i'm here on behalf of the san francisco police officers association to commend joe collins and the staff at voya and our own internal staff for some real issues that emerged from voya regarding required minimum distributions. voya has sent out, in september, a notice to all members who were going to get required minimum distributions that it would be paid in december. we had been led to believe that those were going to be issues and mailed on december 15th. however, that did not happen. they were cut between the 23rd and the 30th of december and mailed out. some of our members received their r. m.d.s after the first of the year. not acceptable, commissioners, not acceptable. fortunately, joe collins and the team here were in constant contact with the back office. 4,005,000 miles from here, as was our internal staff and i believe that no member is going to hit with an r.m.d. penalty, although we came very close. i would request that the committee, first of all congratulate, the people who were responsible for making sure that there were no penalties but secondly, to ask voya that we can't

i'm here on behalf of the san francisco police officers association to commend joe collins and the staff at voya and our own internal staff for some real issues that emerged from voya regarding required minimum distributions. voya has sent out, in september, a notice to all members who were going to get required minimum distributions that it would be paid in december. we had been led to believe that those were going to be issues and mailed on december 15th. however, that did not happen. they were cut between the 23rd and the 30th of december and mailed out. some of our members received their r. m.d.s after the first of the year. not acceptable, commissioners, not acceptable. fortunately, joe collins and the team here were in constant contact with the back office. 4,005,000 miles from here, as was our internal staff and i believe that no member is going to hit with an r.m.d. penalty, although we came very close. i would request that the committee, first of all congratulate, the people who were responsible for making sure that there were no penalties but secondly, to ask voya that we can't

i think doug jones, joe manchin, romney, collins -- collins was smart today, she sees through this stuff. these are smart people. they might not like trump on every issue, but they are smart people. this whole thing should be dismissed. >> doesn't matter if you like trump or not. the constitution matters. this is what alexander hamilton warned us about. one party, just because of animosity, would try to impeach someone from at the meeting the impeachment process. that is what is taking place. i think you have a bipartisan vote of senators to reject this, just as you had a bipartisan vote in the house. >> laura: we challenge these people who want to do this impeachment, do this trial, go home and campaign on this. romney. go home. >> they will be in there six days a week. no phones, no ipads, can't talk to each other, and just listening. i think they listen to adam schiff, they are going to want to -- >> laura: what can we do to get out of this room? it's like a rubber room by the end of the day. you did a great job today come appreciate you coming in. i know you are exhausted, but wait u

joe biden. >> senator susan collins expressing witnesses, lisa murkowski as well. put that off until after the new year. what is mitch mcconnell thinking. >> mcconnell and schumer and pelosi, the leadership of the house and senate have to think about what is in the best interests of their party in order to win as many seats as they can during the presidential election. i know that is very political and we should be talking about the constitution but we know that is what they are thinking about. schumer thinks he has the responsibility of flipping a few seats from republican to democrat on the senate side. republicans think they have a handle to keep the majority but mcconnell has to be thinking in those terms so i think when they all decide among themselves, the president has weighed in, he wants this altered out and joe biden should have said i will not answer a hypothetical. what he did is open this pandora's box. >> dana mentioned the seats republicans have to hold onto, susan collins is one, cory gardner in colorado, they are starting to hear talk constituents,

tennessee,nder in mitt romney, kyrsten sinema, the senator from alaska -- lisa murkowski, susan collins said wd joein from west virginia. those are the ones that may flip back and forth. most have said how they will vote already. add doug jonest to that list. it is not a given that he will vote to convict and remove. i would add senator ted cruz on the right. he has stated he would be willing to consider witnesses if appropriate. david: as a practical matter, when will this be over, ryan? ryan: i would give it a few weeks. it is hard to say, especially if witnesses come forward. ,t hunter biden is on the stage politically, this will go on for a long time. david: al mottur, how does this play for the democrats politically in november? is it going to be a factor in the election? of the reasons speaker pelosi he was reluctant to move in this direction is she was not certain it helps the democrats in the general election. she ultimately moved to this because she felt she had no choice, both on the caucus and the substance of the allegations. i don't believe it will necessarily help or hurt either side

joe biden. republican senators susan collins and mitt romney have said they will vote yes today on witnesses.if lisa murkowski of alaska votes with them, it will result in a 50-50 tie meaning no witnesses will be called unless chief justice john roberts casts a tie-breaking vote, which is seen as high unlikely. if the vote to call witnesses fails, the republican leadership is expected to move quickly to end the trial and vote to acquit the president. hours before he made his announcement, republican senator lamar alexander, along with lisa murkowski, submitted a question during the senate trial asking if bolton's testimony would even matter because trump's legal defense team claims the allegations, even if true, don't rise to the level of an impeachable offense. white house deputy counsel patrick philbin and lead house impeachment manager congressman adam schiff both responded. this is philbin. >> there was no quid pro quo. and there is no evidence to show that. there was not that sort of linkage the house managers have suggggested. but let me answer the question directly, which i understand

joining us now, cnn white house correspondent kaitlan collins, david gregory, and joe lockhart. thank you all for being with us. i want to play a little more from this debate last night and specifically having to do with this tension between bernie sanders and elizabeth warren. because you saw them both take it head on. but then elizabeth warren tried to do something else with it as well. she didn't want to engage fully in the back and forth with sanders over what was said behind closed doors. but she tried to make it an argument about electability. listen. >> look at the men on this stage. collectively they have lost ten elections. the only people on this stage who have won every single election that they've been in are the women. amy and me. >> i have won every race, every place, every time. every single person that i have beaten, my republican opponents, have gotten out of politics for good. >> i don't know why i find that so funny that amy klobuchar said she didn't just one by drove them out of the business. david gregory, the dust has settled. who got the most out of last n

joining us now is kaitlan collins, david gregory and joe lockhart. joe, i know you have been waiting for this moment. impeachment in the senate is beginning. it seems to be after a cooling off period. today the managers -- what are you looking for in terms of what will be announced today by nancy pelosi? >> today is primarily ceremonial. i think who she names as the managers are important. i think she will go smaller than the republicans did. >> adam schiff, jerry nadler? >> i think she will want a diverse group. i look at people like al democratings, hakeem jeffreys. eric swalwell. people on both committees have an advantage, two of the three i just mentioned. i think it will be six or seven. she wants the most effective people as opposed to the whole group coming over. it won't be 12 or 13 angry white men coming over. it will look like the democratic party, which looks like america. the ceremony is important though. you literally are going to have, my guess is adam schiff reading the charges against the president of the united states. that brings i

joe biden. >> dana, we saw today that collins expressed a willingness to have witnesses in the senate trial.the witnesses. what do you see this impeachmen trial hits. how are you handicapping that issue? >> i have put that thinking off until after the new year. because, what i think doesn't necessarily matter. yet to think about what does mitch mcconnell think. mcconnell and schumer and pelosi and mccarthy frankly. the leadership of the house and senate they have to think about what is in the best interest of their party in order to win as many seats is they possibly can in 2020. i know that sounds very political and that we should just be talking about the constitution, et cetera. we know that's what they're thinking about. schumer thinks that he does hav the possibility of slipping if you from republican to democrat on the senate side. republicans think that they have got a handle to be able to keep this majority, but it's a slim one. mcconnell has to be thinking in those terms. so i think they will all decid amongst themselves, the president, he has weighed in. he wants this all aired out

earlier how the president's legal team is signaling they intend to make hunter and joe biden part of their case. kaitlan collinso that. what are you hearing? >> we know they've been watching it closely. you're seeing the president's legal team sit in the room silently. not being able to say anything in response. we're being told they're waiting back, watching to see what it is their argument is going to be because they say they've got this affirmative argument they're going to have but they're also going to need to push back on what the democrats are saying so the question is, essentially, how they're going to do that, whether or not they're going to try to match the democrats with the videos, the sound clips that you've seen them playing from the house portion of this impeachment. and so the legal team has been meeting every day at the white house before they go to capitol hill, essentially a little bit of a prep session and then they go over there and they're listening, waiting to see what they're going to do. right now, anderson, we're told they're only expected to take two days, not three days like the demo

watch the 3 republicans and does not get in the potential that democrats may be wavering, joe manchin, doug collinsnsley: put up collins. sorry about that. brian with doug, doug jones, the senator from alabama. ainsley: lots of different dougs. steve: time for doug collins. what we heard in adam schiff is narrative from the democrats and they are doing it effectively and it's not going to be fair unless they call four witnesses and yesterday the president's team made it very clear because one to have questions was didn't the house, wasn't it their obligation to call witnesses then, couldn't they have called john bolton. brian: 17. steve: they went ahead and with drew the subpoena for john bolton and use the argument it's an obstruction of congress and that became one of the articles because otherwise had they gone to the courts they would have said executive privilege. , sorry. ainsley: that's what's so interesting about this, the house had an opportunity to vote for impeachment. it goes to the senate, the trial that we are seeing, the senators are the jury. exactly. they should have done in the ho

in maine, you have longtime incumbent susan collins who is iconic in the state. she is like joe manchin in west virginia. the state has changed but that person is so well regarded as someone who delivers for the state, viewed as an independent. in a strong incumbent tough state. colorado, also a tough state. also atough as main, but tough state. another incumbent who is incredibly strong, though not as well-known, cory gardner. great campaigner, good legislative record against a well known incumbent who has a good brand. is problem with hickenlooper that he has not been tested in a long time and you saw his performance as a presidential candidate outside of colorado, it turned into a dismal performance. that is a race where i see a tough state. candidate as he appears in john hickenlooper, so how do you game that out? i still like where we set. based on the terrain, those are the two i would be most concerned about. jacqueline: susan collins caston him popular vote to bert -- confirm brett kavanaugh. sweeps concerned if she the impeachment under the rug, votes for the president'

guest: joe, if you are indicative of other independents in maine calling on the independent line, senator collins is in trouble for reelection. her vote on brett kavanaugh was clearly polarizing. millions of dollars of campaign funds from across the country that would be available to the democratic nominee in maine after that primary is over, senator collins -- she has proven that she has won tough races in the past, but this will be her most difficult reelection. host: we have talked about senator gardner here. the freeze-frame of senators that are tossup seats. speak to them and their races and plug-in impeachment. guest: tillis represents north carolina. north carolina continues to be the emerging battleground state. republicans have done a little bit better there, but stilton is likely to face a democrat named cal cunningham. i expect that to be a close race, when he was first elected was extremely close. it is also going to be expensive. north carolina has multiple media markets and those will be flooded. senator mcsally of arizona -- i would put her as the second most vulnerable republican

have a long income at susan collins was kind of iconic, kind of like joe mansion in west virginia. the state has changed but the person is a so well regarded as someone who delivers for the state. so you have a strong incumbent in a tough state. state,o, also a tough maybe not as tough as main, but you have another income and that i think is strong but not as well-known, cory gardner. a great campaigner, great legislative worker, against a well-known x incumbent john hickenlooper, who has a great brand. the problem with hickenlooper, he's not contested in a long time if you saw his performance as a presidential candidate, outside the natural habitat of colorado. it was a dismal performance. that's a race where i see a tough state, it incumbent on our side, probably not as strong as he appears on the surface in john hickenlooper. i still like where we sit. those would be there too, based on the terrain, i would be most concerned about. cast an collins unpopular vote for brett kavanaugh. sheyou concerned that if tries to sweep impeachment under the rug and not to support calling witn

questions came from republicans, senator collins and murkowski, asked the president's counsel if they could give an example of the present expressing concern about hunter and joe biden before the former vice president announced his candidacy. the president's counsel cannot point to a single example to support the claim so he made up a bogus excuse that his answer was limited to what is in the record. senator ronnie asked the president's counsel if they could clarify the specific date he ordered the delay in military assistance and what reason he gave for doing it. the president's counsel cannot point do anything to answer senator romney. these are crucial points but yet at the question of corrupt motive. the president's counsel, unable to answer them, you know who could help them answer those questions? mick mulvaney, john bolton, and our other two witnesses. so the documents we have asked to subpoena. a few other moments start out. they said they were not demanding absolute immunity. i asked them to name a single document or a single witness that the house counsel requested as they went through the process and the president said okay not once. couldn't name o

susan collins sort of echoing those comments but then on the democratic side you have senator joe manchin who said dershowitz did a good job and said that dershowitz's defense offered him a whole different perspective. that's what trials are about. is it possible here that you can have a democrat like manchin vote against witnesses and then multiple republicans vote for them? >> certainly that is the scenario that could play out on capitol hill. democrats have acknowledged the fact that, it's possible some of their moderates might break, at least on one of the articles of impeachment. but i can tell you, sources that i've talked to on capitol hill are expecting democrats to stick together when it comes to procedural votes. they're not expecting democrats to break on the question of witnesses. but i think you're absolutely right to point out that there's been a lot of attention on the moderate republicans and the republicans up for re-election, but some of those democrats are worth keeping an eye on as well. >> absolutely. west virginia, very red state. could be political repercussions for

collins. the fundamentals of those haven't changed. there are not 20 republicans who vote to convict, and of joe biden wasn't running for president, this would never have. >> jessica: well, right. he only cares because of joe biden. because he is trying to protect his own electoral interest, and that is exactly what alan dershowitz said. he said if it is in the national interest -- are you comfortable with that, david? do you think asking -- >> david: do you believe the founding fathers set up impeachment over a campaign finance violation? that is exactly -- then what law was broken? >> jessica: what law? that he took aid, that he got help in his -- >> jessica: that he put his personal interest over the interests of the nation. you could make the argument, of course, that it is in the national security interest to find out if another foreign power met over an election. it is a national security interest of the person running for president is corrupt. those are international security interest. this is not the first time that it has been frozen, reviewed, or canceled. the legal team has pointed out several interest. the northern triangle

the political aisle, the democratic side, folks like joe manchin and doug jones, on the republican side, lisa murkowski, mitt romney, susan collinsere you don't know exactly which way they'll go. if they decide to call witnesses, that open things up considerably, you could get john bolton, hunter biden, adam schiff. the big vote is to whether to call witnesses and which witnesses to call. jillian: can you talk about the porches of party strategy -- importance of party strategy. some are wondering the democrats' strategy, considering it's fan s taken so long to geto this point. >> it's hard to know what the strategy will be. it seems to be inconceivable that the president will be removed from office. it would require the vote of 67 senators. it will be designed to muddy the president up, much like the republicans did with president clinton. they say he did something wrong, you may not choose to remove him. rob: john bolton called it a drug deal. the democrats would love to have him testify. how do you think that will play out? >> you're supposed to conduct an investigation and then bring the charges and the trial takes place in th

joe, whenever you want. let's get the structural analysis first, which is 50/50. collins votes, romney votes.urkowski votes. 50/50. it's a tie. you lose if you want witnesses on a tie. you need 50 plus one. what can they pressure the chief justice to do? what do the rules consider? what does history predict? >> they can pressure the chief justice all they like. that doesn't mean they'll get anything. >> can he? >> i don't believe he can. i think the rules define his powers. and the rules very clearly don't give him the authority to cast a tie-breaking vote and i don't think he's going to claim any inherent power to do it. the senate has the power to compel witnesses. he doesn't. he's also not a presiding officer in the same capacity as the vice-president is because the constitution expressly says the vice-president can cast the tie-breaking vote and there is nothing that expressly says the chief justice can do that. >> and the fact there's nothing that says he can't is not instructive? >> it is not -- >> not defined, not derived. >> he does not have any power without the express grant of it.

joe biden. there was lot of questions as to the timing of when this took place and what influence president trump. you saw a number of republican senators really asking like susan collins, lisa murkowski. it will be interesting to seeow how tomonfolds. you are seeing a lot of republicans pushing back against the idea that there will be a vote for witnesses or their -- or they will be able to block that. i think at this point republicans are very much unified being able to block john bolton, the former national security advisor from testifying, but you are going to see a lot of democrats propose a number which could day the process. >> we certainly see back and forth and one of the criticisms is they should havsubpoenaed john bolton in the house. democrats countered that, saying they were told they would be sued, but now given that they met -- they might not hear, is there any renewed thinking that ey may take that up? >> i don't know if the house wants to go down that reoua whole, butre hearing nancy pelosi respect of having -- push election without having witnesses. there's also another option that forgetting witness youn could see chief justice john roberts rule in f

joining us now, kaitlan collins, cnn white house correspondent, david gregory, cnn political analyst, and joe holockhart, an former clinton white house secretary. i want to go with the very latest reporting on what you're hearing about what the white house thinks. where are the votes? mcconnell says he doesn't have them yet to block witnesses. does the white house and do republicans think that means not ever? >> well, the important part about mcconnell saying he doesn't have them yet, you saw senators coming out of the meeting say they feel good they're going to get them. and the white house is waiting to see what mcconnell is going to say because they are relying on him, and have ever since the bolton story broke on sunday night when they were so, essentially panicked over that story and how furious republican senators that they were hearing from over the manuscript of john bolton's that they were worried they could lose up to a dozen republican votes on witnesses so they feel a lot better now, dershowitz is gone, a lot of senate republicans liked him but they are still not in the clear yet,

and mcconnell can't, you know, get joe manchin and doug jones to come around to the side of good sense here, romney, collinsi? it puzzlesgo me. >> it's time for republicans to toughen up. there is not a impeachment case. this is a terrible, terrible abuse on the awesome impeachment power, and the first time this has ever happened in our history, and itso should not be done, and so the republicans need to think clearly. they need to call it what it is, an abuse of the process, and you are right, they don't need it to give any real credibility, because the evidence is not going to justify this charge, it seems to me, clearly. >> laura: attorney general sessions, this question, let's think chuck schumer knows this is going to go down. i mean, that's going to go down in flames. but tells doug jones, if you need to vote against impeachment to help yourself with the voters of alabama, go ahead and do it. with that pose a problem for you? >> no. but i think that chuck schumer will absolutely do that. that's exactly the way he thinks, because it's not going to be enough votes to get in impeachment, for heavens sake

joe biden and his son. but lamar alexander, one of those moderate republicans, decided to vote with his party, saying trump's actions are not an impeachable offense. susan collins said she'll vote with the democrats. senator lisa murkowski wanted extra time to give her decision. >> i think it's important to have a well balanced statement. >> even if murkowski and senator mitt romney vote to hear witnesses, democrats and republicans could stand at 50-50. the tie which chief justice could break. if he doesn't, trump's impeachment trial would quickly end. campaigning in iowa, the u.s. president appeared confident. president trump: if they impeach the president now, it's not going to work. watch. just watch. >> democrats need 2/3 of senators to impeach the president, and that is highly unlikely. but stretching out the case could damage donald trump politically, as he runs for a second term. time now for a look at the day of business news. i am joined in the studio by brian quinn. hello, brian. it's brexit day. you will have a look at what lies ahead in the u.k. in terms of trade as it exits the e.u. brian: t that's right. negotiations for a new comprehensive u.k.k.

when you are trying to win over susan collins or lisa murkowski or maybe doug jones on the democratic side or joee democratic side, you do not want to be using terms like dictator do you. >> that's right, they argued the election coming up in 2020 is at risk, it will not be a fair election. i think a lot of people took exception to that quite a statement to make ahead of the election and senators told us they are not going to make a judgment on witnesses and a judgment on how to dispose of the case based on the comments that they may disagree with from nadler, she and from adam schiff. taken altogether it paints a picture for me in my observation that they are seeing this, republicans as a partisan exercise. that is what will hurt the democrats because if you have republicans, susan collins and lisa murkowski and lamar alexander and mitt romney noticing or observing this is a partisan exercise it makes it far likely that they will side with the democrats when they say let's extend the trial by weeks or months by trying to call trump administration officials as witnesses. there may not be as much

if susan collins sat down with doug jones and joe mansion and say we're not going to agree to -- therethey could force it and decide yes, he understands the vulnerability of his members. and president trump has, in the past, gone after mitch mcconnell, most notably failing to get an obamacare through the senate. >> congressman, what do you think the underlying dynamics are here? do you think there is a realistic posesibility the tria could play out in a way that's different than it started? >> it's hard to say that knowing mcconnell and that he'll make a deal and know he'll win the vote. i think what's happening is true dynamics. one is the primary for republicans. the primary is going to happen oofr this trial and it's a fine line for them. if they go too far, they'll lose the primary vote. then the problem with the general election, in the hopes this will be forgotten by november. and the solemnity of the oath that was taken. and at the same time they know if witnesses are allowed, that's a jump ball. you're heading to territory where no one can predict what will happen if you can ha

so, joe, we have mitt romney, susan collins, perhaps lisa murkowski on board for the idea of witnesses. lamar alexander, pat toomey, rob portman in play. one other senator just to point out, ron johnson the republican from wisconsin who has been in lockstep with president trump recently said, yes, john bolton should tell his story in a media interview but not as a witness in our trial. >> of course that makes absolutely no sense. >> right. >> that's what we've come to expect from senator ron johnson. so, heidi, you've got not only those senators saying there need to be more witnesses, you've got 75% of americans saying we need to hear more witnesses, including 49% of republicans. a majority, and yet another poll saying that donald trump abused the powers of his office. a majority saying donald trump obstructed the investigation into his own impeachment and yet we hear lindsey graham, the head of the senate judiciary committee, starting to talk about discredited conspiracy theories about ukraine. i find this very interesting because yesterday you couldn't get a straight answer from thre

there's the question from senator susan collins and lis murkowski whether or not the president has shown any interests before vice president joe biden decided to run for president. they did not have an answer to that saying wasn't within the record and he didn't feel like he could go into that. he wants to ask if there was a specific date on when the president decided to put the hold on the whole ukraine the security assistance. and not able to answer that question. i think that's what we keyed on. in terms of, behind the scenes, the movement here hack toward mitch mcconnell having the vote to block witnesses. it's not there yet but over the last 24 hours there's been a clear move to get votes in place to be able to move this trial to an end by the end of the week. and that seems to be the direction it's headed. we have another big day of questions tomorrow but that's where it's going right now. >> i know has the minor point but it is fascinating to me that after all this, mitt romney's question, i thought, was really interesting. we still don't know when the president decided to withhold the aid. and whom he talked to. there

collins, i think this about sums it up. i read it, like, okay, totally exonerated joe andta zero experience hunter, then they went after the prosecutor, who isr investigating the company that was paving millions and millions to somebody with no experience appeared they condemned him. they said he is corrupt, not j joe, who said you were not getting the billion unless you fire the guy. >> it is. look, it's another last-minute desperation move by the house democrats, because they know they have a weak case. we have shown they have a weak case. we know what we have seen, the president did nothing wrong. we proved that. a document dump, still going through that, buthr they left indicted someone on campaign finance issues. bill barr, the justice department will handle this, but we do not let them -- the democrats try to deflect anything from the weak case they are not going to send to the senate tomorrow because this president did nothing wrong. he stood strong for america, now they're trying to do is take hotshots to shore up a case that should never have went forward to start with. >> sean: the senate has a very defined const

if we get susan collins, we are going to get joe manchin, too. be with west virginia and voters. if he doesn't have to be the deciding vote, he is happy to pile on. all that said, i think jessica said one of the most insightful things. where is adam schiff going? "okay, we struck out on russian collusion. we will strike out on this, so we've got to do one more investigation before the election." that's where house democrats are going. they know they will fail in th this. >> that's not really what jessica said. [laughter] i appreciate the compliment, i like to be insightful on a monday morning. this is not a new trial. john bolton and mick mulvaney it are an integral part of what john bolton referred to as the whacked out drug deal they were trying to pull off here. as for the rules, the rules of the house are exactly the same ones that were used for the impeachment of bill clinton. adam schiff didn't make this up. republicans were given the same information, they were in the scif looking at everything. with democrats. then they were going on tele

the whistle-blower, somebody like hunter biden, somebody like joe biden, hard to imagine if you're susan collinste for bolton, but don't vote for hunter biden? they only need 51 votes to introduce these new witnesses. mitch mcconnell has described himself as the grim reaper, somebody, you know, who essentially democrat wishes go to die in the senate as long as mitch mcconnell is in charge. so i think that's something to keep in mind. he's in lockstep with this president, wants to protect his majority and going into this, when he's looking at these rules, he -- i'm pretty sure knows where susan collins' mind is now in terms of what she's willing to do. >> she got something out of it. >> exactly. people like martha mcsally, people going into 2020 with their names on the ballot, in tough re-election races. i'm sure he knows where his caucus is and he's designing this in a way that protects them and also protects the president. >> as a former senate parliamentarian, joe lieberman was on cnn earlier today. he said there wasn't an agreement on witnesses at this stage in the clinton impeachment. but th

joe biden as a threat. >>> speaker nancy pelosi could send the articles of impeachment today. she's meeting with house democrats to discuss which lawmakers will prosecute the case. susan collins and mitt romney now pushing to hear from witnesses from the trial. >>> we turn now to the cheating scandal rocking major league baseball. the houston astros have fired their manager and general manager. >> it comes after an investigation found the astros were stealing signs from rival teams, but the question many people are asking is why no players are being punished. this morning, anger and disappointment across houston and major league baseball. >> i was there through all the hard years, and now to see that, like the success taken away sort of by like breaking the rules of the game was a little hard to see. >> reporter: a league investigation found the astros stole signs from opposing pitchers giving their hitters an advantage during their world series championship season in 2017. >> the houston astros are world champions. >> reporter: the team fired manager aj hinch and general manager jeff luhnow shortly after the league suspended them. >> this is a tough day. i've had a lot of to

the past four days have made americans less safe, collin call, a former deputy assistant to former president barack obama, former security adviser to joes playing with fire in the middle east. and author and historian the interim director of the middle east center of pennsylvania. who tweeted yesterday, just landed at jfk and no surprise got taken to the special side room and got asked, among other things how i feel about the situation with iran. he also has a book coming out titled "america and iran: a passionate embrace." we've heard sporadic reports being taken aside at ports of entry. what happened to you? >> hi, chris. i don't want to make too much of what happened to me. it was a really straight forward exchange. it only lasted a few minutes. the officer was extremely courteous and polite and friendly. it wasn't really a big deal. i was more amused than anything else, to be honest and perplexed. amused and bemused to be asked about what i think of the situation in iran, having just spent ten years of my life researching and writing a book on the history of u.s.-iran relations. there was quite a lot of i could have said, but i don

joe biden up there. this resolution should be tweaked, amended, whatever you call it. follow the clinton impeachment model. robbed me, collins, lamar alexander, do they really want to go to their home state and say, oh, yeah, we want -- we want the president to have two endure more witnesses that weren't even discussed or talked to at all in the house. they really want to go to utah and make that argument? or tennessee to make that argument? that is how mitch mcconnell should put it to them. a shorter trial with a motion to dismiss right at the top or after the first initial arguments are put on by the house impeachment managers and white house counsel, pat cipollone. here now is senator martha mcsally, republican from arizona, a juror -- sworn in today -- and the impeachment trial. before we get your thoughts on what i just said, the senate should do, even understanding a few stragglers, i want to ask y. >> senator mcsally, should be senate consider new evidence is part of the impeachment trial? >> man, you are a liberal hack. i'm not talking to you. >> you are not going to comment? >> laura: [laughs] you heard that, "you a

reporter: you hit on the point, senator collins, lisa murkowski whether the president showed any interest in ukraine issues specifically before vice-president joe biden decided to run for president. patrick fill bin, the white house counsel did not have an answer for that. it wasn't in the record and he didn't feel he could go into that. mitt romney who clearly wants witnesses at this point in time if there was a specific date the president put a hold on the security assistance. philbin not able to answer that. in terms of moving the needle, anderson, i will tell you behind the scenes, the move has been towards mitch mcconnell having the votes to block witnesses. it's not locked up yet, i'm told. in the course of 24 hours there has been a clear move by republicans to get the votes in place to essentially move this trial to an end by the end of this week. and that seems to be the direction it's headed. obviously we have another big day of questions tomorrow, but that's where it's going right now. >> i know this is a minor point, but it is fascinating to me that after all of this, mitt romney's question i thought was really interesting. they can'

could repel moderate republicans like susan collins, lisa murkowski who want to see sort of a different strategy instead of this no-holds-barred, go after joe biden, go after hunter biden, go after the whistle-blower. they don't want to see that strategy. and they are worried that could hurt the republican unity in the senate. >> michael, how -- when this trial starts, how soon and how would there be a vote on calling witnesses? how would that process work? >> well, first thing that would happen is once the senate receives the articles, then the majority leader would convene the senate. probably not in a closed session as trent lott did during the clinton impeachment but he'll convene the senate and they'll take a vote on overall procedure. basic framework for proceeding. clearly that framework will not include a requiring or calling witnesses. and then a second topic will come up. that's the topic of witnesses, and there will be a separate vote on that. that's going to be the critical one, of course. whether or not they need new witnesses is open to question. there's a lot of evidence the house already had. but keep in mind during the clin

joe. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to make a few comments about senator collins.he reason her polling has gone told de blasio ford that she was not assaulted. she never spoke to the woman, never called her, never talked to her. she was told by the republicans to do that, and she did it. she lied right out loud. how about if you were raped and were notlins said you raped, you're making it up. never talked to her, never took one minute of her time, went on 45 minutes in the senate floor talking about garbage. that is why the people in maine did not vote for her. number two, she said she would fight to the death, that they would never be anybody taking away preconditions out of the health laws. and what happened there? she voted again and again to get them out. so the reason she has lost her popularity, it is just like mitch mcconnell. he is number two. you lie to your constituents to protect your $174,000 a year job. host: thanks for calling, joe. joe, if you are indicative of other independents in maine calling on the independent line, senator collins is in trouble

one, from collins and murkowski, we don't know how they're going to vote on this, did trump ever mention joeden when he spoke with zelensky's predecessor or other cabinet members and top aides. and another from mitt romney, asking what specific date the president ordered the hold on military aid to ukraine and what his reasoning was at the time he did so and neither of those were the president's attorneys able to answer. doesn't that concern you at all? >> should he be able to answer them, i suspect they should be able to answer them. and why they weren't or have they not investigated that, i think, again, the answer is yes, they should have been able to answer. the more relevant question from the standpoint of republican senators not maybe mitt romney is it doesn't really matter. because what the president did was on its face not an impeachable offense. it just keeps coming back -- i know everybody wants to keep doubling into getting more details and finding more information, but -- none of it matters because most -- the -- i understand, but the republicans feel like except everything adam

joe biden, and his son hunter. bolton has said he would testify, if subpoenaed. the very first question, jointly submitted by republican senators collinsrkowski, and romney, sought guidance for senators weighing their ves.t >> if presidump had more than one motive for hialleged conduct, how should the senate ivconsider more than one min its assessment of article i? >> nawaz: counsel for the president, patrick philbin: >> once you get into a mix- motive situation, if there is both some personal motive but also a legitimate public interest motive, it can't possibly be an offense. >> nawaz: other questions, like this from democrat ed markey, sought to clarify the record. >>o that the record is accurate, did house impehment investigators ask mr. bolton to testify? >> nawaz: le house manager, adam schiff: >> the answer is yes, of courseo we asked johon to testify in the house, and he refused. >> nawaz: like much of trial, today's session unfolded largely along partisan lines. republicans asked questions of the president's legal team, and democrats asked questions of the democratic house managers. republican senator ted cruz inquired about q

republican senator susan collins is leading the call for a vote to hear from witnesses. >>> the ukrainian gas company that once employed joes reportedly been hacked by the russians. a top cybersecurity firm says russian government hackers launched a cyber-phishing scheme against burisma employees to access biden's internal emails. experts believe it's an effort to gain control of the company's internal systems and possibly look for dirt on the bidens, the same playbook used to target democrats ahead of the 2016 election. >>> new details this morning in last month's deadly shoot-out in northern new jersey. investigators say the man and woman behind the jersey city rampage could have caused much more damage. they say there was a massive bomb in their van. here's abc's erielle reshef. >> reporter: the fbi revealing the suspects behind the rampage inside a jersey city kosher supermarket may have been plotting an even deadlier attack. >> we know now they planned greater acts of mayhem. >> reporter: authorities say inside their van was a bomb powerful enough to scatter shrapnel across five football fields, along with material fo

collins, great state of georgia. congressman, very interesting when he sent over the new evidence how he totally exonerated joe, you aren't getting the billion unless you fire the prosecutor whose investigating, but he says a prosecutor who's doing the investigation, don't know anybody who authors evidence for everybody. but schiff says that prosecutor is corrupt. amazing. what do you make of this politico piece. >> what we are hearing, that's just another line of what we seen from the schiff all along. he's willing to do anything to get at this president. this is not a simple one off, to go off to make regular habit of what this man does. does not want to come to grips with the truth, he wants to do anything he can to take him out. but the whining in the theater that's going on in the senate floor today from him and others is just -- it really takes the cake today. it just shows the american people how weak the case is and how they want other people want to do their job for them. >> sean: those due processes. i watch the whining. you gave no due process to the president! no importantly, there is no case here. there is th

know senators roy blount susan collins, mitt romney say they possibly want to see witnesses but ted cruz, rand paul saying you call john bolton as a witness, we will demand joeiden and hunter biden appear. do you think that will happen? >> well, i don't know if they will get toness witnesses at all. leader mcconnell should follow exactly right. the only procedure in the modern era. the precedent is impeachment of clinton trial. opening statements. both sides put on the case. allowed for questions of the senator through the chief justice who presides over the trial. then you determine if witnesses are needed. you can't do that prematurely. if there are witnesses the bidens would be the first on the list because that was the genesis of this whole controversy. there's a lot of unanswered questions we love to have answered. it is muddy. liz: did the president say help us out, look into joe biden? was that military aid withheld directly because of biden because of corruption in ukraine? looks like the house didn't make the sale to the u.s. voter. congressman, thanks so much for joining us. we'll be watching of course. >>> we'll move on next to iran. saying iran,

joe biden and supporters of hillary clinton in ukraine. the withholding of -- the withholding of congressionally approved military aid to ukraine is at the center of the impeachment trial. on monday, republican senators susan collins of maine and mitt romney of utah said the bolton revelations underscore their case for allowing witnesses in the impeachment trial to testify. >> i think it is important to be able to hear from john bolton, rest of the able to make an impartial judgment. amy: on monday, the presidents case was made by a team of lawyers, including retired harvard university law professor alan dershowitz and former independent counsel kenneth starr, whose probe led to the impeachment of bill clinton. during oral arguments, starr referenced the clinton impeachment trial. >> the nation's most recent experience, the clinton impeachment, even though severely and roundly criticized, charge crimes. these are crimes proven in a crucible of the house of representatives debate beyond any reasonable observers doubt, so, too, the nixon impeachment. the articles charged crimes. crimes alleged in the articles and the common law of presidential impeachment in nixon? yes. in clinton? yes. here? no. amy: president trum