senator blumenthal joins us next. senator blumenthal joins u next make nature's bounty hair skin and nails step one. it's the number one brand uniquely formulated for silky hair, glowing skin and healthy nails. nature's bounty, because you're better off healthy. tracfone lets you keep your leftover data each month. unlimited carryover data! $20 bucks. what are you doing? i want to ask you about your data. oh, i thought you said dating. this is your wake-up call, people. the new tracfone wireless. now you're in control. >>> we democrats aim to get the truth. and make no mistake about it, we will force votes on witnesses and documents. and it will be up to four republicans to side with the constitution, to side with our democracy, to side with rule of law and not side in blind obeisance to president trump and his desire to suppress the truth because in my judgment he probably thinks he's guilty. >> donald trump's lawyers will be doing everything they can to convince those four republican senators to block witnesses in t

senators are political creatures as i was saying to senator blumenthal. that's how you become and stay a senator. >> sure. >> there are also now essentially impartial jurors. but there's always been a tension with those two. the two other impeachment trials in this country, they both featured that tension. there's no way out of that tension. how do you think about how lawmakers should be thinking about their role? >> well, they should be thinking of it as justice roberts asked them to, as impartial jurors. chris, i would say that several of the republican senators have demonstrated themselves to be unqualified to take that oath, but they did so any way. we are seeing a coordinated effort by republicans under mitch mcconnell and frankly under kevin mccarthy in the house, to defeat truth. to hide facts. and it has a certain chilling effect on american's faith in their very own government at a time of a constitutional crisis. and so when you see senators suggest that they are taking that oath and that it was a solemn moment, we know through their actions tha

i'm here with senator richard blumenthal of connecticut. it was a pretty skroord scene. what was it like to be in the room? >> i have to tell you, chris, that moment hit me like a rock, when i took the oath, signed the book, saul all my colleagues raise their right hand and the they've justice presiding over an impeachment trial. what it reminded me, and i hope it reminded my colleagues as well, we have an obligation to put country ahead of party. and to listen to the evidence. as much as i think it's overwhelmingly in favor of impeachment, i want those witnesses and documents that the president has blocked, so the american people get the full truth. >> are you willing yourself to be impartial? one of the things that's interesting is senators are political creatures, if you don't mind my saying. you have this strange status. you're ostensibly a juror, but it's still a political process, you're still a political creatu. what is your own mental state? what are you trying to do for yourself to try to force yourself to be open and neutral here? >> let me try to put it as blu

just today, dianne feinstein, joe manchin, chris coons, even the far left richard blumenthal are now all questioning the speakers decision-making. >> but it seems just like yesterday, doesn't it, that the queen could do no wrong? >> the american people happen to be on the side of speaker pelosi, that's the great leverage that she has here. >> nancy pelosi has been a light worker in dark times. >> i do think she has had a lit just brilliantly. >> she has been pitch-perfect. and this is her flock, these democrats. >> how she is leaving us in the impeachment inquiry is a perfect example of what a great leader she is. >> her whole career is leading to these two weeks, that puts her soundly in history books. >> laura: history books? may be the history of failure, mr. -- meanwhile americans are seen through the bogus investigations, and you've got to check these out. they have trumpet beating most of his rivals, even in virginia.

when it comes to blumenthal and senate democrats and house democrats it is now surprised they oppose donald trump, they oppose donald trump and everything and when it comes to taking out soleimani, the worst terrorist on the face of the planet and taking him out was a major victory for keeping america safe and yet senate democrats, house democrats are not interested in the facts, not even willing to admit he was a terrorist because trump derangement trumps everything else. likely is a dear friend and i think mike was frustrated because the administration, what level of congressional authorization and congressional consultation was necessary, the administration was too quick to dismiss the role of congress. i believe in the constitution. under the constitution, congress can declare war. when you look at long-term sustained military engagement you need congressional authorization, the administration was pretty dismissive of that but taking out soleimani america is safer as a result of this and blumenthal's take on it was ridiculous because i heard the same briefing. we heard from the c

blumenthal may not agree on things, but you and mr. lee are pretty tight, and he wasn't impressed. >> well, sure, and i think you're looking at two very different things. when it comes to blumenthal and the senate democrats -- and the house democrats -- look, it's no surprise they are opposed to president trump. they are opposed to president trump on everything. when it comes to taking out soleimani, soleimani was the worst terrorist on the face of the planet. and taking him out was a major viory for keeping america safe. and yet, senate democrats, house democrats, they are not interested in the facts. not interested -- not even willing to admit he was a terrorist, because there trumped arrangement trumps everything else. when it comes to mike lee, he is a dear, dear friend, i think mike was frustrated because the administration, particularly when asked questions about what level of congressional authorization and congressional consultation was necessary, i think the administration was a little too quick to dismiss the role of congress

senator blumenthal joins us next. r blumenthal joins us next and once we did that, we realized his greatest adventure is just beginning. (vo) welcome to the most adventurous outback ever. the all-new subaru outback. go where love takes you. it's an honor to tell you that [ applause ] thank you. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. i love you! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ [sneezing] ♪ you don't want to cancel your plans. [sneezing] cancel your cold. the 1-pill power of advil multi-symptom cold & flu knocks out your worst symptoms. cancel your cold, not your plans. advil multi-symptom cold & flu. as parents of six, this network is one less thing i have to worry about. (vo) why the aceves family chose verizon. we all use our phones very differently. these two are always gaming and this one is always on facetime. and my oldest is learning to be a pilot. we need a reliable network because i need to know he's safe. as soon as he lands, he know

. >> senator richard blumenthal joins us during this five-minute break. we appreciate you joining us. senator, the revised rules from mcconnell giving three days to each side for opening arguments rather than two days, is that a fair move in your opinion? >> i'm not hearing anything. >> senator blumenthal, it's anderson, can you hear me? we will try to get connection with that. continue back with the panel. >> we were talking about these arguments that you're making and whether or not you think the white house attorneys have been effective but they don't have to bring a lot of people to their side, all they have to do is hold this wall of support. that's what makes it so interesting when it comes to witnesses. right now they're not sure they'll be able to hold the support. >> senator blumenthal, can you hear me? >> yes. >> what's it like sitting in that room? how do you think it's going right now? >> i am continuing to be really aweed by the sense of history and purpose here. and the real historic task we have ahead of us to uncover the truth, presented t

blumenthal said, trying to decide whether or not donald j. trump has engaged in impeachable offenses, we need to know everything we can, and the more time has passed, despite his obstruction -- that's the key, right? >> yeah. >> despite his destruction, we have only seen reinforcement of what we relied upon as evidence. to we had enough evidence, we should see more, because maybe there is, but if there was something exonerating, wouldn't we have heard it by now? >> so the better question is not just whether the senators feel the question. the question is whether the public will put pressure on the senators, and there's a whole other story out there that is not being told. >> can i ask you what you make of the new evidence? >> which? the tests from lev parnas -- it's hard for me to figure out what he's doing. he has a tremendous amount of legal exposure, who is currently under indictment. the members in congress can't cut him a deal. do you know what he's doing? >> no, i have no idea what he's doing. although he wants to cooperate, the way you

blumenthal, mr. blunt, mr. booker. mr. boozman, mr. braun, mr. brown, mr. burr. ms. cantwell, mrs. l, mr. cardin, mr. carper -- mrs. mr.to, mr. cardin, carper. mr. casey, mr. cassidy, ms. collins, mr. coons. mr. cornyn, ms. cortez masto, mr. cotton, mr. cramer. mr. crapo, mr. cruz, mr. daines, ms. duckworth. mr. durbin, mr. enzi, ms. ernst, mrs. feinstein. mrs. fischer, mr. gardner, mrs. gillibrand, mr. graham. mr. grassley, ms. harris, ms. hassan, mr. hawley. mr. heinrich, ms. hirono, mr. hoeven, mrs. hyde-smith. mr. inhofe, mr. johnson, mr. jones, mr. kaine. mr. kennedy, mr. king, ms. klobuchar, mr. lankford. mr. leahy, mr. lee, mrs. loeffler, mr. manchin. mr. markey, mr. mcconnell, ms. mr. markey, mr. mcconnell, ms. mcsally, mr. menendez. mr. merkley, mr. moran, ms. murkowski, mr. murphy. ms. murray, mr. paul, mr. perdue, mr. peters. mr. portman, mr. reed, mr. risch, mr. roberts. mr. romney, ms. rosen, mr. rounds, mr. rubio. mr. sanders, mr. sasse, mr. schatz, mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida, mr. scott of south carolina, mrs. shaheen, mr. shelby. ms. sinema, ms. smith, ms. sta

blumenthal of connecticut. schumer sa minority leader schumer said there may not be witnesses. do you think he's right? >> still an uphill battle to get witnesses. i feel those kinds of questions we saw today from the moderates, when was the hold put on this aid? when was interest first expressed about biden? couldn't be answered because we don't have witnesses who could testify to it or documents, black and white, and the documents don't lie. the american people deserve to see. that's the kind of evidence that is basic to any trial. and i think any moderate, really any juror would demand that kind of evidence and very strikingly those two questions were only a couple of the questions that couldn't really be adequately answered based on this record because of the defiance, the blanket blocking of those documents, not just now, but repeatedly in the past in the course of this investigation. and my republican colleagues can't complain about not seeing anything if they put blinders on and history will haunt them. >> they used their question and answer time to ask questions of thei

senators chris murphy, richard blumenthal, joe manchin and dianne feinstein of california have come outfavor of moving the impeachment process forward. feinstein told politico, the longer it goes on, the less urgent it becomes. if it is serious and urgent, send them over. if it isn't, don't send them over. three of the four lawmakers have since taken a step back today from those comments. >>> joining me, msnbc correspondent garrett hague and kimberly atkins. garrett, what exactly -- i know nancy pelosi says she's been asked this over and over again and she's going to continue to be asked it over and over again until there is an answer beyond soon. what are you hearing for -- from behind the scenes about what she is actually waiting for? >> this is a tricky one. pelosi tends to keep very close counsel on these kinds of things and on this particular case, perhaps the closest counsel. there doesn't seem to be anyone in the capital beyond pelosi and her inner most circle who knows what she plans. and that press conference today, she talked again about the idea of knowing what the arena woul

blumenthal, mr. blunt, booker, mr. bozeman, mr. braun, mr. brown, mr. burr, ms. cantwell, ms. miss capital, mr. carper, mr. casey, mr. cassidy, his colons, mr. kunz, mr. cornyn, ms. miss mr. cotton, mr. kramer, mr. crapo, mr. cruz, mr. gaines, ms. duckworth, mr. durbin, mr. lindsay, mr. ernst, mrs. feinstein, mrs. fisher, mr, mr. graham, mr. grassley, ms. harris, ms. townsend, carefully, mr. heinrich, mrs. corona, mr. bowen, mrs. kleinsmith, mr. inhofe, mr, mr. kane, mr. kennedy, mr. kingr langford, mr. lakey, delete, mrs. loeffler, mr. mansion, mr. markey, mr. mcconnell, mystic sally, mr. menendez, mr. merkley, mr. moran, ms. makowski, mr. murphy, mrs. murray, mr. paul, mr. perdue, mr. peters, mr. portman, mr. reid, mr. risch, mr. roberts, mr. romney, is frozen, mr. brown's, mr. rubio, mr. sanders, mr. south, mr. shots, mr. schumer, mr. scott of florida, mr. scott of south carolina, mrs. jean, mr. shelby, ms. cinema, ms. smith, ms. carbonell, mr. sullivan, mr. tester, mr. kuhn, mr. tillis, mr. toomey, mr. udall, mr. ben homans, warner, ms. moran, mr. whitehouse, mr. wicker, m

we also have senater richard blumenthal saying that this virus is far from undercontrol.reporters briefing from health officials. in,lso had some notes saying that the market is underestimating what could come from this coronavirus. the s&p at say, session lows. we are still in the green when it comes to the european space. this is how european markets are faring now. the ftse 100 is still up by over 1%. the dax hitting a fresh record high earlier in the session, now fading that rally. this is with some fairly negative earnings use from ericsson, and in the drink space as well with remi. this is bloomberg. ♪ guy: 30 seconds until the end of regular trading this friday in europe. pretty positive session from 30,000 feet. the dax trading strongly to the upside. london not having a strong session despite weakness in the united states, where we are trading at session lows. this is how the session has developed, pushing higher, fading this afternoon. not a passive move to the downside, still up .8%. the stoxx 600 is down .2%. nevertheless, a positive session in europe. individ

we need to do it. >> senator blumenthal, appreciate it. thank you very. >> thank you. >> we mentioned leon panetta at the top, cia director and few people bring the perspective he brings in moments like this. i spoke to him just before air time. secretary panetta, what's your reaction to the killing of qasem soleimani? >> i think it's important not to mourn the death of general soleimani because he was a bad actor and somebody who was involved in killing thousands of innocent people, as well as u.s. military personnel. but i think the principle question is whether or not the killing of soleimani has increased or lessened the chances of war. and i think frankly they've increased the chances of war and the chances that iran will now respond with a -- what it calls a crushing response. >> in terms of a response, you're not talking about a ground war the likes of which we saw in iraq with u.s. forces. you're talking about more asymmetrical strikes by iran in a variety of places potentially? >> look, i think we're now in a cycle of punch and co

laura, senator blumenthal responding to what he saw over the past few hours. it's been focused on the abuse of power article today but giuliani's role specifically. how did the house managers do. >> schiff began by talking about rudy giuliani does not lead the president by the nose. it's not to say the president of the united states cannot be held accountable. they used it as a strategic reason to say he had to have somebody outside of the white house acting as a minion who was the actual conduit of being able to carry out the abuse of power. certainly it wasn't the president of the united states making every decision and every phone call and leading the horses to water making them drink. somebody had to go out and do it at the direction of the president of the united states and that person is rudy giuliani. the fixation on him is not so much about trying to deflect away from the blame of the president but about showing how this person under the direction of the president trump acted in the interest of actually abusing that power. that's what they're focusing

blumenthal asserted executive privilege. the court ruled against blumenthal. they've done a rail road job in the house and they're trying to fix it in the senate and i'm not going to be part of that. >>> chris: let me ask you about this question of executive privilege.you're quite right. president said if the senate tries to call chief of staff mulvaney or former national security adviser john bolton, that he will assert executive privilege. you've indicated you'll support him. take a look. >> i'm not going to defy executive privilege. the president said he would invoke executive privilege. i hope no republican will enjoy executive privilege. >> reporter: in the 1974 case of the united states v. nixon during the height of watergate, the supreme court ruled on the nixon tapes. here was the key quote from the court. the generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial. so, isn't the precedent, the legal precedent about executive privilege, is it must yield for the need of evidence? there's e

reaction from senate armed services committee senator richard blumenthal. correspondents and analysts are also standing by. first, let's go to our congressional correspondent, phil mattingly. walk us through what happens if pelosi sends impeachment articles next week. how soon could the actual trial begin? >> reporter: wolf, things will kick into gear quickly. the expectation by mid week the house will vote to appoint managers and transmit the articles of impeachment to the senate, something we have been waiting for over three weeks at this point in time. once that happens, it will be a short while before the managers physically walk down the hallway over to the senate chamber, present articles to the united states senate. by 1:00 p.m. the next day, the trial based on rules and precedents has to actually begin. it will move quickly once articles reach the united states senate. at the start of the trial, wolf, you'll hear swearing in of the senators, chief justice. the expectation now is the actual meat of the trial will probably start a few days after that.

joining us to talk about the impeachment trial and his role, richard blumenthal. he's a member of the judiciary committee. senator, thanks for joining us. what is the president's newly selected defense team tell you about his legal strategy? >> it could tell minute who's paying attention a number of facts about his strategy. first, they were celebrity lawyers, well known to his base, perhaps designed to appeal to the base both within the senate and more probably creatively outside, and then may say something about what he thinking is the strength of his case. he needs big personalities and well-known celebrities, because he sees some weaknesses in the facts and the law. some of those lawyers, by the way, interestingly, are mentioned in the documents that have just been revealed and others involving some of the scheme that may be in evidence. but most important, wolf, for me and i hope for my colleagues in the senate, is paying attention to the facts and the law, not the personalities of the lawyers. the case is so overwhelming here, despite the president's blockin

democratic senator richard blumenthal of connecticut. is the mystery gone at this point?wait to hear from senator murkowski. let's say she votes yes on witnesses. that leaves us at 50/50. if you get there, do you expect the chief justice to decide either way or is this question done? >> the likelihood is slim that the chief justice would break a tie. not unprecedented for a chief justice in an impeachment trial to break a tie. it happened in the andrew johnson case. and i think there's a very powerful argument by the way as a former united states supreme court law clerk and a prosecutor. i think there's a real injustice here that could prompt this chief justice to say i want a fair, full proceeding with witnesses and documents which he knows is essential to a fair trial. but i think the likelihood is that he'll let the tie vote stand, if there is one, and it will go against further proceedings. >> you heard senator lamar alexander, your republican colleague make a really remarkable argument. he said in his words, i'm not paraphrasing here, that the democrats prove their c

the senate is cosponsored by senators schimmel i keep my her and how long, blumenthal and murphy. they also state that i'm very pleased that the house leadership has committed to see the congressman will have a similar bill. in the retail on the 2000 and that both come up for votes. i look forward to working with him. and how legislation passes in the senate. would i look back upon american history, i remember the two most significant foreign policies, our country made. and those will the war in vietnam and the war in iraq. and as speak clear, we will led into both of those wars by a series of lies. the result, the war in vietnam cost us 59000 american deaths. in many others came home wounded in body and spirit. in fact, the whole generation, my generation was devastated by that war. the casualties in vietnam, laos, and cambodia are all of us incalculable they went into the millions of people. in 2002, and 2003, in terms of iraq, we will told over and over again, that hussein had weapons of mass discussion, that it was working with hal qaeda, and that we need it to invade iraq in

the occur ruled against blumenthal.t they're trying to do is railroading this in the house and i will not be a part of that. chris: let me ask you the question about executive privilege, you're quite right, president trump said if the senate tries to call chief of staff mulvaney or national security advisor john bolton he will assert executive privilege. you indicated you will support him, take a look. >> i will not defy executive privilege. the president said he would invoke executive privilege. i hope no republican will destroy executive privilege. chris: but in the 1974 case of the united states v nixon, during the height of watergate the supreme court ruled unanimously on the nixon tapes. here was the key quote from the court. generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial. so isn't the precedent, the legal precedent about executive privilege it must yield to the need for evidence and there is evidence that john bolton, for instance, could giv

joining me now, senator richard blumenthal of connecticut. he's on capitol hill right now, a former prosecutor in his own right. good to see you again. thank you for joining me. i want to show our viewers, earlier in the week there was a photograph, there was a moment in which senator lindsey graham went up to adam schiff, shook his hand and said good job, you're very well spoken. graham himself, like you, a former prosecutor. i guess it made me think when i saw that, are people like senator graham or maybe other senators in the house, are they truly immoveable in any sense, and not just bringing witnesses and documents in, but do you believe that the stirring comments by adam schiff this week and other house managers have any influence on the outcome of this trial? >> first, ali, congratulations and thanks for hosting this first show. i'm honored to be on it. >> thank you, sir. >> second, i do believe that the evidence, the facts that have been presented in such graphic and dramatic ways, the visuals and the recollection of those profoundly

. >> thanks, senator blumenthal. [inaudible question] >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> c-span, your unfiltered view of the government. created by cable in 1979 and brought to you today why your television provider.

and finally the times reports of a new policy being considered by celebrity chef heston blumenthal, att the fat duck. he's become so frustrated by customers letting their food get cold whilst taking snaps for social media, he may ban food photography at his restaurant all together. we can't avoid the world, it would look at the telegraph ‘s got a picture on the front page of the queen and harry. in this article looks in detail about

and finally the times reports of a new policy being considered by celebrity chef heston blumenthal, atis michelin stared restaurant the fat duck. he's become so frustrated by customers letting their food get cold whilst taking snaps for social media, he may ban food photography at his restaurant all together. we can't avoid the world, it would look at the telegraph ‘s got a picture on the front page of the queen and harry. in this article looks in detail about their relationship and how have regrets have a spider. so we are told, this all kinds of briefings and cutter briefings:. it seems he regrets, blindside and the queen and the level of backlash against him, 71% of people in a current bowl said that he was wrong not to tell the queen in advance. however, he had tried to have a meeting with her but he was blocked by courtiers. if i wa nted he was blocked by courtiers. if i wanted to meet my mother on my grandmother, i got now, she is gone, i would call her to see her but he has to go through the court does rack he has to go through courtiers. he had also tried to speak to his father

host: that is senater richard blumenthal, member of the judiciary committee.esterday, the justice department revealed fisa warrants against carter page were declared invalid. what do you think? guest: they should support the call for reform i have made. it reinforces the idea there needs to be a check and balance on adversarial scrutiny as i have urged. i hope my republican colleagues will join me, because they seem to share these misgivings about the potential accuracy of the .rocess in every other court there are two sides. in this court, there is only one. there is no check and balance. this finding by the department of justice should maybe provide some additional momentum for reform. host: do you think it shades the investigation into russia? guest: there was overwhelming evidence to support those .arrants with carter page maybe a couple of warrants were incorrect in some respect. i want to look at what the department of justice found. host: richard blumenthal, one of the senator sitting in hearing during the impeachment process, thank you so much for your

the three people that the prosecutors would like to depose are, in fact, vernon jordan, sydney blumenthalmonica lewinsky. >> they knew it was hail mary time that if you were going to remove the president from office, the only way to do that was just to have a tornado moment, and that tornado moment would've been monica lewinsky sitting there as a live witness. >> hours later, january 27th. >> the senate will convene. >> both motions came to a vote. up first, the motion to dismiss. >> on this vote, the yeas are 44, the nays are 56, the motion is not agreed to. >> the trial would go on. but the vote count sent a powerful message on the state of play. >> senator byrd's motion showed that there was absolutely no way there were 67 votes to convict clinton. >>> but there was some good news for the prosecution, too. witnesses. >> the senate was voted no to dismiss this case and yes to have these three witnesses. >> the sole crossover vote on both measures, the democratic senator from wisconsin, russ feingold. >> i thought if depositions could be taken, that would at least give us some opportunit

senator blumenthal connecticut. >> i do anything that they want to be reelected and nothing wrong with it. not impeachable as long as i'm doing it to be reelected. because that is the definition of public interest. that cannot be the law. i think that what we have seen is the white house taking such an extreme position, far more overreaching than they need to do in the other point i would make is that i think that 75% of the american people that think we need witnesses and documents has probably reason to 80, maybe 85 after this argument today. the idea that we can finish this trial without john bolton as a witness is absolutely preposterous. after they characterize his fax as unsourced manuscripts or leaks or hearsay and they complain about lack of evidence, if they want to have anything like a full fair proceeding we need john bolton and we need mick mulvaney in the idea of what he said was garbled and corrected in anybody listening to the press conference has to know what he was saying because that he said get over. and i really think that this trial has been reduced to an absurdity

joining me now is richard blumenthal. . senator, thank you so much for being with us.o secretary esper says he didn't see any one report that four embassies were targeted. what did you see? >> the administration so far has not produced a shred of information there was an imminent threat. that's important because they justify the use of force in a way that probably or could have does not. and so far the administration has really failed to provide specific evidence of any imminent threat which has angered not only us on this side but members on the republican side as well. >> if the president came out and said i was given intelligence four embassies were being targeted. why does it matter if he says that and the facts don't back it snup. >> well, first of all, these shifting stories reflect a lack after strategy. why now and what's next with respect to the soleimani killing? no one should mourn soleimani, but the lack of strategy is deeply concerns because the president brought us to the brink of war literally and we are probably less safe now than we were before the kil

chief justice, i would ask to send a question to the desk on behalf of myself and senator blumenthal, to the house managers. >> thank you, senator. >> the question from the house managers of senator leahy and senator blumenthal. the president's council claimed "if the president does something he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." he added a hypothetical. that cannot be an impeachable offense." under this view there is no remedy to prevent a president from conditioning foreign security assistance in violation of the control act and the recipient's willingness to do the president a political favor. if the senate fails to reject this theory, what would stop a president from holding disaster aid funding from the u.s. city until that mirror endorses him? what would stop the president from withholding nearly any part of the $4.7 trillion annual federal budget, subject to his personal political benefit? >> mr. chief justice and distinguished members of the senate, i think the senate for that very im

blumenthal, mr. blunt, mr. booker, mr. grossman, mr. braun, mr. brown, mr. burr, ms. cantwell, mrs. kept joe, mr. [roll call] mr. casey, mr. cass mr. kunz. [roll call] shoes. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> any senator who is not in the chamber of the time the oath was administered to the other senators will make that known to the chair so that the oath may be administered as soon as possible. >> the sergeant and arms will make the proclamation. hear ye, hear ye, hear ye, all persons are commanded to keep silent, imprisonment. while house representatives articles of impeachment against donald john trump, president of the united states. . . . 6:00 p.m. on saturday january 18 cut, 2020 to file his answer with the secretary of the senate. which will be spread upon the journal, and the house of representatives until 12 noon on monda

blumenthal. mr. blumenthal no. mr. blunt. mr. blunt aye. mr. booker? mr. booker no. mr. bozeman? no. mr. burr? mr. burr aye. miss cantwell? miss cantwell no. mrs. catito. mrs. capito no. mr. garden no. mr. carper? mr. carper no. mr. casey? mr. casey no. mr. cassidy? mr. cassidy aye. miss collins? miss collins aye. mr. kunze? mr. kunze no. mr. cornyn? mr. cornyn aye. miss cortez masto? miss cortez masto no. mr. cotton? mr. cotton no. mr. cotton aye. mr. cramer? mr. cramer aye. mr. crapo? mr. crapo aye. mr. cruz? mr. cruz aye. mr. daines? mr. daines aye. miss duckworth? miss duckworth no. mr. durbin? mr. durbin no. mr.enszy? mr.enszy aye. miss ernst? miss ernst aye. mrs. feinstein? mrs. feinstein no. mrs. fisher? mrs. fisher aye. mr. gardner? mr. gardner aye. mrs. gillibrand? mrs. gillibrand no. mr. graham? mr. graham aye. mr. grassley? mr. grassley aye. miss harris? miss harris no. miss hassan? miss hassan no. mr. hawley? mr. hawley aye. mr. heinrich? mr. heinrich no. miss hirono? miss hirono no. mr. hoeven? mr. hoeven aye. mrs. hyde-smith? mrs. hyde-smith aye. mr. enhough? mr. en

cheryl: well, that was democratic senator richardially blumenthal, -- richard blumen l blumenthal. impeachment is starting to lose support from fellow democrats. can nancy pelosi keep her party unified? how much longer can she hold onto the articles? let's bring in democratic strategist, david turner and chairman for the committee to defend the president. this is within the democratic party, senator dianne feinstein saying i if you had to get the articles and had to get the vote ofrom the house on impeachment before the new year, where are they. what's your response? >> throughout the process, it's been clear we should as a democrat trust nancy pelosi's judgment here. i think mitch mcconnell has been very clear that he keeps saying he's not willing to call witnesses, even though we had john bolton say he will testify under subpoena, understanding what the rules of the game are before you start playing i think is important. i think nancy pelosi is within her rights to withhold it until mitch mcconnell makes clear how the trial will run in the senate. cheryl: it's clear she's making

and when you hear blumenthal and other saying that she has done their job.ing there is nothing left to get. it is not working and starting to hurt us. >> harris: i cut you off quickly, jason. >> the only thing i would say is that she can still subpoena john bolton. he said that he would comply with a subpoena. so even if the articles go over to the senate, she can still subpoena him in the house and get the information. we are still getting new information about what happened. and i think that that is really important. it's going good to see you both. thank you, gentlemen. >> thanks a lot, happy new year. >> harris: president trump has launched an aggressive reelection pushed starting today. in the crucial swing state of ohio, which he won four years ago. can democrats compete with his bully pulpit and massive $200 million word check? plus we will speak with an aviation expert. a lot of news being made. our own pentagon officials now believing iran by mistake shot down a passenger jet with 176 people on it on the same night that they were firing missiles at

let's ask democrat from connecticut, senator richard blumenthal, senator, always a pleasure. >> thanks for doing this on a saturday evening. >> thank you for doing it on a saturday evening after the week you've had. these are the three basic prongs. this is not impeachable even if the democrats had the proof. they don't have the proof. and they don't have the proof because they did the job too quickly to squeeze it in before the election and now they want us to do their job. how much of that worries you? >> very little of those arguments worry me on their merits. here's why. first of all, you've just put it very well. they're complaining about lack of evidence. it's basically lack of direct evidence about what the president said or ordered. and that's exactly why we need the documents and witnesses. they've made a pretty powerful case. unfortunately for them it is for our contention. we need mick mulvaney who was in the room and said there was a quid pro quo, get over it. we need john bolton who said the president was doing this drug deal and he tried to talk him out of it. we need rob

blumenthal, mr. blunt, mr. booker. mr. bozeman, mr. braun, mr. brown, mr. burr mr. cantwell, missus cap otero, mr. cardin, mr. carper, mr. casey, mr. cassidy, ms. collins, mr. coons mr. cornyn, ms. cortez mastro, mr. cotton, esther kramer mr. crapo, mr. cruz, mr. daines, ms. duckworth mr. durbin, mr. enzi, ernst, missus feinstein missus fisher, mr. gardner, missus gillibrand, mr. graham mr. grassley, ms. harris, mr. holly mr. heinrich, ms. coronel, mr. hoven, missus heidi smith mr. inhofe, mr. johnson, mr. jones, mr. kane mr. kennedy, mr. king, ms. chloe char, mr. langford worcester marquis, mr. mcconnell, ms. mcnally, mr. menendez mr. merkley, mr. moran, ms. makowski, ms. murphy missus murray, mr. paul, mr. perdue, mr. peters mr. portman, mr. reid, mr. risch, mr. roberts mr. romney, ms. rosen, mr. rounds, esther rubio mr. sanders, mr. sass, mr. schultz, mr. schumer mr. scott of florida, mr. scott of south carolina, missus sheena, mr. shelby missus cinema, ms. smith, missus stabenow, mr. sullivan mr. tester, mr. thune, mr. tillis, mr. toomey, mr. udall, mr. mr. van

videotaped deposition of monica lewinsky, bill clinton's very close friend, vernon jordan and sidney blumenthal. it would be something akin to that, and then it's a wheeling and dealing think at this point. i don't think we'll ever get to a point where we see life testimony on the senate floor. that has not happened. i think go back to andrew johnson's trial for something and that's 1858. some modern precedent is generally the witnesses don't show up in the well of the senate. >> host: last process question. you sit tomorrow we begin with preliminary motions. could there be a motion to dismiss? >> guest: everybody has been waiting to see whether or not somebody will try to do that, and the president's team is allowed to offer motions, and emotion that is, often in the trial is a motion to dismiss. eric and you'll lend, the head of the white house legislative affairs was up in the capital yesterday, has been in the capital a lot lately has been expressing the view that the president really wanted to have all of his rights, all of its rights maintained in this resolution. it's maintained. the rea

. >>> joining us now is senator richard blumenthal. thank you very much for being here.you have a busy day ahead. let's start with what was just reported. are you surprised the doj has found two of these fisa warrants against carter page to be invalid. >> not surprised, but obviously very disappointed. not surprised because there was information from the inspector general of the department about those phi is a warrafisa warrany ke indicated the fisa project -- that's the reason i've been calling for reform of the foreign intelligence surveillance court process. to provide more checks and more adversarial scrutiny so these kind of mistakes are prevented in the future. >> and you have been calling for reform of the fisa courts since 2013. we have some statements from you, but when you tweeted on july 21st of 2018, you sounded confident in the fisa court then. i'll read it. carter page fisa documents show convincingly that factual evidence supported the need for the renewals. the fisa court correctly concluded repaiduating false accusations by trump cronies. were you wrong

one of the jurors, richard blumenthal of connecticut. minority leader schumer said at least at this point it seems likely there won't be witnesses. do you think that's right? >> still an uphill battle to get witnesses. i feel those kinds of questions that we saw from the moderates, when was the hold put on? it couldn't be answered because we don't have witnesses who could testify to it or documents. black and white. the documents don't lie, that the american people deserve to see. thatis the evidence basic to any trial and any moderate really, any juror would demand that kind of evidence. and very striking. those were only a couple of the questions that couldn't adequately be answered based on this record because of the defiance. the blanket of those documents. not just now but repeatedly in the past, in the course of this investigation. and my republican colleagues can't complain about not seeing anything. if they put blinders on and history will haunt them. republicans to republicans, democrats to democrats. why not use the time to cha

we will discuss the senate impeachment trial with richard blumenthal. later with the senior staff writer for "the hill." watching c-span's "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern this morning. join the discussion. here's a look at our live coverage friday on the c-span network. c-span, p.m. eastern on president trump addresses the annual march for life rally in washington, d.c. you will be the first u.s. president to speak in person at the event. on c-span to the senate impeachment trial of president trump continues with opening arguments from the house impeachment managers and the president's defense team. coverage of the house debate and vote to limit u.s. military action against iran. california democratic representatives barbara lee and will khanna has -- and to block federal funding from being used to take military action against iran without congressional authorization. live coverage next week on c-span. watch on-demand at c-span.org, listen on the go with the free c-span radio app. 2020 presidential candidate, representative toal c gabbard spok

let's get some insight from democratic senator richard blumenthal. thank you as always, sir.nk you. >> forget about mcconnell not knowing whether or not he has the votes. i don't know what that means. i don't care about it. do you think at this point that if they don't have witnesses, this is going to wind up being something that will haunt the gop? because you know you need them. you have their own cases laid out, senator, the need for witnesses. they just didn't expect bolton to speak up like this. >> they had no idea, presumably, that bolton was going to speak up, at least perhaps mitch mcconnell didn't, but the white houselars may well have. and one of the questions we are going to have the next few days is what did they know and when did they know it, and why apparently did they hide it from the senate? but there's no question in response to your question that they will be haunted by history. they are facing 75% of the american people. and in many of the states that are involved in tough re-election races an even higher percentage that want witnesses and documents and ot

>> i just got off the phone with senator blumenthal of connecticut, a democrat, and he said for many americans, but particularly those who are serving in congress and dealing with this tonight, it's a sleepless night for them, and he is alarmed, among other democrats and sources on the democratic side of mine who say the administration in their view has taken hostile military action in iraq against iran without communicating with congress, without seeing if they needed congressional approval. so the red flag is in the air tonight, and they're going press the administration to come to congress to provide answers about what action was actually taken and what was the intelligence that led to this action being taken, and to do it under oath in testimony in the house potentially. on the republican side, a flurry of statements tonight. more muted but embracing the president's position, not surprising this is a republican party that on every issue almost is in lockstep with president trump, and they say soleimani is someone who they're glad to see killed. a the same time, calling around my

blumenthal. no. mr. booker. aye. mr. bozeman. no. mr. braun. no. mr. brown. aye. mr. byrd. no. ms.. mrs. o. no. mr. cardin. aye. mr. carper. aye. mr. casey. aye. mr. cassidy. no. ms. collins. aye. mr.. aye. mr. cornyn. known. aye. mr. cotton. no. mr. kramer. no. mr.. no. mr. cruz. no. mr. daines. no. mrs. duckworth. aye. mr. durbin. aye. mr. enzi. no. this is feinstein. aye mrs. fisher. no. mr. gardner. no. mrs. kirsten gillibrand. aye. mr. graham. no. mr. grassley. no. ms. harris. aye. mr. hawley. no. mr. heinrich. aye. mr. hoven. no. mr. inhofe. no. mr. johnson. no. mr. jones. aye. mr. kane. aye. mr. kennedy. no. mr. king. aye. miss amy klobuchar. aye. mr. langford. no. mr. lahey. aye. mr. lee. no. mrs. leffler. no. mr. mansion. aye. mr. markey. aye. mr. mcconnell. no. miss mick sally. no. mr. menendez. aye. mr. merkley. no. ms. murkowski. no. mr. murphy. aye. mrs. murray. aye. mr. paul. no. mr. purdue. no. mr. peters. aye. mr. portman. no. mr. reid. aye. mr. rich. no. mr. roberts. no. mr. romney. aye. ms. rosen. aye. >> emily: what you are seeing there is the senate voting on im