and in most of the polls, a majority of republicans, more republicans than not want witnesses and documents and it is rare for the republican rank-and-file to break with trump but i think the american people particularly after yesterday saw the gravity of the situation and the need to make it fair. i will say this to my republican friends. if the american people believe this is not a fair trial which right now they seem to believe because there are no witnesses and documents, acquittal will have 0 value to the president or the republicans. no, no, no. there are lots of conversations going on. i'm not going to comment on anything exclusive yet. >> remarks about witnesses, talking about a 1-to-1 deal. are you saying you are close to any potential deal? >> now republicans are talking to us about a deal, we want these four witnesses, these four sets of documents. they go to the truth but not a single republican has approached me and said what about this, what about that. it is not happening. there was one report that everyone is jumping on. >> i senate republicans complicit in a cover-up by not

i saw some republican u.s.enator today who was asked a question about impeachment and out and said, get out of here you liberal hack. this kind of thing is happening more and more because we have a president who has repeatedly called the media "the enemy of the people." it is frightening what he -- think about it -- he is the president of the united states. from his twitter feed, he can tweet something out attacking the media, attacking private industry, boosting up private companies, attacking individuals. it is really scary what he's doing to free speech and the free press. joe: do you have any views on campaign finance reform? obviously, you are an underdog right now? mr. walsh: i do. i do. my reform will probably not be liked by everybody in the room. i am not michael bloomberg, i am not a wealthy guy. so for me to raise money, i have to raise it $1000 or $2000 at a time. that is really really hard. so you spend a lot of time trying to raise money. the problem is, really wealthy guys with their own money ca

i am a lifelong republican. i am a republican former member of congress. republican candidate for president. i went to republican headquarters this morning to talk about that and nobody, nobody would meet with me. look, i know with trump, it is impeachment, it is a scandal every day. this should do one of the biggest issues in the country because it has never been done before. never been done. and the party is telling them to -- and the party is doing it because donald trump is telling them to do it. ugh! gaah! [laughter] mr. walsh: i apologize. it is going to be hard enough -- unless i had bloomberg's money -- it is going to be hard enough to beat him, but when you take 10 states off the table like that, it is wrong. joe: it is ironic to the fact that the party and the administration have talked so much about democrats denying the voters' right to be heard, but in this case they literally are blocking the voters' right. mr. walsh: you talk about messaging. maybe -- and i am a conservative -- but maybe most of my messaging right now, because of what i am d

republicans especially should be comforted by the fact he was nominated by a republican president.nd yet, they showed their colors when they voted against the amendment. clearly they want to stack the trial their way. and unwilling to have the chief justice in the of the united states. the highest judicial officer in the land make those calls based on the merit. >> obviously those who don't want witnesses or documents in the trial certainly don't want to hand that responsibility over to anyone else. including the chief justice. did you were you able to discuss the amendment with your republican colleagues and get a sense of what rational they would use for voting against it? the process doesn't allow for that. the amendment came up it was presented and voted upon and dispensed with. did you get sense as to what's the argument against it. it makes sense. this is a chief justice appointed by a republican. >> no one provided any good argument for why they would vote against it. it is really tough to make that argument because the whole purpose of this is to be even handed. as schiff s

the republican party -- if the republican party becomes the party of trump, they are done. i do not see him winning the nottion of 2020, but i do see him winning the election of 2016. i do not listen to liberal media, they only tell you what they want. guest: can i ask you a question. caller: yes. guest: you said you do not see trump winning in 2020. who do you see winning? caller: i do not know yet. i think the democratic party will support whoever becomes the nomination. guest: who would you like to see when or be willing to vote -- win or be willing to vote for? caller: my choice would be elizabeth warren. guest: why? caller: she has an educated person and knows about the system, and the structures that need to be changed. we need corporations to change the corporate law to support workers, providing pensions, the ceosre instead of under contract to maximize profits for shareholders. that is a corporate law, they cannot get out of it. their job is no longer to support the workers or grow the company, or encourage investment. their job is to get the maximum profit for the

and that puts pressure on some of these republicans. when mcconnell did his resolution, the public pressure to have a fair trial and a fair resolution was so strong, that he had to make a few changes. he had to give us three days, the managers three days instead of two. he had to submit the house record of evidence. that didn't happen because mcconnell wanted to. he was pressured by his senators. now, the big job to get witnesses and documents hasn't occurred yet, but i am very hopeful that what happened tonight will move the public, and they will move some republican senators in our direction. and it's a process. this is going to continue, and i think the next two days will be as powerful as today was. >> in terms of the public's position on this, the public is with you on the issue of witnesses. on the eve of the trial there was a cnn poll which said 69% of the country wants there to be witnesses. there's a reuters poll that came out tonight that says 72% of the country wants there to be witnesses at this trial are and that includes l

republicans were enough republicans were never moved by the houses case. now everything hinges on this question. what would it take to break republicans away from president on procedural vote? now of course looming over this, contents of the book. sitting in the white house for a month and leaking out. and the excerpt for the characterization sound devastating. for all the insanity on trump tv to discrept bolton as a republican tool of the left, it is of course worth remembering this guy served under every republican president since reagan. now he's being thrown under the bus because e wrote a book that says president trump came out and admitted it. and told him to his face, back in august, yes he wanted to continue it freeze military aid until officials helped with investigations into the bidens. quid pro quo. last night trumps former chief of staff who spent time in the white house knows the president well told he believes bolton. and supports calling witnesses. fancy that. with this news there are cracks i will say in the republican wall. the kau damasc

washington state, republican line. caller: hi, i am more conservative than republican. deal,of all, this whole guilty until proven innocent goes completely against what our constitution says. we do not have to prove that we are innocent in the great united states of america. and even the president is allowed that. and second of all, i find it amazing that the democrats are bringing up a constitution, and trying to teach us about it when, for the past 10 years, there has been nothing against the first amendment, the second amendment, and now this. if they remove the president, they will remove the vice president, and you will have nancy pelosi basically sitting where chief roberts is sitting now. and you will basically have a political borough. people should think about that. host: the you think the removal is a serious thing and you think the president will be removed from office? caller: i do. maybe not this time, but eventually, the democrats or the socialist and of the political spectrum will win out, and we will end up having a rule of government by committee. host:

republicans have missed that. i listen to these questions yesterday and understand there are three who are seriously considering joining this, we need more and i hope there will be more who will join us. this has to be a real trial at the end of the day, the american people to believe in it. if we bring this nation together, we want to short-circuit the trial so much mcconnell can return to his judicial vacancies. i hope the question today moves along that track. i want to say comments by mister philbin in the first part of the question period suggested he could receive information from foreign sources really is a problem. if that is the new standard, we are relying unfortunately on an election process that is not protected for information sources, that do not have the best interest of the united states in mind. the efforts they are making to distort and twist the truth comes from the security of our elections in years to come. >> senator hirono. >> we are witnessing the coronation of trump with mitch mcconnell ho

the key republicans aren't saying.usan collins, senator of maine, she said she would allocate to see witnesses, john bolton in particular. lisa murkowski, the republican of alaska has raised questions about is this going to get into a long drawn out fight over executive privilege. she said she does not have the stomach for that. as she was leaving the chamber this evening she would not talk about the day's proceedings, she said she was simply tired and she wanted to sort of digest. anderson, as we sit here today, unclear in any minds were changed. most on each soid had their minds made up at the beginning. >> it seems like the 2020 election cast a shadow over the arguments being made today. >> they did. the president's own words, so striking to hear his words again and again in the gallery. really a litany of his greatest hits that he's been talking about but it's also joe biden. the democratic managers raised joe biden and hunter biden throughout the day, a prebuttal, if you will, to what the president's lawyers are e

the other dynamics are i think it's pretty clear that if every republican or virtually every republican chambers votes to say there's nothing to sanction here, there's nothing wrong with what the president did in ukraine, they are signing up for more of this behavior. one thing we know is president trump is a student of power or of weakness. if he perceives they are going to stand with him no matter what, you can bet that he's going to push the envelope further in ways that we can't predict. and the other thing, of course, is there's the institutional issue here. there will again be a democratic president and there will again at some point be a republican congress while there's a democratic president. if every republican in both chambers says it's okay to systematically stonewall and reject any request for information from this congress, you know, they know they are setting a precedent that a future democratic president will be able to employ against republicans down the road. there are other considerations than just how this plays out in november for the handful of republicans, five or

who will under no circumstances buck the republican party but the large number of moderate republicans who clearly left the party in the congressional elections in 2018 and the independents they have to be asking themselves why why are they not allowing these people to testify why are they not allowing these documents to be produced what are they are doing it must be something much worse than what we even know and that will be that will come back to haunt them i think he's making a strategic mistake but all of the sentences taken his oath of impartial justice what would be the thinking behind this when everybody's aware that this is an election year and it is and how important the optics are what could be the reason from the point of view of not wanting to hear from bolton old mulvany or from blair well i think part of that may be their constituents. you know there's not. the lines have hardened on both sides and i think that the republicans believe that you know there's no nothing conciliatory going to go on and they're just going to tow the party line and that's it there's no deviati

i what republicans were moderately more pro-life than republicans nationwide. they to pretty much track where republicans were nationwide. demography is not necessarily destiny. >> i want to switch gears. one of the things i want to talk about, we handicap the race and how we see that playing out -- this is a big field of candidates. some of them are young enough that they will be around for future campaigns. it is true, many presidents get there in their second or third go. and, reagan. impresses youeld as someone who may not win, but who is going to be in good shape to run again or becomes -- comes out of this campaign as an enhanced political figure who winds up in the cabinet of the next president or is an enhanced figure, who will may lose on caucus night but will be longer-term winners? >> the obvious choice is pete buttigieg. dashed -- hiseen ability to mount a national campaign as the mayor of south bend has been impressive. it would suggest people have a future, although if he does not win and democrats do not take the white house, where he will be spe

republicans were angry. i don't think republicans have ever forgiven him for it. >> ...what many call socialized medicine. >> it's the most brazen assault on a fundamental aspect of our republic... >> ...every single republican senator votes consistently against government-run healthcare should be a clear indication. >> this is going to be the end of the economy as we know it. >> by passing a healthcare program essentially on the strength of one party, it was fated, destined to beca continuing partisan divide, part of the issues that would come up in election after election from then on. >> ...the perfect title, "lies, damn lies," that's what obamacare was all about. >> narrator: the anger directed at obama was growing. there were even questions about who he really was from across the divide. (crowd cheering and applauding) (crowd cheering and applauding) >> the birther movement was so powerful was because it spoke to all types of other anxieties that many white americans had about barack obama. "well, he's

republicans especially should be comforted by the fact he was nominated by a republican president.nd yet, they showed their colors when they voted against the amendment. clearly they want to stack the trial their way. and unwilling to have the chief justice in the of the united states. the highest judicial officer in the land make those calls based on the merit. >> obviously those who don't want witnesses or documents in the trial certainly don't want to hand that responsibility over to anyone else. including the chief justice. did you were you able to discuss the amendment with your republican colleagues and get a sense of what rational they would use for voting against it? the process doesn't allow for that. the amendment came up it was presented and voted upon and dispensed with. did you get sense as to what's the argument against it. it makes sense. this is a chief justice appointed by a republican. >> no one provided any good argument for why they would vote against it. it is really tough to make that argument because the whole purpose of this is to be even handed. as schiff s

talking to republicans. part of that is because we are sending so many hours listening. i have to say that almost never happens in the united states senate. people stand up and speak a lot but people are standing in back and so on. right now that is not happening. the seriousness of this moment has mostly meant that people are sitting down and listening. and even if they are not sitting in their seats as they ought to be, they are standing up in the back or in the cloak room where it is all on closed circuit television the whole time. in other words it does not have the feel of a social moment. it has the feel of an historic moment. people are paying more attention to the facts. and this is one, if we do pay attention to the facts, then we will have a fair trial because that means we will get the witnesses. we will get the documents. and then we are on a very different path. >> senator elizabeth warren, democrat of massachusetts and leading 2020 presidential candidate, great to have you here. >> thank you. >

the republicans in the senate were solid.xon behind closed doors and publicly being very amenable to all this information, what have you. in the house, they were very solidly for nixon. the moderates were the first to peel off. actually, larry hogan, whose son is now governor of maryland, his father was the first to peel off and say i think this man should be impeached. >> they were under the same sorts of pressures that republicans today -- >> very similar. what really happens in the end is nixon had pulled so many of them aside, particularly in the senate, and looked them in the eye and said, listen, i knew nothing about watergate, about the cover-up until john deep, my counsel came in and told me on march 21st was the first i learned. it was an outrageous lie and the tapes later proved how enormous the lie was. >> so the fact that he had lied to them to their face. >> to their face, and that's really when he lost the senate. >> it's interesting, paul. these senators are not unfamiliar with the fact that the president has l

it would state what republicans know but are afraid to say. presidents of either party to ask a foreign power to dig up information on a political reality. that's your reality check. >> thank you. >> i'm not sure reality for republican senators going forward. >> we'll see what happens today. a lot is changing this morning. thank you. "cnn newsroom" with max foster is next. for u.s. viewers breaking news with john bolton. "new day" continues right now. >>> it's just absolute shock and speechlessness in los angeles. >> nba legend kobe bryant was killed in a helicopter crash along with his 13-year-old daughter. heart sick kobe bryant fans remember their fallen hero. >> a bombshell new report in the "new york times" about ambassador john bolton's forthcoming book. >> he may have a firsthand account of president trump directly linking an official act to a personal political need. >> if true, this would undermine a key argument that president trump's defense team has been making. >> announcer: this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman.

iowa republicans were moderately more pro-life than republicans nationwide. but they too pretty much tracked where republicans were nationwide. demography is not necessarily destiny. david y: i want to switch gears here in the time we have remaining. one of the things i want to talk about, we sort of handicapped the race and how we see that playing out -- this is a big field of candidates. some of them are young enough that they will be around for future campaigns. it is true, many presidents get there on their second or third go. nixon, reagan. who in this field of candidates impresses you as someone who may not win, but who is going to be in good shape to run again or becomes -- comes out of this campaign as an enhanced political figure in america who winds up in the cabinet of the next president or is an enhanced figure? who is going to be some of the people, may lose on caucus night but will be longer-term winners? >> the obvious choice is of course buttigieg. his name had been bandied about by democrats, but clearly his ability to mount a national campai

and support that republican. the other gentleman, stuart 'tis dale says if she votes no, he likely won't support her. >> as we reported at the top of the program, witnesses in the senate impeachment trial, joining us for perspective, david gergen, elliott williams, kirsten powers and mike shields. >> it's always hard to tell with mitch mcconnell. he's a master of pulling these things off. and i think when he had this session today and said we don't have the votes yet, that's because some people hadn't given an indication one way or the other, i think he actually wanted to go public with that to sort of push people into committing so he can get rid of the drama. i think he's figured this out. i think the chances are at least 50/50 that he's going to pull this off. but i don't think that the country is quite as split. that piece we just saw from maine was very helpful, interesting, but it suggested an even split. in fact, when you look at the national polls we had a poll out today, 75% now say they want witnesses.

i think republicans are making a mistake not to have many republicans out there saying that exact samed that, there is also a big group of republicans and i respect them who think this whole thing is just a complete sham, who agree with the president, 100% that this is not partially pure politics, completely pure politics. >> agree with the president that you hold up nearly $400 million in military aid, agree with the president you keep dangling the white house meeting but still haven't given the white house -- >> the argument is that number one, the other side didn't know it was being held and number two, it was released on time. it was released and spent. and this president's policies towards ukraine are stronger and better than the previous administration. and democrats used to argue against. from a republican point of view, the hypocrisy on the democratic side is just overflowing. and they're not going to tolerate it. >> this is what shift -- shift was making the case, i think, very clearly yesterday, that the aid to ukraine was released on september 11th and that was two days afte

well, the same republicans are saying that they heard nothing new, but these republicans voted nine times on tuesday against amendments to ensure new witnesses and new documents to come before the senate. let me repeat. the same republican saying they heard nothing new just voted nine times on tuesday to hear nothing new. if they want new stuff, there's plenty of it, as the managers made clear, a lot of documents are sitting there all compiled, all ready to go with simply a boat of four republicans to subpoena them. so this argument that they heard nothing new when they vote against new evidence repeatedly rings very, very powerful. if my republican colleagues are interested in some new evidence on top of the very substantial house record, there's a very simple answer. vote with democrats to call relevant witnesses and documents. the presentations themselves argued both implicitly and explicitly for the importance of witnesses and documents. at key points yesterday it was so clear that we ought to hear from mulvaney and blair and duffey and bolton who are at the center of these events. it

that is a classic republican will have leaning suburb. in 2020 every republican god mowed down. i think that's going to happen. whether trump leaves in 2021 or 2025 or somewhere in between, there will be a big fight for the future of the republican party. >> okay. thank you. >> hi. >> hi, i'm yasmine and i go to suffolk university. my question is referring back back to september 11th. since that day, did you see the evolution of nationalism in politics, and specifically within the republican party? and if so, do you see it getting better or worse in the coming election? >> yeah. no, i certainly didn't see it in the aftermath of 9/11. the republican party was just a very dramatically different party. the country was different, generally united after 9/11. when i began to see the changes within the republican party, and how it was changing toward a sort of ethnic nationalist flavor, i'd say probably right around the mid-2000s, we were pushing a comprehensive immigration reform bill. we ended up after the re-election of president bush, which was 2004, in 2005 our big effort was to

that's not my republican party. and i think for a lot of republicans out there, that's not our party at all. i think what the senate republicans are about to do is going to form a permanent split in this party. >> former congressman joe walsh, coming to us from des moines, iowa, thank you so much, good to see you, sir. >>> let's get back to dana bash on capitol hill. dana? >> thank you, jake. i'm here with senator kevin cramer from north dakota. thank you so much for joining me. i appreciate it. let's start with what your republican colleague lamar alexander said very late last night in a statement. i'm going to read part of it to you. he said it was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold united states aid to encourage that investigation. when elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigation, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. do you agree with him that what the president did was inappropriate? >> it wa

he was a republican, i'm a senior republican. notwithstanding all of that, this is a very serious matter. i didn't know much about it. i better find out. that's when i decided to do that. and i hope it does not sound vain of me to say that, but i think we did a pretty good job with it. h liberty mutual. con liberty mutual solo pagas lo que necesitas. only pay for what you need... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ applebee's new irresist-a-bowls starting at $7.99 for a limited time. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. >> man: what's my my truck...is my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. ...with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ fine, no one leaves the tablefine, we'll sleep here. ♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory su

already republicans, already some republicans are saying this is just a he said he said affair. just a matter of conflicting accounts. i would remind everyone between president trump and ambassador bolton, only one of them is willing to testify in the senate under oath. only mr. bolton is willing to swear that he is telling the truth. >> let me think senator schumer for outline the absolute necessity for this impeachment trial to be able to hear directly from the witnesses that have the direct knowledge. i want to go back to saturday with the president's counsel telling us the importance to the president to be able to confront witnesses and to be able to cross-examine. what they said was cross-examination we can find out the truth. while we have a different view by ambassador bolton in regards to what the president is saying. the only way we can discover the truth is to have ambassador bolton testify under oath subject to cross-examination in order to find out the truth. same thing true with the other witnesses that were not permitted to testify in the house. mr. mulvaney has di

now you hear republican senator after republican senator this morning saying, you know, it may -- hispropriate or perfect, but it is not impeachable. they had heard that, they were feeling really great, and she goes out there and last night and says, well, it is really just about the politics of this and i hope joe biden loses iowa and maybe lose iowa as a result of this and so if i'm a republican, standing next to her, i'm grabbing her away from the microphone. >> having said all that, what she said in a moment of weakness is not -- doesn't change the overall drift of what happened last night. robert ray and dershowitz did a job of shoring up any nervous republican. the fact that mitt romney came out today and is talking deal instead of a straight up vote i want john bolton to come is i think emblematic of the fact that this is -- >> alan dershowitz being the savior for the republican party here -- >> is there anyone on this panel who is not interested in seeing if there is some sort of political blowback for joe biden when it comes to the defense? >> she spoke the truth. she spoke t

republican witnesses. i don't know of anyone who has been under oath who has made the case for the president's position. but i thought one of the most compelling parts of manager adam schiff's testimony or presentation yesterday was his recounting of that episode where ambassador -- national security adviser bolton is talking to bill taylor, the top guy in ukraine, a vietnam veteran, a decorated veteran, and taylor expresses concerns. bolton says send a classified cable to secretary of state pomp pompeo. and he said, wouldn't you like to read what was in that cable because it's a contemporaneous account of what bill taylor was concerned about with regard to ukraine? i was just looking at the house intel report and he said, quote, this is taylor testifying. quote, the russians, as i said in my depositiodeposition, woul see the humiliation of president zelensky at the hands of the americans. we should have access to that document. i think republicans would want to have that access as well. >> on the issue of

historically republican districts that flipped and so republican voters are formally republican voters are being represented in this process and they spoke by electing democrats who would then impeach president trump and so i think that this josè says we're flacks both historical democratic voters and a lot of former i think that will sell on the 32nd sell by 2nd very diluted the reality is that regardless of what we say twist and turn all you want the bill clinton impeachment from the very beginning of the adoption of the inquiry was bipartisan ok the. appointment of ken starr that moving forward was bipartisan this is a 100 percent partisan. ok it was already lost on all of these leaks from an impeachment is 1st of all political process we have to acknowledge that it is a political process if it were something that had to do you know that was judicial it would be handled by the supreme court but it's not it's handled by the senate because it is a political process so you have fallen understand now it's 5 you know what i want to get to is the politics of this for an international audi

the key republicans simply aren't saying. susan collins, senator of maine said she would like to see witnesses. john bolton in particular. lisa murkowski raised questions about is this going to get into a long drawn out fight over executive privilege? she said she does not have the stomach for that. as she was leaving the chamber she would not talk about the day's produceedings. she said she was tired and wanted to digest. unclear if any minds were changed, of course, most on each side had their minds made up at the beginning. >> it seems like the 2020 election cast a shadow over the arguments being made today or at least in part. >> they did without question. of course, the president's own words, so striking to hear his words again and again in the gallery, you know, really a litany of his greatest hilts he's been talking about but joe biden, the democratic managers raised joe and hunter biden throughout the day, a pre-buttal to what the president's lawyers are expected to use. -- their side in the coming days but a preview

since you have been a lifelong republican, if challenges toe the republican line, if they of thein a strengthening republican party down the line or if you think it causes too much disruption to the party and takes away from its overall value. >> good question. it is very fascinating. the tea party movement, the genesis of it was the bailout of the banks after the 2008 financial crisis. i think was almost an unmitigated success. is a really good documentary called panic. they interviewed the key protagonists. it is a fascinating account of what happens. they had to bail out the banks. so it did not become a depression. but that bailout of the banks caused tremendous populist upsurge. if the banks went belly up, so with the rest of the economy. there would be huge collateral damage. they ended up paying back the loans. that catalyzed a populist revolt. the tea party was very strongly limited government. populist. antiestablishment. the 2010ly drove midterm elections, which were very damaging for the democratic party. the tea party has really kind of petered out. donald trump is in man

but will four of his republican colleagues. the eyes of america and the eyes of the founding fathers looking down upon us are on our republican colleagues. will they stand for a fair trial. will they stand for bringing evidence forward. or will they be engaging in a cover-up. in one of the most sacred and profound powers that the founding fathers gave the senate. we'll see. the next few weeks, will be very telling. senators kavanaugh. >> thank you. as we know that's voted to approve impeachment articles against donald trump. charging with abuse of power, and obstruction of congress. now, it's up to the senate to fulfill our responsibility, our constitutional responsibility for the quote of impeachment. later jim are proposed a full and fair bipartisan impeachment trial process that includes witnesses and documents. pretty simple pretty and pretty easy to understand. pretty common sense. this process will give president trump every opportunity to bring forth evidence and make his case. why isn't that why doesn't he want to do th

that includes 49% of republicans surveyed. amid all this, the president held his first rally since the start of the impeachment trial. he was down in wildwood, new jersey, tonight along the southern shore of that great state, and a big show of support for jeff van drew. mr. van drew was a democratic congressman who voted against impeachment, later switched, became a republican, now has an enormous target on his back. there were the familiar attacks on democrats and on the investigations that have clouded the trump presidency. >> while we are creating jobs and killing terrorists, the congressional democrats are obsessed with demented hoaxes, crazy witch hunts, and deranged partisan crusades. the american people are disgusted by the washington democrat witch -- and you see it. you see it. which is worse? the impeachment hoax or the witch hunts from russia? ashley parker, pulitzer prize-winning white house reporter for "the washington post." and jeremy bash, former chief of staff at cia and the pentagon and former chief counsel t

senator alexander, senior senate republican, retiring member said out loud that most senate republicans believe in private, that yes, the president did withhold military assistance to try to get ukraine to help in his election and yes, the president did interfere with congressional investigations about misconduct. he said yes, the president conditioned foreign aid in the white house meeting with an ally at war on a bogus investigation that would help his reelection. alexander rejected 90% of the arguments from the president's council that the president did nothing wrong. he acknowledged the president did something the founders feared most, potential corruption of our national elections by a foreign power. solicited by none other than our own president and to hide that gross misconduct white house exhausted every legal trick in the book to prevent congress from investigating. if my republican colleagues refuse to even consider witnesses and documents in this trial, this country is headed for the greatest cover-up since watergate. if my republican colleagues refuse to even consider witnes

what the what the republicans seem to have been doing today was that republicans maybe should more refer to the legal counsel and that is simpler and jay sekulow when they spoke earlier on behalf of of the president. the plan of attack seemed to be to attack adam schiff directly and this is going back to what happened in the house the no he made up this transcript and all these sorts of things is that. partially i mean personalizing is always good to sort of attack strategy for for illegal attacks in some cases if you're doing it for the public in a way partially also this i believe especially for the lead counsel of the of the president this may be something a little bit personal sense. initially the some of the house managers have said that well he's a material witness maybe he shouldn't even be the person actually counsel and maybe he should be a witness recalling in there's a conflict of interest presumably they're going after shift because they like to say well that he's being unprofessional irresponsible and that he may have conflicts of interest and self so partially probably the

a republican. i guess you're an independent now. if you were a senator, you would have voted to subpoena all the documents from the white house, the pentagon -- >> there's no justification not to. when you get to a trial, you're entitled to issue trial subpoenas. even before that you're even in a criminal case you're entitled to issue pretrial discovery, both sides, even if evidence has been heard before a grand jury. in fact the united states against nixon, the famous case that dealt with executive privilege in 1974 involved pretrial discovery in a criminal case where the defendants had already been indicted. so the analogy would be here is that once you file the indictment or the impeachment charges here, you should get discovery for trial. >> mitch mcconnell, the senate majority leader, says he doesn't think there should be any witnesses and he's telling his caucus that he doesn't think that should happen at all. >> the constitution says, article 1 says that the senate has the power to try, sole

it is running away from the truth and it is up to the republicans and solely the republicans to do it. we are not for it. >> parnas is on capitol hill. why don't you want to hear from him? >> we are looking at the four witnesses we have asked for, those who were in the room when it happened, parnas wasn't in the room where it happened so that is why we asked him. his lawyer called us up and asked for tickets like many new york constituents and we said we give them out to new yorkers who ask. i'm not sure parnas would be allowed in because of the electronics. >> the folks that are talking about a decision, it is only a vote in order to debate and vote on other witnesses. is there too much focus on this one vote? even if the senate were to call witnesses, doesn't mean anyone will get called out for that. >> that was a contrivance of mitch mcconnell and maybe some of his colleagues. we wanted witnesses immediately. that could have moved things along quickly. they came up with this because they didn't have the votes to shutdown witnesses and documents been so they had this kick the can do

senator who was a republican who voted for conviction decided not to and in fact he was bribed not to do so and most of the senators who decided not to vote for convict. for injury johnson where folks who were concerned about the succession of power and who were assured by andrew johnson stop interfering right struction i guess i'll just say yes if i'm going to get rachel let me i'm just going to say yes is it the heart of the question here writing is what is going to happen in denver and a democratic society how are we going to present going forward you might make the argument that just because donald trump is likely not to be convicted does not mean that the impeachment was a nice thing ok so i guess as you can imagine very busy conversation going back and fulfilling at the moment the comments interesting danish can ill for instance says when will the results speak declared patty we don't know so we know that the democrats have 3 days they're on day 2 of the days are all kind of running together . the republicans get 3 so if they take all of their time although that to me is the wil

the republicans did this to us starting in 2002 when republicans put that into place. so i think we'll be able going into 2022 we'll look at a lot of new fair maps. in a place like missouri potentially find a path to victory. thank you. >> redistricting, you mentioned in michigan and -- talk about fair districts. are these fair districts going to be ones that are done by other parties in in the redistricting committees or ones drawn by democrats? >> the fair districts of -- >> will democrats -- is this a commitment from democrats to support nonpartisan redistricting commission if they win in michigan? >> yeah, in michigan they've been very -- the democrats have said this is the path. they've been very supportive of voters, not politicians and nonpartisan redistricting commission. the secretary of state has tried to doo everything she can along with the democratic a.g. to make sure the commission held. it was the republicans who tried to dismant they will redistricting in michigan and they continue to do that. the republican organization sued on it as well, with scott w

and that relies upon four republican senators.our republican senators do you think whose minds -- >> well, no. actually that one relies on 20 republican senators because if they vote to -- if the president is acquitted on both of these counts, then the impeachment clause is gone. i mean, then you've basically established the precedent that any future president can get away with not cooperating in any way, shape, or form, not allowing any of the executive branches to testify, not allowing evidence. the question about the trial and whether we're going to get witnesses, that only will take four. but i'm really worried about the hundred-year precedent of a president that's essentially an elected monarch. >> do you think there are four who will ask for witnesses and are willing to actually side with democrats on? >> i think there will be. i'm not sure. i just don't know. i just think it would be very hard to go home and say to your constituents i didn't want to see any more facts, i didn't want to have any witnesses. the calls to my of

it's moving independents to the republican party. i think the democrats lost credibility because from day one, even before the president was sworn into office, they were talking about impeachment then. at this point, if he were to jaywalk across the street, they would be ready to impeach him for that. they've lost credibility since january 2017 until today. they finally want to do it. we have an election coming up this november. if the american people are unhappy with this president, they can use their voice at the ballot to decide not to re-elect him as president. but instead of allowing our process, our political process and our democratic process to go through and let the american people decide, the democrats decided they want to impeach the president and undermine the results of the previous election. it's because of the slate of democrat candidates is a weak slate of kads. >> i want you to dovetail. it's how he closed today. adam schiff says the right thing has to be done. >> that's right. as far as he's concerned, democrats are

the republicans or enough republicans were never going to be moved by the house's case.cedural vote. now of course looming all over this, the contents of john bolton's book manuscript sitting in the white house last month and they're leaking out and the excerpts or characterizations we've gotten, pretty devastating. it is of course worth remembering, this guy served under every republican president since ronald region. recently he could not get confirmed at the un ambassador because he was so despised by senate democrats. now he says that president trump just came out and admitted it and told him to his facebook in august that, yes, he wanted to freeze help to ukraine until an investigation was done into the bidens. quid pro quo. last night john kelly who of course spent a lot of time in the white house, knows the president well, spent a lot of tiefrm around him told a crowd in florida that he believes john bolton and he supports calling witnesses. fancy that. with this news, there are discernible cracks in the republican wall. the republican caucus is clearly on the def

republican mine from oregon. >>caller: i am so embarrassed to be registered as a republican at this point. i do not understand how he can get away with all of these things he has gotten away with. president trump has destroyed our democracy. we have become more of a monarchy or a dictatorship. and in my opinion right doesn't have to matter about everything else but this cannot be a nonpartisan decision whether to remove him from office then our whole system of being free is gone and if any president can do anything without any repercussion or any responsibility to the american people, it's supposed to be that we the people not be the party of republican or democrat. we the people should have a say in all of this. and if the senators are republicans and are not clear on the fact that they will be nonpartisan then i feel that president trump can get away with anything. >> what were one of the strongest arguments you heard the last couple days? mimic the strongest argument i heard is that everything is black and whi

that is what is on trial, the republican party, the republican senate. will they stand up for democracy? will they stand up for the right of the american people to have a full and fair trial as he undermines the american constitution. >> go ahead. >> this argument about privilege and a protracted legal fight, would you be willing to turnaround the executive privilege issue? would you be willing to show that there is no legitimate privilege fight going on here? >> we believe we need to get a full and fair trial, a solemn, serious moment. at a minimum, the witnesses we asked for in the documents we added 4. that is the first step. will republicans come forward and say we are to have them. once they do, we will still fight for these but we will listen to what they have to say but it is jumping the gun to say what would you be willing, when we don't have republicans yet, just say yes to the initial request for witnesses and documents. i will get to you next. >> the question, compiling the questions together. >> i expect there will be a lot of questions from