the super bowl, iowa caucuses, bill hemmer gets to do both from a south beach, is that possible? >> martha: bill hemmer in miami tonight, today, afternoon. bill hemmer from miami starts now. ♪ >> bill: thank you, brett, martha. i am bill hemmer life miami, there will be a game sunday, we do not know if there will be a vote in the senate, halfway through the debate of witnesses in this trial, eventually the senate will vote after two more hours of debate. it could be later into the evening, maybe on saturday. with me here in miami, chris wallace, dana perino, guy lewis, nice to see you in person. marie harf standing by, already in des moines, iowa, marie, hello to you. i want to start back on capitol hill with rick scott, senator, thank you for your time. i imagine at some point you would like to be in florida, nonetheless, you are where you are for the moment. when do you make the vote? speak of the weather looks

better down there. i wish that i was down there. will clearly vote on the witness is next few hours. the house, they never presented a case, because they did not do their job in the house. they could've called on people like john bolton to testify, they elected to rush this through, it is completely there fault. then they want us to do their job for them. >> you think there will be a vote on witnesses today? is that right? >> i think we will have a vote in the next few hours on witnesses, and i have never believed that we were going to have witnesses, because i believe that it was the house's job to do their job, and they never did their job. they rushed this through, and of course, nancy pelosi sits on it for 33 days, now they want us to slow down and do their job. it does not make sense. >> it appears 51-49, you have the votes to stop this. what does this mean in an

election year? >> i think people are tired. people are sick and tired of the process. we have an election. if you don't like donald trump, you're not going to vote for him in november. if you like donald trump, what he has done with a economy in the usmca stuff, it should not be a bipartisan group in the house forces a fight over impeachment for months and months and months, that's what they are trying to do. >> bill: if bolton is right, does that make a difference to you? >> no. first off, it is the houses job to prove this, and they failed to do their job. and, you know, we heard the white house counsel, which was very convincing that this is, it is not an impeachable offense. so, i just -- people are tired, let's get back to doing some good in it but it businesslike securing the bord border, let's do things that were sent up to here to do.

if you don't like the president, don't vote for him. >> bill: one last question, if you get a vote on witnesses later, but i would there be a vote on the articles? >> they are still figuring that out. you heard senator schumer, he will try to delay this as much as possible, politically he thinks that is good for them. but i don't think there is anything close to a vote to convict the president, and we are not going to see witnesses, i believe. i never believed he would have witnesses. >> bill: senator, thank you for your time. rick scott, thank you very much, we will get bob casey up here in a moment. let's bring in our guys and gals, split screen, right, america? this is something else. it's nice to see you in person. going back to lisa murkowski state and, the house has articles that are rushed and flawed, it is sad for me to

admit as an institution, the congress has failed. >> 100% agree with her, as a longtime prosecutor, i tried a lot of cases down here in the u.s. attorney's office. prosecutors investigate the case, they present the charges, and when they drop the ball, which is a gross understatement here, they should lose. and that's where we are now. they should lose. >> did they send a half-baked case to the senate, is that the legacy? >> yes, it was not totally the houses fault that the president refused any witnesses and refused to allow any documents, if they want to make the argument, republicans do that even if it is all true, it is not impeachable, that is one thing. to test it through and say that the house did not present witnesses, so we will not call witnesses, i don't know that that makes a heck of a lot of sense. if you think the president committed intentionally a crime, why not call a witness and find out whether that is true or not. >> bill: you could do that, dana, but there is a process, it would be a long run, but there

is a system to do just that. if you look at his statement, that's what she is saying. >> markowski was critical of the house process the entire time. people were trying to figure out what she would do on witnesses, she has signaled it from the beginning. i heard repetition, but a tone of speaking with the fellow senators, the democrats asking the republicans to do the right thing. but at the end of that, the democrats will state that the president wants to try to cheat to win back the election. and the republicans will say that the democrats tried to steal the election from donald trump. it's basically going to boil down to those messages. >> bill: let's go to iowa and get the view from marie harf as we watch from afar. there is a really good chance that amy klobuchar, elizabeth warren, bernie sanders, as of the moment never make it by monday. >> that is true. that is been such an interesting part of the caucus process that we have so many candidates not here on the ground.

what i'm hearing from democrats on the ground following the impeachment process, watching republican senators refused to hear witnesses, i am hearing two things, first, that it is why it is even more important to nominate someone who can be donald trump in november, if we nominate bernie sanders or elizabeth warren, that will be much harder. i'm also hearing taking back senate seats from republicans is so important. here in iowa, joni ernst, a republican is up for reelection this november. there is a crowded democratic primary fighting for the chance to take her on. not just focusing on beating trump, but nominating someone who can take down the ballot and get the senate seat back. as long as democrats are a minority in the senate, we always knew that the process was going to end this way. witnesses or not. >> bill: standby in des moines, back in miami. developing conversation, back to the statement from lisa murkowski, she makes it clear that she was trying to

protect the chief justice john roberts. she felt that he could be under attack and was being challenged by some of the colleagues. that was a valid reference to rand paul. >> i think that there were a lot of senators in that chamber who were offended, offended by elizabeth warren's question that she posed to last night. and frankly, i was offended as well as a lawyer and a prosecutor. look, they overplayed their hand. as a prosecutor you go in and you do just the opposite. you actually understate your case. you go in and you talk about the evidence. let the evidence carry you across the goal line. but they did not do anything like that here. they hid the ball, they did not present the case in a way that made sense to me, and the jury, i think, like it or not, they did the right thing. they are going to quit. >> bill: he has all kinds of football. >> wait until you hear mine.

>> metaphors are appropriate too in this case. if you look at what lisa murkowski did over the last 24 hours, she was laying the breadcrumbs for her decision. she met with mitch mcconnell in private and said nothing afterwards and then went to dinner last night with alexander who issued his statement to local time in miami saying that he will not vote for witnesses. it appears that she felt that some of these government institutions, i mention the supreme court, may be the senate, perhaps the house, she was almost giving them an umbrella of protection from her statement. >> i think lamar alexander as well. a man who is a creature of the institution of the senate and a good friend of mitch mcconnel mitch mcconnell. you know mitch mcconnell loves the senate and use the all the tools at his disposal. we have not been talking about mitch mcconnell who has the playbook from the very beginning and said that this is how it will end up. just be patient, we will get through the process.

but in the end to the president will be acquitted with no witnesses. >> how smart does mcconnell look? on tuesday out of the conference and says i do not have the votes to stop witnesses yet, he was basically putting people like murkowski and lamar alexander on notice, saying, i do not have it yet, and you know that they heard from a lot of people saying, here we are on friday, now he has the vote. >> bill: around this time pat toomey was on the program suggesting that democrats could hold them until tuesday, and then bret came on right after that, wondering when he was going to go to des moines, as we all are, can you keep them there early next week? >> they will be moving on sund sunday. >> bill: but it was when does the story move on? sources telling fox news and chad pergram that the republicans want to lock a deal in tonight on a final agreement as to when and how to finish the senate trial next week, is that

a real thing? or is this a headline that is being pushed out there to nudge the senators into a final decision? >> i do believe it is a real thing. if anything, the senators have to be sick, both sides, sick and tired of this trial. they know what the decision is. they know what the outcome is going to be. no matter what. you can take 100 procedural votes that delay it, but everybody knows what the verdict is here, and they need to get down and do business and move on. >> bill: the reason why some of this may be out there is because of the suggestion you just made, trying to put senators on the spot and force them into a situation. maybe this is happening right now, chad has a better segment. one more, i want to get to chad pergram on this and try to figure out may be a timeline as to what is ahead or next. what do you have? >> i am told that one of the biggest logistical hurdles to trying to wrap this up earlier

next week is state of the union. that is scheduled for tuesday in the house chamber, and the problem is you cannot have all of this hyper security on the senate side of the capital and dealing with the final judgment in the senate impeachment trial, and simultaneously prepping the house chamber for the impeachment for state of the union on tuesday night. i was walking around the house side of the capital earlier today and the advanced teams were here from the secret service going through the basement in the house chamber checking things out. so right now there is not an agreement. they are proposing the idea, proposing maybe next wednesday or beyond having a final verdict in this trial. i am told that they will probably negotiate late tonight. the two things that have to happen after they get past that vote to say we will not have witnesses, and we think we know the outcome is that they would have to set up an agreement on the final arguments by both sides, the house impeachment managers, and also from the defense counsel, and arguments from senators.

there are a lot of motions that they could put into play here, but the republicans in the white house, they want to have a finite universe from chuck schumer, the democratic leader as to what that is so that they can mechanically move through some of that tomorrow, tonight, maybe someday, maybe monday, take a day off for state of the union and close it out wednesday or beyond. again, chuck schumer indicated just a few moments ago that these negotiations continue. he has not agreed to anything. i spoke with a source close to the white house and they indicated that there was no agreement on that end either. this is very fluid and the next couple of hours. but again, stated the union, and maybe this is what democrats are trying to do, hold this out so that the president will not be exonerated for state of the union, but have to come to the house chamber while the impeachment trial is still going on. remember that happened back in 1999 with president clinton. >> bill: it would be a political statement, certainly. but what is the appetite for

taking this into midweek next week? >> the democrats think they can continue to make the case that the playing field by mitch mcconnell has been tilted in favor of the president. they can say that they did not allow us and if they rush it through, they tried to wrap this up to expeditiously, bill. spin on chad, thank you for that. never cut off the lady. >> i was going to make a point to that chad just made, that i think one of the things that the democrats won, and i don't know why they think it will be helpful, is to say and impeached president get state of the uni union. >> bill: almost to no effect. you all have to stand by, we have a football game coming up eventually. eventually we will talk about it too. >> i think it is so petty on the part of the democrats and spiteful in this land of playing. i am done. >> bill: my man. back in a moment in miami after this. i use rakuten to get cash back in-store and online.

rakuten is free to sign up and it's in over 3,000 stores. i use it to buy makeup... travel... ...clothes, electronics. to me, rakuten is a great way to get cash back on anything you buy. sign up today and rack it up with rakuten.

tit's great actually, i've been listening to audible. it's audiobooks, news, meditations... gotta go! ♪ ♪

hey! you know, i do think it's weird you've started commuting when you work from home. i'll be in my office. download audible and start every day off right. 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.

>> bill: back here live in miami, we have been on a 15 minute break for 25 minutes now, so when they resume in the senate chamber, we will take you there live, get back to what they are, welcome back to the coverage here. chuck schumer says that there is no deal for a timeline, that's the latest at the moment. >> chuck schumer saying the more time goes on, the more in his

words, drip, drip, drip with information, thunderbolt, thunderbolt, thunderbolt. talking about bolton and what is in the book. and then adding that the white house chief of staff john kelly and his new comments that a trial without witnesses would be happy trial, however as we talked about here and i heard your panel may have the votes, they are moving on from witnesses. the question is procedurally what exactly can they do? that is the negotiation. in the senate it all comes down to votes. and if mcconnell has votes to move forward, he can block schumer. it is just going to be a procedural dance that they will do on the floor. and possibly prevent it and maybe get a little shorter than wednesday or thursday. >> bill: that question went to rick scott. he did not have a good firm answer, i would suggest. >> because nobody knows until you are down on the well floor and negotiations are happening between the two sides. i will say that often late into

the night that a lot of times that is why they have votes on thursday nights very late, because the senators get really tired and want to go home, and eventually they relented and today speed things up and maybe that happens. there is obviously a push from the amy klobuchar, elizabeth warren, and sanders to get to iowa, it is a possibility that they could get something to suspend until after the state of union,. it's about what the senate decides. >> bill: thank you so much, back to you in a moment, here with me in miami, marie harf in des moines, iowa. marie, rob portman put out a statement, he has been very quiet on all of this. he is one of the 51 at least, so he said the house did not even bother to subpoena their privilege claims of witnesses, he now wants the congress to subpoena four of them. from chris wallace coming out to

you. did they bring a half-baked case to the senate? and is there a price to pay for that? >> i don't think they brought a half-baked case to the senate, it is airtight as far as i am concerned, there are democrats who are questioning whether in the house we should have pushed to get john bolton and subpoena some of the other folks. that is a debate we will all be having in washington going forward, but i don't think it is a good argument for the american people. if you go to voters and say, well, the house did not do their job, that is a process argument, the voters will come back and say, so we just have one chance to hear the truth when the president is being impeached, so sorry, the senate will not help, that is not a very compelling argument. the fact that the republican talking points now have transitioned somewhat away from process to what you heard from lamar alexander say, look, i think the president dated and tried to abuse the position to get dirt on biden, but i do not think it is impeachable is an

extraordinary turn of events, but that's where we are today, because the american people were not buying the processed argument that they only got one shot to hear the facts. >> bill: all of them have suggested that there is a system and a process here. thank you for that. do we believe that there could be a pause in the impeachment trial to allow the iowa caucus to go on and on interrupted? >> whatever the deal is. whatever the deal is. i will say this, i love the idea that chuck schumer is in charge of the senate. he is not in charge. mitch mcconnell is in charge of the senate. he has at least 51 votes. mitch mcconnell will not be pushed around. the idea that chuck schumer is going to determine how long they will go and each defendant will have to speak, mitch mcconnell will make the final decision. he has the votes in the majority. >> murray said that the republican talking points have morphed, so if the democrats. you have nancy pelosi saying that if there is a trial with no

witnesses, it is actually not legitimate if he is acquitted. >> i want this case to the jury today. do what you have to do, get it to the jury. spilling we will flip a coin in a moment for that. we will take a quick break, back in miami after this. saturdays happen. pain happens. aleve it. aleve is proven stronger and longer on pain than tylenol. when pain happens, aleve it. all day strong. ♪ oh, oh, (announcer)®! ♪ once-weekly ozempic® is helping many people with type 2 diabetes like james lower their blood sugar. a majority of adults who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. here's your a1c. oh!

my a1c is under 7! (announcer) and you may lose weight. adults who took ozempic® lost on average up to 12 pounds. i lost almost 12 pounds! oh! (announcer) ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. there's no increased risk. oh! and i only have to take it once a week. oh! ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation.

some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. once-weekly ozempic® is helping me reach my blood sugar goal. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®.

>> bill: almost 3:30 in miami, welcome back. the senate trial is in a break right now. they said it would be 15 minutes, and to be honest with you, they have been pretty good on the time throughout the entire ordeal here in washington, but at the moment this is a delay of at least 35 minutes pushing now. so maybe something is doing behind closed doors. we will wait and see with that, back with chris wallace, dana perino, guy lewis in miami, marie harf, she is already in

des moines, iowa. what is our sense here, do we believe about how you can negotiate an ending that is sooner rather than later? how do you go about that? what would come next? >> it reminds me of those times when again, it is pretty much the case that has been resolved and one way or another, but the proceedings are still going on and the judge says, why don't you take a short break, discuss this, and see if we can resolve it, otherwise we will continue to go through the night two, three, four in the morning. that's what mcconnell should do. i bet you a dime to a dollar they are making a deal right n now. >> i think one of the reasons that you have seen this reluctance from either side to throw in the towel, especially democrats when they realize that they were not going to be successful on witnesses is at the polls have just remained very steady. president defenders stay on one side. the democrats down the other

side, and nothing moves. so they have not seen something like with the government shutdown where the democrats started to take it on the chin, they realize we have to figure out a way to solve this. the president basically won that one. it's one of the reasons it is hard to get to a conclusion as the democrats have a lot riding on it, and they have not seen that there is going to be a big price to pay if they keep it going. >> bill: interesting point. at what point you become convinced that you are paying a price politically? >> as i was suggesting, i think that if the president comes down the aisle in the house chamber on tuesday, i know that there is probably some hard-core democrats that are going to think, oh, boy, we will say the impeached president delivered the state of the union. a lot of people say, why, you know the result, why not allow us all as a country to move on? i also, this is something that has to factor that mitch mcconnell said, i don't know that time as a friend to

the republicans. we have seen in the last week that the steady drip of leaks and a fairly big one today, you can believe it or not believe it, but the idea that now we are suddenly going to go silent is going to be war leaks. and all it does is damage the republican image. >> bill: to all three of you, i don't know if you have stopped to consider this, maybe now is the time to do that. you have a president who will be acquitted on both charges maybe this weekend, perhaps no later than tuesday or wednesday of next week, maybe this subpoena starts flying for john bolton at that point, then you get a legal case that takes you for a year? past the election, let's say for the sake of this conversation president trump wins a second term and continues to dog him in a legal sense, perhaps a political sense as well, would democrats come back and take a second bite at the bolton apple? >> boy, oh, boy, bill, i think that would be foolish in

re-prosecuting, rehashing, coming back and saying, you know what, we could have done it in the house. we could have subpoenaed him, but we did not. we argued that we wanted to call him in the senate, they declined to let us do that, but third time is a charm, let's try it again. i just don't, i don't know, it just does not fit right. >> i think that kenny rogers song, you have to know when to fold them. >> bill: you are a one-trick pony. >> i think it has been litigated, and there may be something else that comes up, but on the issue of john bolton and what he is charged with in regards to ukraine has died. >> bill: if you are right and you are right, this is it. >> it will be it at some point, and then you will see that he is going to try to cheat in the election coming from the democrats, the republicans will say they tried to steal an election from the president, and they will do it again unless you make sure that the republicans stay in the majority of the senate. that will be the election mantra

if it is based on this issue. >> bill: when you look at the crowds into one last night, when he think about what is coming up in manchester, new hampshire, another rally there. you mention the polling has not really move throughout the entire process. i mean, what is your sense of the strength that he has through this process? there is a piece on politico that came out suggesting that there was abu yancey of people in des moines, iowa, last night, if you give it a fair shake, people that might have been on the fence before have now bought into the policies that he has sold for the past three years. >> and he delivered, let's say that judges were your big issue. maybe it was jobs, he could talk about that, maybe it was figuring out a way to end foreign wars, but figuring out a way to deal with that in a way that he thought would be more responsible, i think the president has a record to run on.

there's a reason impeachments have been done in election years, this is all new. we have people saying, should we just fight this out at the ballot box? you hear voters, yeah, let's just do it there. they could've sent her the president, they could've had a bipartisan agreement from a few republicans. basically a slap on the wrist, please don't do that anymore, we are taking notice, they did not want to do that, they went for impeachment and they lost. >> bill: will they regret that? >> i'm sure there will be lots of regrets in second-guessing and a lot of reporting, we were talking about this earlier, ted talk stories in the sunday papers and talk shows what they should have done, could've done, i think that nancy pelosi felt in september that this move so far, as dangerous as it was to impeach, it would be more dangerous in terms of losing her base if she did not impeach. as far as the impact on the 2020 election, this is a 50/50 nation. there are millions of americans

that think donald trump is doing a terrific job, and millions i want to have a change. >> bill: quick break here, in the fruit he forced -- 41st minute of the 15 minute timeout. we will be back. 90% clearer skin at 4 months after just 2 doses. skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ask your dermatologist about skyrizi.

♪ nothing is everything 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. ♪

>> bill: we have about 23 minutes before the business closed on wall street. the dow is down 650 points, well over 2%. concerns about the coronavirus and a lot of investors do not want to hold on to this going into the weekend. at the same time in the brief room of the white house helping you in the service of the secretary, alex azar will be in the room to break down what the white house is doing. there could be another plane that flies into china, we will standby from the news on the white house on that. also happening in capitol hill, we are on a break that was supposed to be 15 minutes and has extended about 45 minutes for now. chad pergram joining the coverage from the hill, the only

reason this could be significant for the senate, they were running like a clock this past week. when they said they would do something, it happened at a particular time. the question now is, why the delay? we can theorize and gas, and maybe there is some negotiation about how much longer this goes, what are you hearing, chad? >> yogi berra used to say that you could see a lot by watching. and by watching what is not happening, the fact that they are not in session and the senate trial probably tells you that there is something going on offstage. what i was told a few minutes ago by a senior republican source is that they want to lock in some sort of agreement tonight. they are not going to finish the trial, there will not be an up or down vote on each article of impeachment, but lock in an agreement over the next few days respectively maybe next wednesday after stated the union to finishing impeachment trial. what does that entail? they would lock in an agreement with dedicating a certain amount of time with the impeachment managers in the defense to

present the closing arguments, also a certain amount of time for motions to be made by the democrats and other things, those would be defeated. and lock in an amount of time for senators to speak on the senate floor. the point was made earlier that mitch mcconnell, the majority leader has 51 votes and he can do a lot. but once they get passed to that vote tonight where they are not going to agree to have witnesses, we know how that is going to go. if you go back to the framework resolution that the senator last week set up the parameters for the trial, it is pretty silent on what happens next. that's why the senate democratic leader chuck schumer has a lot of latitude here to really gum up the works. if you are going to gum up the works, guess what, mitch mcconnell is first come to the table and try to set up some sort of agreement, and that might be why we are in a lengthy recess right now. again, the other issue that is important, i was told as you know that we have the state of the union speech next tuesday, it is going to be a logistical

nightmare at the capital to try to continue with the impeachment trial as they have stated the union. there are major security precautions that they put in a place here. i saw in the basement of the capital this morning and also some of the advance team in the secret service going through the house chamber and getting ready for next tuesday, so they can't have these two major events happening at once. so they might need to take a pause and work out an agreement if he can get through some of that tonight or some of it late tomorrow and put off that vote next wednesday? some of that is politics not having the up or down vote on the final verdict for the president before the state of the union. at the democrats would like that. but it frankly comes down to logistics and also comes down to the idea that the senate is known as the world's greatest deliberate body. the idea that you want all senators to have their say whatever say that is, the senate is a body of equals, they are

going to have to have an agreement where they do this all the time. it is called unanimous consent agreement, a uc. that means you get all 100 senators to agree to something. that's what they have to forge. and i've seen in the past second, the senate trial has come back into session, bill. >> bill: chad, thank you, live on the hill. dana perino, chris wallace, guy, thank you. marie harf in iowa, we will get back there in a moment. in fact, there is some big news with regard to how the dnc debate rules could be changing. we will update you on that as we go forward, but in the meantime, two more hours of deliberations now back inside the senate chamber. >> throughout all the proceedings here again and again that you cannot have a trial without witnesses and documents, as if it is that simple. if you have a trial, there has

to be new witnesses and documents, but it is not that simple. that is really something that is a trope that is being used to disguise the real issues. the real decisions that you would be making on this decision about witnesses. because there is a lot more at stake there. and let me unpack that and explain what is really at stake. the first is the idea that if you come to trial you always have to go to witnesses and have new witnesses come in. but that is not true. in every legal system and in our legal system, there is a way to decide right up front in some quick way whether there is really a triable issue, whether you need to go to all the trouble of calling a new witnesses and having more evidence in something like that? and there is not here. there is no need for that. because the articles of impeachment on their face are

defective. and we have explained that, let me explain with the second article. we have explained that that charge is really trying to say that it is an impeachable offense for the president to defend the separation of powers. that can't be right. it is also the case that no witnesses are going to say anything that makes any difference to the second article of impeachment. that all has to do with the validity of the grounds the president has asserted, the fact that he asserted constitutions of the executive branch in specific ways to reverse specific decisions in the subpoenas issued. no fact witnesses going to come into anything that relates in any way to that. it will not make any difference. and on the first article of impeachment, that too is defective on its face. and we heard it again today here that the way they have the subject theory of impeachment,

showing abuse of power by focusing on the president's subjective motives, and they said again today here that the way they can show the president did something wrong is that he defied the foreign policy of the united states. and i talked about that before, the theory that he defied the agencies within the executive branch. he was not following the policy of the executive branch. that is not a constitutionally coherent statement. to the theory of abuse of power that they framed in the first article of impeachment would do grave damage to the separation of powers under our constitution. because it would become so malleable that they can pour into it anything they want to find illicit motives for some perfectly permissible action. it becomes so malleable it is no different then maladministration, the exact

grounds that the framers were rejected during the constitutional convention. the constitution defines specific offenses. it limits and constrains the impeachment power. there is also the fact that we actually heard from a lot of witnesses. we heard from a lot of witnesses in the proceeding so far. you heard 192 video clips by our count from 13 different witnesses. there were 17 witnesses deposed in closed hearings in the house. and 12 of them testified again in open hearings. you have all of those transcripts. you can see the witness' testimony there. the key portions have been played for you on the screen, and you have over 20,000 pages of documents and transcripts. you have a lot of evidence already. but there is another principle that they overlook when they say, well, you're going to have a trial, there has to be

witnesses. as if the most ordinary thing is you get to trial and then start subpoenaing new witnesses and documents. that is not true either. and we pointed this out, in the regular courts, the way that things work is you have to do a lot of work preparing a trial called discovery to find out about witnesses and depose them and find out about documents before you get to trial. you can't show up to the day of trial and say, actually, we are not ready. we did not subpoena john bolton. and now we want to subpoena that witness and do discovery, why does that matter here? because here to show up not having done the work and to expect that work to be done in the senate by this body has grave consequences for the institutional interest of this

body, and it sets a precedent for two bodies, for the senate and to the house. because what the senate accepts as an impeachment coming from the house determines not just precedent for the senate, but precedent for the house in the future. if the procedures used in the house to bring this proceeding here to this stage are accepted, if the senate says, yes, we will start calling new witnesses, because you did not get the job done, and whatever process you used to get it here, that becomes the new normal. that is important in a couple of ways. one is we pointed out the totally unprecedented process that was used in the house, that violated all notions of due process. there are precedents going back 150 years in the house ensuring that someone accused in an impeachment hearing in the house

has due process rights to be represented by counsel to cross-examine, to present evidence. they did not allow the president to do that here. if this body says that's okay, then that becomes the new normal. and they stand up here, the house managers and say, this body would be unfair if this body does not call to witnesses. they talk about fairness, where was the fairness in that proceeding in the house? manager schiff says, things will be arbitrary if you don't do what they say and call the witnesses they want. isn't it arbitrary in the house when they would not allow the president to be represented by counsel? they would not allow the president to call witnesses? there was no precedent in a presidential impeachment inquiry to have open hearings where the president and his counsel were excluded. it also would set a precedent to

allow a package of proceeding from the house to come here that the house managers say, now, we need new witnesses. we have not done the work. and it is witnesses that they did not even try to get. they did not subpoena john bolton. and they did not go through the process when other witnesses were subpoenaed and dr. dr. kupperman went to court. they withdrew the subpoena. but now this body has to do all that work, that sets a new precedent as well, and it would change for all the future. it would change the relationship between the senate and the house and impeachment inquiries. it would mean that the senate has to become the investigatory body. and the principles that they assert, they did a process that was not fair. they did a process that was

arbitrary, that arbitrarily denied the president's rights. they did a process that would not allow him. and then they came here on the first night, remember, when we were all here until 2:00, and in very belligerent terms said to the members of this body, you are on trial. it will be treachery if you do not do what the house manager say. that's not right. when it was their errors, when they were arbitrary and did not provide witness, they cannot project that on this body to try to say that you have to make up for their errors, and if you don't, the fault lies here. now, they also suggest that it is not going to take a long time, that they only want a few

witnesses, but of course, if things are open up to witnesses, and it will be fair, it is not just one side. it is not just the witnesses that they will want to. the president would have to be permitted to have witnesses. and with all respect, mr. chief justice, the idea that if a subpoena is sent to a senior adviser to the president and the president determines that he will stand by the principle of immunity that has been asserted by virtually every president since nixon that that will just be resolved by the senate right here, whether or not that privilege exists by the chief justice sitting as presiding officer, that does not make sense. that is not the way it works. the senate, even when the chief justice is the presiding officer here cannot unilaterally decide the privileges of the executive branch.

that dispute would have to be resolved in another way. and it could involve litigation. and it could take a lot of time. so the idea that this will all be done quickly if everyone just does what the house manager say is not realistic. it is not the way that the process would actually have to play out in accord with the constitution. and that has another significancsignificantconsequen. again, affecting this institution as a precedent going forward. because what it suggests, the new normal that would be created then is an expressed path for precisely this sort of impeachment's that the framers' most feared. the framers recognized that impeachments could be done for a legitimate reasons. they recognized that there be

partisan impeachments, and if this is the new normal, this is the very epitome of a partisan impeachment. there was bipartisan opposition to it in the house, and it was rushed through with unfair procedures, 78 days total of inquiry. think about that. in nixon they had had investigating committees and there was a prosecutor long before the house judiciary committee started its investigation. in clinton, there was a special counsel, an independent counsel for the better part of a year before the house judiciary committee even started hearings. everything from start to finish in this case from september 24th to the articles of impeachment were considered in the judiciary committee was done in 78 days. in 78 days, and for 71 of them, the president was entirely

locked out. so the new normal would be slapdash, get it done quickly, unfair procedures in the house to impeach a president, then bring it to the senate and then all the real work of investigation and discovery is going to take place, with that impeachment hanging over the president's head and that is a particular thing and that the framers were also concerned about. i mentioned this the other day. and in federalist number 65, hamilton warned specifically about what he called, and i am quoting "the injury to the innocent from the procrastinated determination of the charges which might be brought against him." because he understood that if an impeachment charge from the house was not resolved quickly, if it was hanging over the president's head, that in itself

would be a problem. and that is why they structured the impeachment process so that the senate could be able to swiftly determine impeachments that were brought. that also is suggested. that's why there is a system for having thorough investigation, thorough process done in the house. and hamilton explained that delay after the impeachment would afford an opportunity for intrigue and corruption, and it would also be, as he put it, a detriment to the state from the prolonged inaction of men whose firm and faithful execution of their duty might have expose them to the persecution of and intemperance majority in the house of representatives. and that is what has happened here. and if you create a system now that makes the new normal a half-baked slap issue in the house, to get the impeachment

done and get it over to the senate and then once the president is impeached and you have the head of the executive branch, the leader of the free world having something like that hang over his head, then that will slow everything down. and then we will start doing the investigation and drag it out. that's all part of what makes this even more political. especially in an election year. it is not the process that the framers had in mind. and it is not something that sanction could have done in this case. the senate is not here to do the investigatory work that the house did not do. where there has been a process that denied all due process, that produced a record that cannot be relied upon. the reaction from this body should be to reject the articles of impeachment, not to condone

and put -- on the way their proceedings are done in the house. not to prolong matters further by trying to redo work that the house failed to do by not seeking evidence and not doing a fair and legitimate process to bring the articles of impeachment here. thank you. >> chief justice, members of the senate, over a seven-day period, we did hear evidence. you heard evidence from 13 different witnesses, 192 video clips, and as my colleague at the deputy white house counsel said over 28,000 pages of documents. you heard testimony from gordon sondland, he is the united states ambassador to the european union. you heard that testimony. testified in the house

proceedings. i did not have an opportunity to cross-examine him. if we get witnesses, i have to have that opportunity. william taylor, former acting ambassador to ukraine testified, you heard his testimony, we did not get the opportunity to cross-examine him, he will be called, tim morrison, the former senior director for europe and russia on the national security council. you saw his testimony. they put it up. we did not get an opportunity. we did not have an opportunity to cross-examine him. jennifer williams, special adviser in europe and adviser for mike pence. you saw her testimony. they put it up. i did not have the opportunity to cross-examine her. if we call witnesses, we would have to have that opportunity. david home, political counsel to the united states in ukraine, saw testimony from him, we were not able to cross-examine.

if he is called, or if we get witnesses, we will call the ambassador, and we will cross-examine. lieutenant colonel alexander vindman. you saw his testimony, appeared before the house. we did not have the opportunity to cross-examine him. if we call witnesses, we will of course have that right toe cross-examine him. fiona hill, she is the former senior director for europe and russia on the national security council. she testified before the house. if we have witnesses, we have the opportunity to call her and cross-examine fiona hill. kurt volker, special representative for ukraine negotiations. they called him. we did not have the opportunity to cross-examine. if we are calling witnesses, these are witnesses you have heard from, we would have the right to call witnesses and cross-examine mr. kurt volker.

george kent, the assistant deputy terry of state for european affairs. you saw his testimony. they called him, if we have witnesses, we have the right to call that witness and cross-examine deputy assistant. >> all right, everybody, i am neil cavuto, you are watching "your world," iowa caucus 48 hours from now, briefly interrupting the hearing to alert you to a major settlement, now better than 610 points getting worried right now that the coronavirus situation is going from bad to worse, the trump administration has just across the board of travel restrictions and mandatory core and teased over the corona virus outbreak. american denying delta, have held back flights to and from the region, concerns of the slow down ripping much of asia that has