i want you to do an investigation of mitt romney and i want you to announce you found dirt on mitt romney and if you are willing to do that, quid pro quo i won't give ukraine the money they need to fight on the front line. to any of us have any question that barack obama would be impeached for that kind of misconduct? are we ready to say that would be okay if barack obama asked medvedev to investigate his opponent and will withhold an ally from defend gets up to get an investigation of mitt romney? that is the parallel here and to say we condition aid all the time, for legitimate reasons, yes. for legitimate reasons you might say to a governor of a state, governor of the state, you should ship in more towards your own disaster relief but if the president's real motive in depriving a state of disaster relief is because that governor won't get his attorney general to investigate the president's political rival are we ready to say the president can sacrifice the interests of the people of that state or the people of our country because all quid pro quos are fine? it is carte blanche? is that

we just learned mitt romney says he does want to hear from john bolton.t will be very interesting. we will be counting down to the last second, busy day for you. >> waiting on lisa murkowski. while senators wrap up their marathon question-and-answer portion of the impeachment trial the president open the iowa rally by marking his potential 2020 opponents. >> let's vote for pocahontas, let's vote for bernie, let's vote for sleepy joe. how many times has he visited, great to be in the great state of ohio, you are in iowa. how about buttigieg? they call him mayor pete. because nobody can pronounce his name, nobody has any idea. >> also tonight are peter doocy in iowa, one on one with the president before the rally and here he is now. good evening, peter. >> we have been in iowa a dozen times in the past year tracking those democratic candidates. they have a lot to say about donald trump so this evening in des moines the president responded. >> i just got back from michigan where we are doing incredibly well with the factories being built all over the place,

none of the other republican senators want to go through what mitt romney is going through. obviously romney just started his senate term. he doesn't have to worry about this for six years. but some of the others are on the ballot with trump in november and they really don't want bad relations with the president. so i think it's a useful warning to them, and what you suggested is absolutely true. this is all about sending a message to the handful of republican senators who might be willing to vote for witnesses. and also it was a good sell for the president because the president sometimes doesn't like to hear this kind of bad news in person. mcconnell said it via the media, so whatever upset the president had was not delivered directly to mcconnell, at least not at that moment. >> i want to finish up with jumping the shark in terms of legal arguments. tv lawyer and the guy who got o.j. off, alan dershowitz, he seemed to do that multiple times on what is and what is not abuse of power. here's part of it. >> it would be a much harder case if a hypothetical president of the unit

i want to start where we left off with mitt romney.a fella he is. >> i can tell you what this is all about. obviously they are talking about this "new york times" article that came out last night. certainly the allegation that the president said something and directed john bolton to tie aid to political investigations. obviously that's been refuted by the white house. but more importantly it's refuted by the evidence. this leak-out is designed manipulate and influence republican senators who are sitting on the fence for witnesses. after they call for witness, we'll find out the man yo -- the manuscript doesn't say what it is reported to say. lou: are you saying john bolton is playing for the democrats? >> i am saying the deep state is playing for that. i have no factual basis for whether it was ambassador bolton's team or someone else. but this president will fight against the swamp. and the swamp is continuing to fight back. lou: i think this was worded just perfectly by a fella i respect immensely. if we can go to that tweet last nig

here's mitt romney.hink it's increasingly likely that other republicans willjoin those of us who think we should hear from john bolton. and whether there are other witnesses and documents, well, that's another matter, but i thinkjohn bolton's relevance to our decision has become increasingly clear. well, here's more evidence of the pressue on republican unity. senator kelly loeffler tweeting... "after two weeks, it's clear that democrats have no case for impeachment. sadly, my colleague senator romney wants to appease the left by calling witnesses who will slander donald trump during their 15 minutes of fame. the circus is over. it's time to move on!" gary 0'donoghue. you will live with us from washington, dc, so they need four, susan collins and mitt romney, have they definitely come across or they arejust thinking they definitely come across or they are just thinking about it? mitt romney is a definite and he says he wa nts to romney is a definite and he says he wants to do it and he will vote for it.

i want to start where we left off with mitt romney.hat a fella he is. >> i can tell you what this is all about. obviously they are talking about this "new york times" article that came out last night. certainly the allegation that the president said something and directed john bolton to tie aid to political investigations. obviously that's been refuted by the white house. but more importantly it's refuted by the evidence. this leak-out is designed manipulate and influence republican senators who are sitting on the fence for witnesses. after they call for witness, we'll find out the man yo -- the manuscript doesn't say what it is reported to say. lou: are you saying john bolton is playing for the democrats? >> i am saying the deep state is playing for that. i have no factual basis for whether it was ambassador bolton's team or someone else. but this president will fight against the swamp. and the swamp is continuing to fight back. lou: i think this was worded just perfectly by a fella i respect immensely. if we can go to that tweet last

i want to address mitt romney. i liked mitt romney. i think he would've been a great president in 2012. he was the better person to be president. i thought i was friends with mitt romney. i don't recognize this guy anymore. another one. he has been a huge disappointment. i thought he would've been a better president than obama. we all went all in, wanted him to win, liked his family, wife, kids, wonderful people. this sanctimonious trump hatred is getting old, especially as you watch the president accomplishing everything you said, mitt romney, you wanted to have happened in the country. really? look at the four fact, i will say five, that never change. ukrainians said they never felt pressure. they never, ever did a single thing. they never said they would do a thing and they got all their money. so do you really think that you should take on the role of the u.s. house of representatives, the sole constitutional role to impeach, now you want to put on a whole other case and take on their job? all i see, with all due respect, mitt romn

his name is mitt romney.ly, but when it comes to taking a page from his book, you can bet that other republicans like susan collins who was in a tough reelection race, correspoy gard same situation. mitt romney was saying what the republicans will be doing today in trying to force votes to allow the documents and witnesses. then i'm okay to do it, too. it was really a shot across the bow, i think, to democrats to say, calm down, we're going to be with you. but if you push this too hard, we're not. >> dana bash on capitol hill, thank you very much. >> it's interesting, jon, that he's saying, mitt romney, that flaherty -- there's 51 witnesses voting for witnesses and documents. if they actually sign a subpoena asking for john bolton, they may fight it and go to the courts. but if the chief justice signs that subpoena authorizing it, they'll have a tough time in court. >> they might have a tough time in court. the best answer to that question is if that happens, we don't know what happens next in the sense that

mitt romney had a notebook in hand. and they hold the power here when it comes to deciding whether they're going to join democrats in asking for witnesses? >> reporter: david, this trial and how long it lasts comes down to witnesses, and what four republicans ultimately decide to do. mitt romney said he would like to hear from john bolton. but for now, these republicans are waiting to make a decision. first, they say they want to hear the arguments. and david, those could get under way tomorrow. >> mary bruce, we'll be here are you. >>> and president trump, meantime, was on the world stage, 4,000 miles away, but fully aware of what was playing out right here in washington. at the world economic forum in switzerland, he celebrated the strong u.s. economy, but he had choice words for the impeachment trial, too. here's abc's chief white house correspondent jonathan karl tonight. >> reporter: the message from president trump at world economic forum in davos, switzerland, even as the impeachment trial gets under way in washi

susan collins, mitt romney and lisa murkowski have indicated their openness to witnesses. at times those senators asked pointed questions to the president's council and house managers. tomorrow we will do it all over again setting the stage for a friday vote on whether to allow witnesses. tonight house manager adam schiff made an empassioned plea to those swing senators. >> at the end of the day it is not whether i believe john bolton or whether general kelly believes john bolton but whether you will believe john bolton and whether you will have the opportunity to evaluate his credibility for yourself. this will be the first impeachment trial in history that involves no witnesses if you decide you don't want to hear from any. you want to rely on what was investigated in the house. that would be unprecedented. >> leading off our discussion today danny sovales. abigail tracy who recently authored a piece interviewing all seven democratic house managers. susan is a republican strategist and msnbc political analyst and david jolly of florida who left the gop and is an msnbc po

i want you to do an investigation of mitt romney and announce that you found dirt on mitt romney and if you're willing to do that, quid quo pro i won't give ukraine the money they need to fight you on the front lines. do any of us have any question that barrack obama would be impeached for that? if he a opponent and would with hold money from an ally that it needed to defend itself to get an investigation of mitt romney? that's the parallel here. and to say well, yes, we condition it all the time for legitimate reasons, yes. for legitimate reasons you might say to a governor of a state, hey, governor of a state, you should chip in more toward your own disaster relief. or the people of our country because all quid pro quos are fine. is that really what we're prepared to say with respect to this president's conduct or the next because if we are, then next president of the united states can ask for an investigation of you. they can ask for help in their next election or from any foreign power. and the argument will be made no donald trump was acquitted from doing the same thing. therefo

, and mitt romney is going to vote for witnesses.nd possibly more witnesses and who knows how many other republicans are going to vote for witnesses. >> i think jonathan is exactly right. it is in the speaker's benefit to wait to see where cory gardner is going to go, martha mcsally, the vulnerable senators up for re-election need to make decisions because you're not going to get re-elected in colorado rubber stamping a fake trial. the other thing, a card that speaker pelosi could play is to say, okay, we're going to go ahead and do what your counsel said for us to do. we're going to reopen hearings and we're going to call john bolton. john bolton has said he wants to testify. there's no difference testifying to the house than to the senate. come testify here if you're just going to stipulate to what the house found. so what mcconnell -- hooengs he's quite wise but he's really quite affordable because speaker pelosi holds all the cards. if they want to reopen hearings on donald trump and call those same witnesses and say stipulate to

i don't think donald trump was legitimized because he endorsed mitt romney.ou're running for president, people tend to accept those endorsements. that was before the nevada primary. he actually got a pretty good reputation in nevada as a business owner. we did it. looking back was it mistake, sure. i think it was a mistake. but when someone endorses me doesn't mean i endorse them, and donald trump wanted to play a much larger role in that campaign. he wanted to leave traveling with mitt romney, he wanted to speak at the convention and campaign in the fall. probably shouldn't have done it. >> stuart stevens, thank you for joining us. really appreciate it. thank you. >>> and up next trump's foreign policy misclal calculations are coming back potentially his critics say to haunt america. you're watching "hardball." caitics say to haunt ameri you're watching "hardball. hi, i'm jonathan, a manager here at colonial penn life insurance company. and with coverage options starting at just $9.95 a month, you can get a whole life insurance plan to help close that gap wi

>> is the answer mitt romney? >> all of the senators willing to say anything against the president and probably all told there's probably a dozen of them but five or six that would be key in terms of getting witnesses. >> that's going to do it for this bit of our live coverage. with this, our coverage continues. chris jansing takes the next hour following by -- >> deadline white house 4:00 eastern time with nicole wallace. a reminder that the coverage of the impeachment trial of donald john trump begins early tuesday morning throughout the day. our live coverage will continue right after this break. when you shop for your home at wayfair, you get more than free shipping. you get everything you need for your home at a great price, the way it works best for you, i'll take that. wait honey, no. when you want it. you get a delivery experience you can always count on. you get your perfect find at a price to match, on your own schedule. you get fast and free shipping on the things that make your home feel like you. that

mitt romney, republican senator from utah, has indicated he is for witnesses.senate is 53-47, okay, that gets you to 51, and lisa murkowski senator from alaska says she will think about it tonight. worst-case scenario, that's 50/50. a tie vote, by rule, loses in the senate. we don't think there's going to be a vote tomorrow night to extend this trial. so tomorrow afternoon, they come in at 1:00, four hours of deliberation, then they go to the gateway vote, and we think owe know how that is going to g. the question is, do they finish up tomorrow night? there could be additional deliberation after that if you clear the bar and say they're not going to have witnesses, nobody quite knows. i should point out come in the senate, mitch mcconnell, senate majority leader, he has what is called the first right of recognition. in other words, chief justice john roberts will recognize him first, and mcconnell could then move to dismiss, or maybe call final votes on both articles of impeachment. and you know, even if they vote late tomorrow night, mike, this is important, s

where is mitt romney? where is murkowski and alexander and susan collins? >> i can't speak for anybody but myself. when i introduced my resolution, we got 10 co-sponsors in the senate.

. >>> there are still two swing vote republican senators, lisa murkowski and mitt romney who have expressed some openness to hearing from witnesses. lisa murkowski told nbc news tonight that she would announce her decision on witnesses in the morning. but at this late hour, the elusive fourth vote that's needed in order to hear from more witnesses and see more documents does not seem to exist. does this move from senator alexander change the calculation for those other swing vote republicans? is there another senator out there, another republican senator who will step up at the 11th hour? and could john bolton still throw another wrench into all of this? >>> earlier lead house impeachment manager adam schiff made a last-ditch effort suggesting limitation of the -- limiting the deposition of witnesses to one week. it was the same length of time used during the clinton impeachment trial in 1999, he said, and the senate as it did then could return to its regular legislative business for that week. >> you want the clinton model, let's use the clinton model. let's take a week. let's take a week

per year by a corrupt russian company and mitt romney had acted to benefit that company, would obama have authority to ask that that potential corruption be investigated. >> first of all the hypothetical is a bit off. because it presumes in that hypothetical that president obama was acting corruptly or there was evidence he was acting corruptly with respect to his son, but nonetheless let's take your hypothetical on its terms. would it have been impeachable if barack obama had tried to get medvedev to do an investigation of mitt romney, whether it was justified or unjustified. the reality is, for a president to withhold military aid from an ally or in the hypothetical to withhold it to benefit an adversary, to target their political opponent is wrong and corrupt. period. end of story. and if you alltithat conduct, rationalize, jeopardizing the nation's security, to benefit himself because he believes that his opponent should be investigated by a foreign power, that is. impeachable. now if you have a legitimate reason to think that any u.s. person has committed an offense, there are l

and i have 2 of those 3 have come out saying that they are essentially going to one particular mitt romney saying that he would vote with the democrats on the issue of witnesses being allowed and new evidence but at the moment it looks like the democrats don't have the numbers that they want but this is where it starts getting a little bit complicated because if it's split down the middle 5050 the democrats need for republicans what would happen is that perhaps they could actually call on the supreme court justice john roberts to actually give his vote that's not expected to happen but we're expecting a very very tense afternoon here and plenty of debate if it comes to an acquittal how could that impact the election. well that's a big question helen of the moment it looks like 1st we need to get through this vote 1st and then with regards to an acquittal which is many commentators are here saying it's looking very likely but it looks like the vote wouldn't actually take place until at some point after the state of the union address on tuesday so it wouldn't actually happen until wednesday

. >> the senate now, we're hearing -- mitt romney has now said it again.said it last week, now he's saying it again. he wants to hear from john bolton. he's pretty clear about this. mitt romney is clearly a vote for a witness or probably witnesses, plural. i've heard him say it as witnesses, plural. there's reporting tonight indicating there could be several more, maybe a half dozen, as many as a half dozen, two more than you need, republican votes to get witnesses into this trial. what do you think is going to happen there? >> i think the pressure is going to be very intense, and i think you're going to see people say we should hear those witnesses. i've seen it, lawrence, in the senate where people will sit there at the hearing and something will catch their attention, and they'll say, i want to know more about that. can you tell me more about that? >> did you mean republicans? >> yeah, i do mean republicans. i think it could happen here. i'm out obviously all over iowa and new hampshire, and what i'm hearing from people is an intense desire to have witn

i want to play what your fellow republican mitt romney just said, making some news.appointment model, which is a vote on witnesses later, but as to which witnesses i'd want to hear from and so forth, that's something which i'm open to until after the opening arguments. >> including john bolton? >> pardon? >> john bolton? >> including john bolton, yes. he is someone i would like to hear from. and presumably, i get the chance to vote for that. >> do you agree with him that there would be value to hearing from mr. bolton for the first time under oath on this? >> well, i would defer to the senate. this is obviously the senate's prerogative, and that's why the impeachment article should have been sent over to the senate. and then whatever they decide to do is completely up to them. i think hearing from witnesses primarily should have been done in the house. and had more of these fact witnesses presented and pursued, that's why you're getting the results that you're seeing right now in that rush to judgment in the house that is now causing some problems in the senate. >> i

are that there are two senators we're watching very closely, senator lisa murkowski, and senator mitt romney, and we're wondering whether anybody else will come over because even if romney and murkowski support collins and vote to call witnesses and subpoena documents, it's not enough. >> no. i mean that's exactly right. look, i think it's right to be watching some of these key senators to figure out what they're going to do. but it's just really clear to me from this whole theatrical performance by lamar alexander that the fix has been in on this since the very, very beginning. i think it's important that we don't let some of the key senators who came out earlier in this week to say that they were going to go block witnesses -- this is martha mcsally from arizona, cory gardner from colorado, thom tillis from north carolina. these are -- and joni ernst from iowa. these are key senators who have now basically gone off the hook because we have been focusing on lamar alexander, a buddy of mitch mcconnell, who honestly in retrospect was never going to vote against mitch mcconnell. joni ernst, ma

mitt romney said he is likely to vote for witnesses. could that pave the way for three other senators? >> democrats hope so. it's not clear they are hopeful. who are we talking about? these are household names at this point. we have been talking about it. susan collins said she is likely to back witnesses when they comes before this impeachment court. the other person, lisa murkowski seems she's been open even though recently she's been critical of the impeachment manager on the democratic side. the other person is lamar alexander. he's retiring and people are saying maybe that frees him up to buck his party and mitch mcconnell and the president. the problem is he's really good friends with mitch mcconnell. the president liked what he heard. you imagine that most of the folks in that body today, certainly the republicans, feel like they have enough evidence going in and enough of an argument where they feel like that can back the president and not necessarily back them. >> it was interesting to hear the way the president's team framed t

>> i think it's a great idea to ask mitt romney about that.s a question of this should go on for a while. we should take on things the house did not take. i think the first thing we have to answer is what the house sent us. the house did their investigation about 78 days total. they gathered their information their evidence their witnesses, they're seine sending them to us. they could have gone much longer. it's the shortest impeachment in history. they could have gone much longer, gathered more information, sent it over. we've got to respond to what is in front of us right now not say we don't see anything here but let's look for more. that's not the senate role. that's the house role. >> some of the things we have heard of course that have come to you from the house, testimony, the all american people saw. when it comes to what the president did and who he asked to do what include mr. holmes and mr. heal. >> i heard president trump he's going to do the investigation. >> through the acting chief of staff. >> he's referring there of course to

mitt romney has never done a single thing to favor the conservative cause... >> i swear, every time mittopens his mouth, i have no... i think he's running against me. >> i don't think that romney was somebody who understood the angst of the american people. he didn't understand what, what, especially the republicans in, throughout the united states, were feeling, how, how disaffected they felt. >> what does mitt romney believe? >> and is he truly a conservative? >> not exactly a person of conviction, not even... >> narrator: romney needed the tea party and its populist base. trying to win them over, he went to las vegas for an endorsement-- from the man who put the birther movement on the map. (audience applauding) >> mitt romney looks completely uncomfortable. donald trump is totally in his element. it's, in a curious way, it's donald trump's event, not mitt romney's event. he, you know, he, he commands the stage. >> it's my honor, real honor, and privilege to endorse mitt romney. >> it was literally one of the most bizarre political scenes i'd ever seen. >> and by the way, this is a gr

while, they should have done their job in the house. >> tucker: mitt romney though, was a republican om a contiguous state, utah, senator, tais now saying that john bolton should beor a witness at the trial. what you think of that? why do you think senator romney would say that? >> i think mitt romney has had some sour grapes, quite frankly. i don't know him personally. i haven't talked to him recently, but that's my guess. >> tucker: so you said that the theme tonight for the course of the day was the president did nothing wrong and should bere acquitted. but is that -- would you say that's an open question? the rest of us were watching it or more likely not watching it with yo the assumption that we w the ending. is that a doubt? >> i think it's wise for the president's legal team to prove their case and they prove the case at the house had the burden of proof. they didn't evenoo come close to approving any evidence of impeachable offense. that all it's been it's a bunch of rhetoric, fluff, and really all it is by the democrats, and it has been all a of 2019, is to influence the 202

mitt romney could not beat trump the path we tried to take was -- i am a conservative. mean, i am a real conservative, which is where most of his supporters are when you talk to them about issues. you just will not get all the crap, the cruelty and the chaos if you vote for somebody like me. that is the path we have tried to carve, knowing that it is difficult, because as my friend over here said, support for trump really is not issues-based. he is just their demagogue who is going to punch who they think is the bad guy. >> you cannot argue with resentment. you can't counter argue resentment. mr. walsh: not at all. not at all. >> and as you said, it is going to be with us for a long time. mr. walsh: and we need to figure this out. because it's going to be with us. >> i think you mentioned before, this fantasy that somehow even if he is not elected, this is a potent and important political force we have to deal with, and to go back to branding rhetoric, we need to find a counterargument or a way of arguing this in a whole different way. mr. walsh: yeah, look. many of you

mitt romney is doing them and this country a disservice.e going to get more democrats voting potentially against witnesses than republicans voting for witnesses. this is an embarrassment for mitt romney. and he needs to rethink and recalibrate what he's doing. trish: and john bolton? >> my point is that i don't know -- i don't believe the democrats know what john bolton is going to say if he was ever to become a witness. and that's the danger for the democrats. you never call a witness when you don't know what they are going to say prior to the testimony. this is a danger for both parties. i'm very disappointed in john for allowing this to be leaked. the timing of the book in and of itself is something he participates in. i'm deeply disturbed by where we are in talking about it. trish: the president's attorneys closing their arguments today by throwing some of the house managers' words right back in their faces. >> i'll leave you with some of those words. >> there must never, a narrowly voted impeachment or impeachment supported by one of t

how much does mitt romney really need? does he need six hours from me to explain this? do you divide it up? what do you do with these hours? >> so politicians generally like to talk, so i suspect they will fill all 12 hours each day. and i think if they do that they run the risk of losing their audience and tay run the risk of diminishing the impact of any particular point they may make. i would try a case for two weeks. i would still try to keep my closing argument to about 90 minutes because after that my jurors' eyes are glazing over. in long rico trials i stilled tried to keep my arguments to about 3 or 4 hours because beyond that it becomes a lot of white noise. >> what is the longest final argument you ever gave in a trial? >> it was ability a four argument after a 6-month trial. >> right. >> so those senators i mean if they're really intending to fill 12 hours a day with a whole bunch of speechifying, i mean if we don't have witnesses i agree with paul. if we don't have witnesses and we don't have documents and we don't have evidence, it's not a trial. it's just

it was senator mitt romney of utah.'ll be in favor of witnesses, but i haven't made a decision yet and i won't until both sides' opening arguments are done, end quote. we're watching closely susan collins of maine who said she may be open to hearing from additional statements. in a recent statement collins said, quote, while i need to hear the case argued and the questions answered i tend to believe having additional information would be helpful. it is likely i would support a motion to call for witnesses at that point in the trial just as i did in 1999. for senator collins, who is up for reelection this year for a fifth term, the decision could prove pivotal. msnbc's david gura joins me with the implications that of vote for republicans who could potentially be swayed. david, lawrence o'donnell was here earlier today. he was saying if he were asked, he would tell mitch mcconnell to talk to the trump lawyers in the impeachment and say, focus everything on mitt romney. turn your whole argument to mitt romney, because if

mitt romney, susan collins, lisa murkowski. i have a much harder time counting to four. i have a hard time finding that fourth, but chuck schumer will be looking for that person. >> as we like to say, what could go wrong? can't imagine three better ghosts start us off on a wednesday night like this one. elizabeth miller, ashley parker, garrett haake, our thanks to all three of you. >>> coming up, a retired four-star u.s. admiral says he saw something interesting in last night's missile volley from iran. >>> later, why at least one democratic senator predicts we are just days away from the start of that impeachment trial. when we continue on this wednesday night. when it comes to using data, everyone is different. which is why xfinity mobile is a different kind of wireless network that lets you design your own data. choose unlimited, shared data, or mix lines of each and switch any line, anytime. giving you more choice and control compared to top wireless carriers. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, save even more with $150 off galaxy a70. click, call or visit

mitt romney, susan collins, lisa murkowski. i have a much harder time counting to four. i have a hard time finding that fourth, but chuck schumer will be looking for that person. >> as we like to say, what could go wrong? can't imagine three better ghosts start us off on a wednesday night like this one. elizabeth miller, ashley parker, garrett haake, our thanks to all three of you. >>> coming up, a retired four-star u.s. admiral says he saw something interesting in last night's missile volley from iran. >>> later, why at least one democratic senator predicts we are just days away from the start of that impeachment trial. when we continue on this wednesday night. ♪ hey. hey. you must be steven's phone. now you can take control of your home wifi and get a notification the instant someone new joins your network... only with xfinity xfi. download the xfi app today. >>> toads today i'm going to ask nato to become more involved in the peace process. >> so in that moment the president said he's asking nato to become much more involved in the middle east process, and with that,

helped with investigations into democrat including the biden spirit that led republican senator mitt romney some of his colleagues may want to hear from ambassador bolton. >> i think it is increasingly likelyt ther republicans will join. i thinkohbolton's relevance to our decision has become increasingly clear. >> democrats need atbleast four reans to vote in favor for to actually happen. this comes as president of defense team has taken to the floor. their case, the senate will have 16 hours to ask questions and decide if there will be witness and vote. >> thanks a much for being with us. this really contradicts the president's direct defense. how do you think this will impact the trial? he>> this gets toeart of the president's defense. elit complshatters it because all we have heard from the president's lawyers since the imp ichmentuiry started is that there are no first-hand witnesses who can definite -- you can confirm that he was engaged in a quid pro quo, meaning withholding military aid until they granted him the political investigations that they wanted. john bolton completely throw

he spent the spring of 2012 disqualifying mitt romney and romney never recovered.ty remarkable that democrats have a candidate right now whether you want to vote for him or not, that can in effect do the same thing to an incumbent president himself. >> yeah. he can certainly spend the money. can certainly spend it in places other candidates can't, and aren't spending it right now. certainly do it even if he isn't the nominee or doesn't come close to the nomination, he could find a way to keep spending 24that kind of money against president trump all the way to the election. the question inamerican politics does it get you what it did in the past. a cautionary tale how trump got elected, money wasn't necessarily his strong suit, his side strong suit both in the republican primary race and in the general election. it was much more sort of the polarization that ensued from all things being built around trump. werther you likliked him or hat him, able to polarize the country. talked about it a million time. find that narrow path through the electoral college. i wonder

mitt romney is another republican senator who has so much at home in utah that he doesn't have politicalorries. but without that, he has been saying, let's all slow down and take this seriously. >> the test for me -- i take to heart everything that casey just said. but i can't help falling back on the men and women i know in that senate on the republican side. i ate lunch with them for two years and got to know their thinking and watch that ark of pure partisanship get stronger and deeper among them. and that's going to be hard for them to overcome. folks like lindsey graham and even mitch mcconnell himself have set the bar so dangerously low to irresponsibility or from the public's perspective, a lack of trusting any particular outcome here, that it's going to be hard for them i think to really step into that history and do the right thing at the right moment and overcome the partisan call not to vote for witnesses, for example, and instead go, no, what i've heard from the house despite how crazy they get to their conclusions, calls on me now to want to ask for questions and inquire fro

it's still unclear if republican senators mitt romney and lisa murkowski will join her. their support would push the senate to a 50/50 tie. democrats growing increasingly frustrated by their gop colleagues. >> he has been let off the hook by republicans who are not going to vote for his conviction, but he is not going to be set free by the american people, i hope, who get that this was not a fair trial. >> reporter: and in just a couple of hours, we expect that crucial vote on witnesses. it will probably happen around 5:00 or 6:00 tonight. the actual final vote on whether or not the president is guilty of what and whether he deserves to be removed from office. one of the key questions, though. what happens if there is a tie? there is not a lot of confidence that what justice john roberts would do would break that tie. so likely no vote on witnesses. john and alisyn? >> thank you very much for that. joining us now john avalon, anna palmer, and michael smerconish. we'll get to roberts and murkowski in a moment. first, i want to look at the big picture here. let me read you

i've heard one person, mitt romney. others have always said, "we will see how the case goes forward." >> sandra: in the case of susan collins, lisa murkowski, and others, they have said they will listen throughout the trial and they are open to witnesses for republicans would be needed, of course, to join democrats in the witnesses for republicans skull for would be needed, of course, to witnesses. join democrats in the "the new york times" this morning says john roberts can call witnesses. willie? if this were to eventually happen, and we did go down the path of witnesses, john roberts who come into play of the president needed executive privilege. at what you see potential happening there, congressman? >> what we discussed about your previous guests, once this goes for there has to be areas in the white house, especially the ones closest to the president, doing whatever our president has done. that's the fight for the integrity. for republicans they have an inherent right to keep those conversations within themselves.

>> it's disappointing, because i think mitt romney is clearly letting his personal dislike of the presidentence him. we do not need a 2-month impeachment trial that we know the answer to. i think mitt really ought to get it together and understand that he is not doing the country a service by going that route. >> sandra: 's "the wall street journal" took on this morning. john bolton reported their advice is for mr. trump's former national security advisor told the public now what he says in his book. that brings us to -- >> sandra, nothing he can tell them is going to change the fact that it's not an impeachable act. that's the important point for mitt and the other republicans to understand. >> sandra: we heard from the president's defense yesterday. we'll continue today. governor, thank you. >> thanks, sandra. >> ed: potentially more trouble for britain's prince andrew. why hasn't he cooperated yet with federal prosecutors in the jeffrey epstein sex trafficking investigation after promising to do so? the fbi has some questions. we are live next.e what do you think? i don't see it. only pa

mitt romney, susan collins, lisa murkowski. i have a much harder time counting to four. i have a hard time finding that fourth, but chuck schumer will be looking for that person. >> as we like to say, what could go wrong? can't imagine three better ghosts start us off on a wednesday night like this one. elizabeth miller, ashley parker, garrett haake, our thanks to all three of you. >>> coming up, an retired four-star u.s. admiral says he saw something interesting in last night's missile volley from iran. >>> later, why at least one democratic senator predicts we are just days away from the start of that impeachment trial. when we continue on this wednesday night. saturdays happen. pain happens. aleve it. aleve is proven stronger and longer on pain than tylenol. when pain happens, aleve it. all day strong. or more on car insurance.s could save you fifteen percent everybody knows that. well, did you know pinocchio was a bad motivational speaker? i look around this room and i see nothing but untapped potential. you have potential. you have-oh boy. geico. fifteen minutes cou

it gave senators like mitt romney the ability to say, i agree with him. i would say on the john bolton matter and i mean this. john bolton tomorrow, needs to give an interview and share with the nation what he knows. tomorrow. before mitch mcconnell can put the final cap stone on friday on the cover up that this will be. because, they will likely have the votes to go no witnesses. and john bolton is not only destroying the calling of credibility and the calling of patriotism. john bolton was so offended that he chastized him -- i would say to john bolton, it's not the calling of patriotism for you to serve a president who is antithetical of your own. you are destroying your credibility. nobody is going to buy your book if you sit on this. because, nobody is going to give you 30 bucks and reward you for helping you cover up information that you alone have that could benefit the united states senate. >> suzanne, is there an opportunity, we are close on the number of senators who will call for witnesses and i, i mean, we have to remind our viewers, the fact

here's mitt romney's reaction. >> i'd love to hear what he has to say.thand information and assuming that articles of impeachment do reach the senate, i'd love to hear what he knows. >> bully for mitt romney, he said the right thing. marco rubio said the wrong thing today. i don't know if you saw his quote where he said, basically, we don't to want start a whole new investigation in the senate. >> let me give it to the audience. rubio said the testimony and evidence considered in a senate impeachment trial should be the same testimony and evidence the house relied upon when they passed the articles of impeachment. and that's where he wants to stand on this. >> it's a disingenuous thing to say. there's actually nothing in the constitution about that. but if i were adam schiff, i would subpoena mr. bolton right now to disqualify marco rubio's argument. >> mieke, your reaction to mitt romney coming out where 71% of the people of our "washington post" poll, on the question of whether trump should allow aides to testify, 71% say yes, they should testify. >> y

talk like mitt romney. because mitt romney is the one who has made the strongest public comments about witnesses. it's probably going to be impossible for him to walk his way back rhetorically from i think we should have john bolton as a witness to voting against witnesses. they're hoping they can contain mitt romney at minimum and he doesn't spend his day trying to encourage susan collins or lisa murkowski or others to join a group that can actually get witnesses, because mitt romney i think could be very effective at doing that. >> thanks to all of you. lawrence o'donnell will be hosting the impeachment trial of donald trump tonight at 6:00 p.m. eastern right here on msnbc. >>> the trump legal team kicking off its first day of defense. tomorrow chris hayes recaps the first week to have senate impeachment trial and previews the week ahead. watch "trump on trial" with chris hayes tomorrow at 9:00 p.m. eastern on msnbc. i'll be right back. on nbmsc. i'll be right back ruggle? introducing ore-ida potato pay.

defense he is not up for re-election or in a purple state, but he is mitt romney. >> and more informations come out that we will talk about later in the show, but now they are going into this with more information and with having had a conversation where the majority of the public thinks that we should have witnesses. >> and go over quickly who is the house impeachment senators. adam schiff, and hakeem jeffries and jerry nadler, and val demings, and zoe lofgren who was there for clinton and nearly for nixon as a staffer and finally sylvia garcia and a diverse group and also a geographic diversity from new york, texas, colorado and california. >> that is right. the most significant selection is chairman schiff, because he has experience of being an impeachment manager and he was a former prosecutor and he conducted effective hearings for the witnesses under the house intelligence committee. as someone who studies the house intelligence committee, i did not love the idea of the intelligence committee being the public face and the venue through which impeachment hearings were conducted, but