put in place is president's counsel who tried to tell us last night why he thinks the hold was put in place. nothing else knows. so yes, the answer is if there was a legitimate policy process put in place, there will be a lot of information about burden sharing, about corruption, about any of the other concerns to which we have no evidence. if burden sharing to the last point of the question was a concern then the person that should have been asked to discuss those concerns with the eu and our european partners would have been ambassador

sondland. because he is the united states ambassador to the european union. not once did president trump go to ambassador sondland and say discuss these issues with the e.u., the europeans and say they need to provide more money. not once did that happen. it didn't happen because it wasn't the real concern. all the evidence shows the president withheld taxpayer money, foreign aid to our partner at war to coerce them to start a political investigation to when if it his 2020 election campaign. that is what the evidence shows and that's why we're still here. there is one person that can provide additional information on that. that is ambassador bolton. yes, it is still a good time to subpoena ambassador bolton. >> thank you, mr. manager. >> mr. chief justice. >> the senator from maine. >> i send a question to the desk

on behalf of myself and senators crapo, blunt and rubio. >> thank you. the question from senator collins and the other senators for both parties, are there relegitimate circumstances under which a president could request a foreign country to invest great a u.s. citizen, including a political rival who is not under investigation by the u.s. government? if so, what are they and how do they apply to the present case. the house goes first.

>> mr. chief justice, senator, it would be hard for me to contemplate circumstances where that would be appropriate. it would be appropriate for the president of the united states to seek a political investigation of an opponent. one of the i think most important post watergate reforms is to divorce decisions about specific cases, specific prosecutions from the white house to the justice department to build a wall. one of the many norms that has broken down in this presidency is that wall has been obliterated where the president has a firm tyly sought to invest gave his rivals. i cannot conceive of circumstances where that is appropriate. it may be appropriate for the justice department acting independently and in good faith to initiate an investigation. a process for doing that. we heard testimony about that. you can make requests under the

mutual legal assistance treaty when a foreign country has evidence involving a criminal case involving a u.s. person. there's a legitimate way to do that. that didn't happen here. in fact, when bill barr's name was first revealed on the transcript, the justice department said we have nothing to do with this. we have nothing to do with this. here this particular domestic political errand was being done by the president's personal lawyer. i want to just follow up also while i can, my colleague's comments in terms of mixed motives. if you conclude the president acted with mixed motives, some corrupt, some legitimate, you should vote for more evidence. it's common place in criminal and civil law going back centuries. in describing the standard for corrupt motive, the seventh circuit rejected any requirement that a defendant's only or main

purpose was to obstruct the due administration of justice. instead the court explained a defendant is guilty of his motives and including any corrupt and forbidden goals. that cause, which i cited earlier, is not only relevant here but that case was argued by professor dershowitz and he lost. he made the argument he's made and the president's lawyers have made today. they lost that case and for a good reason. it's contrary to the history of our legal traditions. if someone -- this is the founders were concerned that a president might be charged with bribing members of electoral college -- >> time is up. >> mr. chief justice, senators, thank you for that question.

i'd like to start by pointing out that the question assumes there's an investigation in a foreign country of a united states person. i'd like to bring it back here to the transcript of the july 25th call where president trump didn't ask president zelensky specifically for an investigation or investigation into vice president biden or his son, hunter. there's a lot of loose talk in short hand reference to it that way. what he refers to is the incident in which the prosecutor was fired. the first thing that he says in that whole exchange is talking about the prosecutor being fired. he said it sounds horrible to him. the situation with burisma. all of the president says is so if you can look into it, it sounds horrible. sounds like a bad situation. that is not calling for investigation necessarily into vice president biden or his son. the situation in which the

prosecutor had been fired, which affected anti-corruption efforts in the ukraine. president zelensky responded by saying, the issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty. so we will take care of that. he's explained that he understands that it's an issue that has to do with was an investigation there over there that their prosecutor was handling, derailed in a way that affected their anti-corruption efforts and it something worth looking into. it's the president making clear that we're not saying that's off limits. sounds bad to the u.s. as well. let me get more specifically to the question. is there any situation where it might be legitimate to ask for an investigation overseas? yes. if there was a conduct by a u.s. person overseas that potentially violated the law of that country but didn't violate the law of this country but there was a national interest in having some

information about that and understanding what went on, then it would be perfectly legitimate to suggest this is worth looking into. we have an interest in it. even if it would not mean a criminal investigation here in the united states. and so that could arise in various circumstances where a person had done something overseas a national interest in understanding what they had done. thank you. >> the democratic leader is recognized. >> mr. chief justice, i send a question to the desk for the president's counsel and the house managers. >> thank you. >> the democratic leader's question is this: yesterday i asked the president's counsel about the president's claim of absolute immunity, specifically i asked the president's lawyers to name a single document or witness that the president

turned over to the house impeachment inquiry in response to their request or subpoena. mr. philbin spoke for five minutes and talked about the various types of immunities and privileges the president could invoke but did not answer my question. so i ask once again, can you name a single witness or document that the president turned over to the house impeachment inquiry. it is directed to both parties and president's counsel goes first. >> mr. chief justice, minority leader schumer, thank you for that question. i apologize if i was not direct in getting to the nub of the question yesterday. i was intending to explain the rationales that the administration had provided for its actions and to explain

contrary to the question it was not absolute defiance and not a blanket assertion that we won't do anything. that's the way the house managers have tried to characterize it. let me be clear. there were document subpoenas issued prior to the adoption of house resolution 660. the president explained, the administration explained in various letters that they were invalid and there were no documents produced in response. there were to documents produced in response because all of the apps were invalid. there was no attempt to reissue them or retroactively to authorize them. this were subpoenas for witnesses that were senior advisers to the president. the the president advised the committees that issued those that those senior advisers had immunity. they were not produced. there were subpoenas for witnesses to others who the

house democrats insists that they would be require to testify without the benefit of agency counsel. i explained that principle. the office of legal counsel advised that those subpoenas attempting to require executive branch officials to testify without the benefit of agency counsel were unconstitutional. those witnesses were not produced. still, this were 17 witnesses that testified including 18th witness whose testimony is still secret. there's quite a bit of testimony and there have been subsequently some documents relevant produced under foya. it makes clear if you follow the law and follow the rules and make a document request that is valid, documents get produced. if you don't follow the law, the administration resisted. that's why the documents weren't produced. the subpoenas were invalid. we made that clear.

>> thank you, counsel. >> not a single document was turned over, not a single witness was produced and the witnesses that did come came in defiance of the orders of the president. counsel has obviously made these claims that we think are spurious. what was the motivation to fight the subpoenas? they argue this interpretation which the courts have rejected, looked at it and that somehow the subpoenas were invalid. why didn't they produce the documents? why didn't they insist on this discredited by the court's legal theory? because they were covering up the president's misconduct. now i want to return briefly to finish the comments i was making earlier about the senator's question earlier on mixed motives. there's a good reason why mixed motives are no defense. otherwise officials that committed misconduct can always claim that even if they did it,

even if it was corrupt, they must be acquitted because they were able to invent some phony motivation encyst it played some minor role in their scheme. multiple framers cited this specific threat while discussing impeachment at the constitutional convention. could a president defend himself on the grounds that he was motivated in part by a noble desire to reward members of the electoral college for their public service? could he defend it on the ground that even as he handed over the bribes, he wasn't acting corruptly but seeking to advance the public interest by keeping himself in power. according to the president's lawyers, yes, he could. indeed for all of the reasons we provided, there's no doubt that the president's quid pro quo was solicitation of foreign interference and use of official acts to compel that interference were a fundamentally corrupt scheme. by which i mean the moative and

intent was to benefit himself, to obtained personal political gain while ignores and injuring core national interests in our democracy and security. we have demonstrated, we believe, that the scheme was entirely corrupt. if you have any question about that, ask john bolton. if there's any question about whether the motive was mixed or not mixed, ask john bolton. he has relevant testify testimony. you can ask mick mulvaney. you can subpoena the documents. in answer to the earlier questions, what do the documents say about whether the president withheld the aid, if there was any interagency discussion of reforms? the president's counsel made the argument that the circumstances that change was a change in the rada there is no evidence to support that idea. >> time has expired. >> the majority leader is recognized. >> mr. chief justice, i ask that

we stand in recess until 4:00. >> without objection, so ordered. >> there there it is, good afternoon. hello again. i'm bill hemmer. they're as close to six hours left in today's hearing, a lot more to come an then we expect a vote maybe tomorrow on whether or not we'll hear from witnesses or if this comes to a rapid close. let's get some analysis from bret baier, richard fouler and a cast of thousands. good afternoon. bret, a bit of a slog so far today as compared to late yesterday or in the evening hours. very few of the questions have been directed to the other side with the exception of the last two. what do you think? anyone changing their minds at the moment? >> i don't think so, bill. we're counting heads up on capitol hill. the more time goes on, the more exuding of confidence you get from the republican caucus that

they have the numbers to not only prevent witnesses but possibly move on quickly to an acquittal. what you're hearing today from democrats in particular is the focus on alan dershowitz arguing yesterday about the president, what he can and cannot do, executive power. dershowitz took to twitter to try to clarify in his words what he was saying, that you can't have a mixed motive, that the president couldn't do something on behalf of the nation and for himself as far as re-election and end up in an impeachment. he's been trying to clean that up. democrats are hopping on that. even that is not moving numbers, bill. >> thank you. we're going to get to some senators. the other moment that rand paul gave a question to chief justice john roberts. chief justice roberts said the presiding officer, him, declines

to read the question and rand paul left and held a small press conference outside. let's get reaction from the right. josh, what do you think habit today? josh hawley, we'll drop in there. >> look, you've had -- bret is right. you don't see a lot of ball moving down the field. this looks like basically a status quo from yesterday, which is good news for republicans. what is winning the day for most republicans is that the house had the obligation to conduct an investigation and bring charges. they had 17 witnesses. it's not the senate's fault that none of the 17 can actually produce the testimony that adam schiff wants. so conducting more investigation and more witnesses is not the role of the jury here. i think that that is where she is going to end up on friday. >> to both of you then, richard fowler, jump in the conversation here. it appears clearly that there is a level of drama that builds in all likelihood for tomorrow and the outcome of that vote.

>> i think there is a level of unlikelihood. bret is right on that point. if you talk to chum schumer's office before i came over here, they will tell you they're still courting the votes. they are still courting it. near using this back and forth with john bolton and the white house over the manuscript of his book to say why we need to see this book, why the book is important. john bolton is somebody that works on our air, somebody that is a republican stalwart. there's no reason that he's anti-trump and he should be allowed to testify. will chuck schumer's efforts work. that's an open question. there's two or three senators that have moved but not four. >> richard, thanks. greg is here with me. former counsel. good afternoon. thanks for joining our coverage. you favor from hearing from witnesses. if you don't get your wish, what is the effect of that mid

winter? >> well, look, i think it's clearly the senate's decision. they can run a trial anyway they want to run one. in every impeachment trial to date of judges, cabinet officials and presidents, the senate has conducted a trial with witnesses. i don't think republicans have anything to fear from it. i think they will learn more about what happened, which is in the public interest. frankly there's some risk to democrats from some of the witnesses that might be heard from. >> what would that risk be? >> we don't know what people will say. we don't know what john bolton will say. democrats have a narrative that -- they have a narrative of what they hope he will provide and we don't know that. certainly republicans may also call some witnesses that democrats might be reluctant to hear from. we've heard about calling hunter biden. >> 21 years ago you had a deal with republicans and democrats. it was a different environment and a different scenario, greg. >> sure. >> is it apples to apples 21

years later do you believe? >> one of the biggest differences and the nature of partisan politics, this is the first time we have a presidential impeachment where the president's party holds the majority in the senate. in the clinton impeachment, the republicans had a senate. they wanted a trial and wrap it up, too. many were not eager to remove the president. so the scenario is different. the partisan control of the body is different. it's helpful to have some process here. and i think that in the end, republicans will be glad if they chose to go down that road. >> thanks, greg. want to bring in an independent senator that caucuses with the democrats, angus king out of maine. thanks for your time. any minds being changed today, senator? is it status quo? >> i don't know. i sit and look straight across at a lot of my friends on the republican side. i see some nodding on various points.

i don't think i can argue that i'm seeing any minds being changed. although susan collins asked an interesting question at the end about can you think of a legit it in place where a president would ask a foreign country to invest great an american citizen when no such investigation is started here. i thought that was an interesting question from her since she's one of the people that is really thinking hard about this. >> we're on this question of witnesses. i don't know what you're feeling about that. i think you favor them quite clearly. what is the effect of no witnesses do you think? it's late january. you're moving into an election year. america will vote 9 1/2 plus months. what do you think about that, senator? >> i think the question about witnesses is an important one because from frankly from the president's point of view, if this trial winds up in the next 24, 48 hours with no witnesses, he can say, well, i was acquitted but he can't say he

was exonerated. there will always be an asterisks by the trial. one of the senators said last night, we had a judge impeachment ten years ago. there were 22 witnesses and we're having no witnesses in the senate. it's never happened before. the american people understand that. they want perry mason and law and executive order. >> i'm trying to figure out what the effect is on the american people. it's hard the gauge today, i believe. >> it think it is. listen, opposed impeachment for the last 2 1/2 years. i publicly said i think it's a bad idea for a lot of the witness that the white house counsel said last night. dividing the country, inflaming passions. that was before this whole ukrainian thing came up. the problem with the ukrainian business is that it was -- it appears anyway that it was the president's effort to effect the upcoming election.

so the question is the election a check in it's in play from a point of view of the president's own actions. that's the question. >> last point here. did you have a problem with chief roberts not asking or posing the question that was filed by senator rand paul? >> i don't know what the question was. so i don't know. i have great deal of respect for justice roberts. it was clear that he took it seriously and so i -- i think as the manager said last night, they're willing to allow justice roberts to make a lot of decisions on privilege and those kinds of things, having confidence in his judgment. so i guess i can't really say what the basis of it was. i think he's a serious guy. >> based on some of the reporting, it was the same question last night. last point here. you've got another six hours ahead of you. you'll probably wrap around 10 or 11:00 tonight. what is the sense among your caucus? >> everybody is tired.

this is the -- the fifth day in a row of -- we all have day jobs in the morning. we're all having meetings and hearings. i had a hearing in armed serviced and then to go after 11:00 last night. people are tired. but i have to tell you, i have found this question and answer period the last two days really interesting and i've learned a lot, making a lot of notes. i think it's a useful process. so you know, look, this is a really important decision. the fact that we're having to stay up a little late at night and work a long day a lot of americans do that. i think we can handle it. >> thank you, senator. good to have you on. angus king from maine. his reflections there. in a moment we'll talk to pat toomey. he's on deck when our coverage continues. quick break here. back after this. millions of patients are treated with statins-but up to 75% persistent cardiovascular risk still remains. many have turned to fish oil supplements.

others, fenofibrates or niacin. but here's a number you should take to heart: zero-the number of fda approvals these products have, when added to statins, to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. ask your doctor about an advancement in prescription therapies with proven protection. visit truetoyourheart.com you will see at vgreat and look great.ee "guaranteed" we say that too! you've gotta use these because we don't mean it. buy any pair at regular price, get one free. really! visionworks. see the difference. 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.

>> bill: the president just landed in michigan to sell the trade deal that was signed at the white house. coverage on that later with neil cavuto. meantime, bring in the republican senator pat toomey out of pennsylvania. thanks for your time. we have a couple moments here. yesterday you said you were very, very skeptical of witnesses. anything changed or are you a no when it comes to that vote? >> it has changed. it's changed to the point where i'm absolutely certain that we don't need witnesses. we don't need to drag this out. we should move as quickly as we can to get this thing over with, get it behind us. >> bill: how long have you felt that way, senator? >> increasingly it's become clear to me, this question and answer period was initially reasonably productive and useful. now it's very repetitive. this is a very, very partisan attempt to discredit the president in an election year.

the real danger here is the house managers and the house has established a very, very low bar for removing a president from office. that's a dangerous thing for the country. guarantees that impeachment is a weaponized political tool. very bad idea. we should reject these articles and be done with this. >> bill: if you're right, that vote will be tomorrow. where are the votes? >> i don't know. it's close. the vote will be to prolong, this delay this, bring in who knows how many or which witnesses. i hope that we agree not to do that. it's very close. i think we have a good chance that we'll prevail with that. and then i think our democratic colleagues could drag this out a bit but it won't be terribly long before we vote on the final verdict. >> bill: pardon. senators collins, murkowski, romney. where are they now? have you spoken to them? >> i have not directly spoken

with them since the q and a began. >> if reason if i ask that, if you lose three, you're 50/50. have you thought about that possibility? >> of course i have. this is constructed as a motion that would allow is for witnesses. if it goes at 50/50 under the rules of the senate, that fails on a tie vote. so it would fail. that means witnesses would not be allowed. we would proceed to verdict. >> bill: that verdict in all likelihood would be an acquittal. you wouldn't get the 67 votes. however, i just -- if it's a 50/50 even split, how is that perceived by the american public, do you think? how do they take that? >> you know, look, i think the important things to focus on here is what is the role of a witness? what is the purpose of a witness? the purpose in a trial is to not just tell an interesting story. the purpose of a witness is to shed light on an important fact to provide resolution to an issue that is in dispute.

the resolution of which could determine the outcome. for me, the house has presented articles of impeachment that don't rise to impeachable offenses. they have alleged actions that you cannot impeach a president for. because the president invoked the constitutional rights that every president has and almost all has invoked is ridiculous and dangerous. similarly on the first article. so for me, even if someone believes that everything john bolton says is going to confirm what is charged in these articles, it's still not impeachable. >> bill: we're coming up on the 4:00 hour. one more question, sir. if you're right and you get a 50/50 and this trial -- >> on witnesses. >> bill: that's right. are you done by friday night or what would the -- >> i think it could -- first of all, i'm not predicting that. you are posing that scenario and i'm explaining what happens. i think final resolution occurs

on saturday or monday and i think a lot depends on what is the will of other senators, do they want a final vote quickly or drag it out for another day or two. if there are not witnesses, it doesn't extend way into next week. >> senator, thanks for your time. pat toomey, the republican from pennsylvania. thank you. let you get back inside the chamber. back with bret baier and josh holmes. we'll see how much we can get done here in the next four minutes before we hand it off to neil cavuto. he was somewhat i would say, brett, convicted or felt conviction toward the possibility that this was going to wrap up in a couple days clearly. >> bill, i was fascinated by that interview not because of the confidence that they have the votes but also the timing. you heard senator toomey say that his democratic colleagues could drag this out. by that, i've had a number of conversations with people on the hill that know the process, know what is in the rules. if they get this witness vote,

let's say it's 50/50, let's say it's 51 and prevent witnesses, the effort is going to go right away towards acquittal. like we saw at the beginning, senator schumer could roll out a ton of amendments and drag this out and may be a wish for senators to weigh-in about this move, this acquittal. one last thing. there's pressure from some democrats anxious to go to iowa like senator klobuchar, warren -- >> bill: a lot of moving parts. josh, you see that as possible etch though you have an answer on witnesses by friday night, you're still there monday? >> you'll see a lot of activity by the democrats that see the writing on the wall that this will end in exoneration for the president and four months of work on an impeachment falls

flat. my bet is that bipartisan support for an acquittal here. i see zero republicans that look like they're anywhere near approaching a conviction. i think there's several democrats that the bar that the house manages have set for impeachment is really dangerous. so i wouldn't be surprised if there was a bipartisan acquittal ultimately. >> bill: you want to put a number on that, josh? >> no. heavens no. i don't want to put a number on it. but i think the outcome is not in doubt. >> bill: greg, just a moment here left. what do you think of that possibility? >> i think that's right. the most interesting thing to be in the most -- for me to hear and for the country to learn is what the basis of what the acquittal is. the white house is on its strongest grounds when it makes that argument that senator toomey just agreed with, that what we have is not serious enough to warrant the removal the president of the united states. i look forward to hearing how

republican senators will explain their votes and the democrats that may join them. i hope it ought to be something like that and not the complete acceptance of the broader claims the white house made about the investigations and immunity. >> bill: richard is that the legacy here, that you bring a weak case to the senate side of congress? >> i think greg has a good point about how the republicans will explain this. here's why it matters. in a couple months, we'll have a copy of john bolton's book. if it reveals for information that we didn't know before this investigation started, people will be looking at republican senators and asking why they moved so quickly, why we didn't hear from john bolton and that will have implications far beyond this leak. >> greg, josh, bret, thanks. the question segment today will likely last. here's the senate majority leader now, mitch mcconnell. we should resume in a

a programming note, we will be in miami tomorrow for the super bowl. what a split screen that will be for the audience. have a great day everyone, here is neil on "your world." >> neil: you just heard bill hemmer say that it's going to be nice and warm where he's heading, it will be at todd colder work in iowa where i will be tomorrow but we are focusing on this ongoing impeachment trial where it does not seem to be changing too many minds. it could resume seconds from n now. chad pergram with more on that and capitol hill. >> they've been through 127 questions total, excuse me, 127 questions total end of 27 questions today. they will probably take a dinner break around six or 6:30 and then wrap up around 11:00 tonight. there wasnt