toomey: thank you, madam president. i want to thank the ranking member of our committee for all of the work that he's put into this effort, even though i disagree in some important respects. one, i want to talk about this morning is the process under which we are going to consider and probably pass this legislation. we are considering this legislation under trade promotion authority. that refers to another bill, a law actually that we passed some time ago that expedites the process, forbids senators from offering amendments, allows passage of the legislation to occur with a simple majority vote, 51 out of 100, instead of the usual 60-vote threshold. that's what trade promotion authority makes possible. it seems to me it's very, very important that any legislation we consider under a trade promotion authority be compliant with trade promotion authority because if it's not, if we allow extraneous provisions, for instance, then we're circumventing the normal legislative process, we're circumventing the 60 thoat threshold a

senator toomey said why not think about witnesses one for one, bolton for biden. make a trade with democrats. republicans in my room based on my reporting perked up their ears and said if toomey is talking about witnesses and it's not senator alexander or collins or romney, if toomey is speaking up, that's a crack. not a significant crack at this moment but it shows more conversation about witnesses. mcconnell didn't embrace toomey's position at this moment, but this idea of witness reciprocity floated by senator cruz last week has now been picking up steam within the republican conference. that shows some reaction to the bolton revelations by mike schmidt and maggie haberman. >> anita kumar, not all of us will get the chance to be in a gallery during an impeachment. you've witnessed it. you've experienced it. what are we missing watching on television? >> the senators drink a lot of water. >> okay. better that than some other beverages, i suppose. >> but today was odd because you would have not realized -- you didn't realize what was going on with john bolton if

toomey is good on guns. but he's terrible on climate and fracking. so there's a lot about where bro bloomberg is coming from that i don't like. on top that have, i don't like people buying their way into the electoral process. we've got to get money out of politics. [ applause ] >> so we are almost out of time. but before i ask you the final question, i just want to present you with the very highly coveted national press club coffee mug. >> cool. >> or anything mug. [ applause ] >> thank you. >> this question seems to have come from many, many corners. how much fun are you having working with lily tomlin? >> oh, yeah. she's coming friday the 27th to get arrested with me. [ applause ] grace and frankie do jail. i love lily tomlin, okay? lily tomlin is an inescapably loveable human being with the largest talent of anybody i've known. i'm just -- i feel very blessed that i go to work every day and get to see her radiant face. and we love each other a lot. [ applause ] >> and sorry, one final. somebody asked whe

>> i think pat toomey is right to suggest maybe we should negotiate witnesses here.ys been the smarter play. i don't know how many witnesses there should be. if there are going to be a democratic witnesses, and there should be, john bolton and mick mulvaney and michael duffey and others, that means they should negotiate this. i would want to try to bring closure to this witness debate because there needs to be some. >> before we gee, jackie, shan, charlie, thumbs up or thumbs down, senate votes to call witnesses? >> putting them on the spot here. >> oh, man, jim. >> he asked. not me. >> you know, you're the swing vote, jackie. >> i'm inclined to agree. two senators, but those are two hard votes to get. >> so thumbs up. >> no, i don't think they will. >> thumbs down. >> you don't think they will. >> i don't think they will. >> she didn't put it on the screen. >> she's a smart woman. >> right. >> jackie, charlie, shan, thanks to all of you. >> we appreciate it. thank you for joining us. see you back here tomorrow morning. i'm poppy harlow. >> i'm jim sciutto. stay tune

is it okay now to go to senator toomey? senator toomey? >> thank you very much, chairman and colleagues on the committee. i'll be very brief. i would like to engage in a brief colloquy to determine if the chairman and ranking member agree that the absence of a mock mark-up should not be considered a precedent for how we in this committee will deal with future trade agreements under tpa. >> well, tpa prohibits amendments and does not require a mock mark-up. mock mark-ups are optional. they can be an important tool for congress to share its views with the executive branch to fulfill its purposes, a mock mark-up has to happen before the introduction of a bill. we're obviously well passed that now. congress has shared its views on usmc for over a year. critically this administration has acted in response by implementing bipartisan feedback into the bill. in this very unique situation, there was no time for a mock mark-up. these unique circumstances should not be considered precedent for future fta considerations, but we have weigh weighed info

you heard senator toomey say that his democratic colleagues could drag this out. by that, i've had a number of conversations with people on the hill that know the process, know what is in the rules. if they get this witness vote, let's say it's 50/50, let's say it's 51 and prevent witnesses, the effort is going to go right away towards acquittal. like we saw at the beginning, senator schumer could roll out a ton of amendments and drag this out and may be a wish for senators to weigh-in about this move, this acquittal. one last thing. there's pressure from some democrats anxious to go to iowa like senator klobuchar, warren -- >> bill: a lot of moving parts. josh, you see that as possible etch though you have an answer on witnesses by friday night, you're still there monday? >> you'll see a lot of activity by the democrats that see the writing on the wall that this will end in exoneration for the president and four months of work on an impeachment falls flat. my bet is that bipartisan support for an acquittal here. i see zero republicans that look like they're anywh

toomey. mr. udall, mr. van hollen, mr. warner, ms. warren. mr. whitehouse, mr. wicker, mr. wyden, mr. young. >> the minorit majority leader is recognized. administered as soon as possible. >> the proclamation. >> all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the house of representatives is exhibiting to statesate of the united articles of impeachment against donald john trump, president of the united states. >> the majority leader is recognized. >> on my behalf and that of the distinguished democratic leader, i'm about to propound several unanimous consent request that will assist with the organization of the next steps of these proceedings. they deal largely with necessary paperwork incident to the trial. consent that the summons be issued in the usual until 6:00 p.m. on saturday, january 18, 2020 to file his answer with the secretary of the senate and the house of representatives have 20,l 12 noon until january 2020 two file with the secretary of the senate. the secretary of the senate be authorized to print those documents filed by the parties to

[laughter] >> is it okay now to go to senator toomey? senator toomey. >> thank you, mr. chairman and colleagues. i will be brief. i would like to engage in a brief political colloquium to determine if the they were agreed that the absence of a mock markup should not be considered a precedent for how we in this committee will deal with future trade agreements under tpa? >> while, to behave prohibit an immense and does not require mock markup, mock markups are optional and they can be an important tool for congress to share his views with executive branch and to fulfill the purposes of a mock markup it has to happen before the introduction of a bill and we are obviously well past that n now. congress has shared its views on u.s. sea for over a year and admittedly this administration has acted in response by him lamenting bipartisan feedback into the bill and in this very unique situation there was no time for eight mock markup and these unique circumstances should not be considered precedent for future fda considerations but we have weighed in informally through meetings w

toomey. mr. udall, mr. van hollen, mr. warner, ms. warren. mr. whitehouse, mr. wicker, mr. wyden, mr. young. >> a senator not in the senate chamber at the time the oath was administered, to the other senators, will make that fact known to the chair so the oath may be administered as soon as possible. >> the started in arms will make a proclamation -- the sergeant in arms will make the proclamation. here ye. all persons are committed to keep silent. while he house of exhibiting to the senate articles of impeachment against donald trump, president of the united states. >> the majority leader is recognized. >> for the information the senate, on my behalf and that of the democratic leader, i am about to propound several unanimous consent requests that will assist with the organization of the next steps of these proceedings. they deal largely with necessary paperwork, incident to the trial. therefore, i ask unanimous consent the summons be issued in the usual form, provided to the president may have until 6:00 on saturday january, 18 to file his answer with the secretary of the

toomey, mr. udall, mr. ben homans, warner, ms. moran, mr. whitehouse, mr. wicker, mr. wyden, mr. young,. >> any senator who is not in the senate chamber at the time the oath was administered to the other senators who make up that fact known to the chair so that the oath may be administered as soon as possible. speemac the sergeant at arms will make the proclamation. >> hear ye hear ye hear ye, all persons are known to keep silent. there will be imprisonment. speemac articles of impeachment against donald john trump. president of the united states. the majority leader is recognized. speemac for the information of the senate, on my behalf and that of the distinguished democratic leader, i am about to remount several unanimous consent requests that will assist with the organization and accepts of these proceedings they deal largely with necessary paperwork incident to the trial. they were poor i ask unanimous consent of the summons to be issued in the usual form provided to the president he may have until 6:00 p.m. on saturday january the 18th, 2020. to follow-up is insert with the

but there are, and the fact that senator toomey today who had not said a thing about witnesses was talking about witnesses. the fact when they came out of their lunch, usually they're all united and we're going to move forward and all mcconnell could say to them is keep your powder dry because he knew he was losing ground. when you're around here, you pick up all the signals. at least today things are moving in our direction. i don't want to get too optimistic, but we're making -- we're making progress. and the reason is because our argument is right. a trial, you know, you had mr. starr argue that we are a trial, that we are a trial. well, what trial do you know that doesn't have witnesses and documents? >> senator, the -- again, i don't want to get too far ahead of this story, and i hear your reticence to do so either. if you do end up with john bolton in a witness store, one of the things that everybody has now started gaming out is the means by which the white house might still try to keep him quiet. they might assert some sort of privilege. they might try to classify his testimony or

but i don't like the fact that he supports candidates -- i mean pat toomey in pennsylvania was running against a very progressive woman, and michael bloomberg put a lot of money intoy's campaign because toomey is good on guns. but he's terrible on climate and fracking. so there's a lot about bloomberg is coming from that i don't like. but on top of that, i don't like people buying their way into the electoral process. we've got to get money out of politics. >> so we are almost out of time but before i ask you the final question, i just want to present you with the very highly coveted national press club coffee mug. >> cool. >> or anything mug. >> thank you. >> now, this question seems to have come from many, many corners. how much fun are you having working with lily tomlin? >> oh, yeah. she's coming friday the 27th to get arrested with me. "grace & frankie" do jail. i love lily tomlin, okay? lily tomlin is an inescapably loveable human being with the largest talent of anybody i've known. i feel very blessed that i go to work every day and get to see her radiant face. we love each othe

i'm thinking of portman and toomey of pennsylvania. clearly, they will most likely vote to acquit but they have said before they do find this behavior not appropriate. they were not comfortable with it. whether it's impeachable they don't believe that was the case. >> and adam schiff tried to play to that. they know that the republicans say things privately they won't say publicly. they know an overwhelming vie what rudy giuliani was up to. and adam schiff is trying to play the president's team is going to tell you this was fine, he doesn't trust the intelligence services, so he'll use rudy giuliani, give me a break. >> they're going to the president's personal lawyer. does that sound like an official policy to try to fight corruption? why would you go outside the normal channel to do that. you wouldn't. no, you go to your personal attorney, who's on a personal mission that he admits is not foreign policy. when your objective has nothing to do with policy. when your objective is a corrupt one. >> a strong argument and a strong case. th

republican senator john toomey projected that the vote on witnesses will happen on friday or saturdayt the latest. >> let's talk day two of the president's defense team yesterday as president trump's impeachment trial, the lawyers for the president latched on to the no quid pro quo argument as a defense tactic. watch this. >> president zelensky and other ukrainian officials repeatedly said there was no quid pro quo, and no pressure on them to review anything. >> how could the house managers claim that there was a quid pro quo for a meeting with president trump when the two presidents actually did meet without president zelensky announcing any investigations. well, the house managers moved the goal posts again. no one testified in the house record that the president ever said there was a connection between a meeting and investigations. those are the facts plain and simple. so much for a quid pro quo for a meeting with the president. if the evidence doesn't show a quid pro quo, what does it show. there was no linkage between investigations and security assistance or a meeting on the jul

here is what he said, senator pat toomey raised the one for one witness deal. the proposal for witness reciprocity is not something most gop senators are actively pursuing and it is essentially a backup plan in case enough republicans vote to hear witnesses, senator mike braun said. so then let's say that democrats say as they have all along, no, hunter biden is actually not relevant to this, we are not going to agree to that, can't republicans say, we offered. we offered them witnesses, they said no. >> well, listen, i mean, this is not about how democrats feel or a republican feels, it's about who has the votes. this whole idea of trading witnesses doesn't make a lot of sense. democrats will move forward under all circumstances to try to get john bolton, mick mulvaney, the omb guys and if the price of that is the republicans want to bring in hunter biden or adam schiff or joe biden, that's a price they will willing to pay. >> that's a price the democrats are willing to pay? >> i believe it's a price -- they will vote against it, they will rail against it, but

and that's what's toomey's role is here. it's interesting. i'm just looking at the politics. >> well, the politics is so essential, chris, because the abuse of power case rests on a political theory. >> right. >> so the politics are the element of the abuse of power. i've got the whole panel, but we're going to do two things. the story chris matthews just mentioned is breaking in "the washington post." i'm going to go to bob costa briefly for the facts, and then we have a u.s. senator i believe is about to join us. costa reporting tonight now about this potential swap, and that could mean a potential new republican joining romney and others who talked about witnesses. bob costa, i'm going to read the headline and you tell us the rest. toomey pro processes a one for one impeachment trial amid these explosive allegations. take it away. >> we know about the republicans who have been talking about bringing witnesses into the senate trial. senator toomey of pennsylvania, a conservative, he has been quiet for weeks. haven't said anything about havi

you see new talk, romney, toomey and others.cans close to senate leadership, that's significant, it's going to be a question of what diplomaemocrats to do to b them further along that line. >> appreciate you being with us here on both those stories, robert. thanks a lot. >> thank you. >> the pence stuff i feel like is the back burner stuff that has been simmering from the very beginning here, and the more we learn about it, the more woolly his statements start to seem and the more you realize how he and his staff are reaching as far as they possibly can to avoid saying anything that draws him into this. he's right in the middle of this. >> i still do i want understand if that was a statement of the vice president's staff speaking or was that the vice president speaking in that written statement? >> right. >> who was speaking for whom? >> i think it's a statement from the vice president's chief of staff. > >>yes. >> about his own knowledge. >> there is a wrinkle there. mike short was a top, top staff member for donald trump. he w

toomey parents cannot afford it.t are, we were thrilled to work with you to fund 5100 additional slots for at-risk children in the colorado preschool program. in my budget this year, we are proposing to help an additional 6000 children to attend preschool, which will bring coverage to half of all eligible kids in colorado. -- half of all colorado families. we should feel good about reaching this milestone. it has taken more than three decades of work to get half the job done. we know we must do better, which is why, i am committed to achieving universal access to quality preschool for four-year-olds by the end of my first term. [applause] early childhood education is not just about giving our kids a great start in life, although truly that is where we start. every dollar invested in high-quality preschool produces a seven dollar return on due toent to taxpayers higher earnings, lower special education needs, greater tax revenues, less dependency on public assistance and lower crime rates. this is not just the right t

. >> have you spoken with your fellow pennsylvania senator, republican pat toomey, about what he's goingbecause he's also said, i think, he's not going to vote for new witnesses. in igs to tha in addition to that, what do you make of the argument that i don't need new witnesses, i am convinced the president held the aid in part to get ukraine to investigate on the part of the bidens, i don't think it rises to the level of removing a president from office? >> it got worse this week because of the disclosures about john bolton's manuscript. when you consider the bolt part of this, but then you add in all the disclosures, by the hour and by the day, emails and parnas and bolton and so many other things, it is evident there is information out there that we could benefit from and this could be done in a very orderly time window. manager schiff, adam schiff said last night, a reasonable proposal, let's not just witnesses, but let's do it in a week. the senate could go back and do other work for a week and reconvene as a court of impeachment, consider the new evidence and move to a final stage

. >> laura: this is what senator toomey says tonight.washington post" reported, "he has spoken to other senators about possibly doing a witness swap with the democrats." so dramatic. it's like a hostage swap. except the american people are being held hostage. what about senator toomey who famously voted against the embassy? >> everyone after they had to react, i did all day. that's all the press was talking about. i think after they heard alan dershowitz this evening, they may change their mind. if it does get the witnesses, say we get four senators, it would have to be reciprocal. it's only right there that if we do ever get the witnesses, which we shouldn't because the case is solid. that was proven yesterday and today. it may go away because chuck schumer has been talking about it like it's in a vacuum. it's just bolton, just mick mulvaney. >> laura: i don't hear what bolton says! >> if four senators can't go beyond it. >> laura: i felt he was doing this, well he didn't. >> the aide was released and all that stuff. dershowitz said, wh

also a story from robert costa from the post indicatin indicatt toomey, republican of pennsylvania, would support the idea of one for one of the democrats getting a witness and republicans getting a witness in after the testimony today, many republicans potentially vying for hunter biden to be the witness. former vice president joe biden said he would have nothing to do with that but this is an investigation on donald trump and not into the bidens. campaign coverage continues. we are a week away from the iowa caucuses on february 3 coming up tomorrow morning by the way, tom steyer will be the guest at 9 a.m. eastern time from des moines iowa. mark from latham, new york. democrats line. >> caller: good evening. i just have to tell you i have been watching this on both sides and it's purely i believe the house has messed this up big time. anyone watching this over the course of the last two years, regardless of what network coming and we try to watch you because you stay where you belong as far as honesty and integrity, that it prevents politics. they want to overturn the results of the 201

. >> pat toomey, the republican senator from pennsylvania, has suggested that he would be open to what he calls a one for one swap, if you get john bolton, then the republicans will get to call someone, presumably hunter biden. where is thinking on that possibility? >> we're not trading baseball cards. we're not kids sitting around here picking their favorites and putting them in the middle of the circle. we're talking about relevant, material witnesses. what we've asked for are four people who worked for the president. we don't know what they're going to say. they've not been deposed in a way we can anticipate their testimony, but they were all there at the critical moments when decisions were being made in the white house. they've heard what the president had to say when it came to his plan for ukraine. and i think that is the important step to take forward. this idea of bargaining. well, we'll give you one irrelevant witness for one material witness. baloney. these should be material witnesses, and we have said we want the chief justice to be the last word on it. let the chief justi

democrats have balked at this suggestion, but republicans say the fact that toomey even spoke out shows there is a little fluidity on the republican side. later at the lunch, leader mcconnell didn't say much. he wants to have a discussion about witnesses after the arguments are made, but you do see romney, toomey and others, and for others who are close to senate leadership, that's significant. it's going to be a question of what democrats do to try to bring them further along that line. >> robert costa, reporter from the "washington post." thanks a lot. >> thank you. >> i will say the pence stuff, i feel like, is like the back burner stuff that's been simmering from the very beginning here. the more we hear about it, the more you start to see and you realize his staff is doing all they can to get in the middle of this. >> i still wonder if that was the vice president's staff speaking or was that the vice president speaking in that written statement? who was speaking for whom? >> i think it's a statement from the vice president's chief of staff about his own knowledge. >> that's what i

toomey, mr. udall, mr. mr. van holland, ms. warren, mr. warner mr. whitehouse, mr. wicker, mr. wyden, mr. young >> any senator who is not in the senate chamber at the time the oath was administered to the other senators we will make that fact known to the chair so the oath may be administered as soon as possible. >> the sergeant at arms will make the population. >> hear ye, hear ye, hear ye, all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment. while the house of representatives exit exhibiting to the senate of the united states articles of impeachment against donald john trump, president of the united states. >> majority leader is recognized. >> mr. chief justice, for the information of the senate on my behalf and on that of the english democrat leader i'm about to propound several unanimous consent request level as us with the organization of the next steps of these proceedings. they deal largely with necessary paperwork incident to the trial. therefore i ask unanimous consent the summons be issued in the usual form provided so the president may have until 6:00 p.

senator pat toomey, pennsylvania, said he was very, very skeptical, he would see the need to vote for additional witnesses. and senator cory gardner of colorado, republican of for reelection in the battleground eight, announced wednesday that he would not vote to call witnesses. let's go back to dean in rural utah. please go ahead and i apologize for interrupting you. >> caller: that's okay. my point is about calling witnesses, here's the thing. okay, what are the chances that you are going to have 20 republican senators vote to have witnesses, you know, to go to remove the president? so, even if they were to call witnesses, what are the chances of that? >> host: as the article said, very slim. >> caller: so why go through all of this? we are in an election year and what they are doing is penalizing the election system by dragging this out for months and weeks and weeks. why go there? >> host: your senator, mitt romney, has basically said he would vote for witnesses. >> caller: i know. and i'm not happy about that. and i sent him a message. >> host: did you get a response from his off

. >> pennsylvania republican pat toomey is pushing a witness swap where the gop will allow hnbolton to testify in support of the witness' defense. that plan is meeting with resistance. >> we're not bargaining with they will, we want four witnesses and four sets of documents and the truth will come out. >> joe biden will remain high on the list of witnesses. >>> after the president's team wrapped up the case, the senators will get 16 hours to question both sides. the question and answer period likely to begin tomorrow. >>> new at noon, the city of oakland opened the 7th community cabin site tonight, and jackie ward gives as you tour and tells us what makes this location extra special. >> in order for this site to open more than 170 people from the city of oakland donated to make it possible. prince chandler is an air force veteran had to live in his car after graduating from college. services from the va took so long. >> we do things people take for granted every day. when you're homeless you can't concentrate on life, you are surviving. >> now, he has a full-time job as a social media

senatopat toomey of pennsylvania is someone to watch. we know from reporting and source telling me he is trying to have considerations abant witnessetry and get a deal where republicans and democrats each get a wnitness they caive with. but i nt to make sure viewers understand something about the witness discussion, there will be multiple votes on witnesses likely. it looks like there is an opening vote. let's look at a f graphr how this could work. there will be an opening vote on whether to eutn talk abo witnesses in general. no specific witness. and there seems to be growing momentum for that to pass. for that to happen. of wit bees, but judy after that, there would have to be a vote about specific witnesses. do you call jon bolton, do you call hunter biden. and right now it is not clear there are 451 votes for any specific witnesses, there may bt 51 votes f idea of witnesses in general. >> woodruff: so several, and we are not evehe end of the argument yet. >> lisa desjardins, yamiche alcindor, thank you both. and you can join our ong

senator toomey admits he has mounds of responsibility.he milk and the milk chocolate traditions began in the mid 60s and even of the sweet desk is on the g.o.p. side of the outcome of democrats are welcome to dig in. candy is allowed. apples are not. but now neither are samsung, microsoft, dell or any other electric devices. a cabinet has been installed that you can ditch your electronic devices in the cabinet before you go inside the chamber. the goal is they want you listening, not blogging while the proceeding is underway. if you get tired of listening, tired of water, or just plain listening, there's a cabinet of coffee. >> tucker: that's the most interesting thing i've heard all day. what you said gripped my attention more than anything i've seen out of the united states senate. i appreciate it. the impeachment trial so far has been a lot of dull haggling over rules punctuated by eruptions of interminable self-righteousness and absurdity. but at msnbc, it's quite literally being treated like a new political thriller on netflix. watch

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

reiterated today that they support hearing from witnesses and a potential fourth, pennsylvania's pat toomey is trying to pitch his g.o.p. colleagues on a potential one-for-one swap. bolton's testimony in exchange for testimony from a witness they want to hear from. norah? >> o'donnell: nancy, thank you. in the wake of the bolton bombshell, republican leaders are urging their rank and file to pause, take a breath, but in an exclusive cbs news interview, the president's staunchest defenders in the house warned there could be a political price to pay for senators who vote against the president. the president's former national security adviser john bolton writes in a new book that the aid to ukraine was tied to a investigation into the bidens. does that contradict the president's defense? >> well, i don't see it as a contradiction, but right now we're commenting on what we believed was leaked to "the new york times," and we've seen this play before. >> o'donnell: he says it was well-known within the white house that the aid was tied to the announcement of investigations, political investigation

you heard yesterday pat toomey very close to mitch mcconnell from pennsylvania, conservative republican, saying why not open it up to witnesses? he also talked about the trade, the swap that's still to be negotiated but i think there is an emerging what some are calling the collins amendment, susan collins amendment, which would allow witnesses and documents and still to be defined as whether there would be the hunter biden piece of this, but i think there is a lot more pressure for witnesses now and that's why you saw him -- sekulow being so aggressive today. >> our nbc news analyst, with he talked about at the beginning of this that there is this fail-safe plan which is that if all of this happened, then it still doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. he made a very -- jay sekulow made an impassioned argument on that. how did it go over? >> it will be interesting to see how that lands. you really saw them stressing this policy thing. he must have said the word policy 20 times during his presentation. i think that is their tag line for all of this. this is not a criminal act, knots

mr through me no mr tillis no mr toomey no mr udall. mr van hollen. mr warner. ms warren. mr white house. mr wicker no mr wyden. mr young no mr blumenthal. are there any senators in the chamber wishing to change his or her vote. if not the yeas are $49.00 the nays are $51.00 the motion is not agreed to. so that's the senate to the voting to defeat the motion to cool witnesses in the trial of the impeachment trial of president donald trump which means that this is effectively the end of the road so they will now be moving to vote eventually on a on the charges themselves. on the impeachment charges let's bring in. who is on capitol hill so it goes into recess and that vote of 51 to 49 and i suppose no surprises because if we were starting to hear in the last couple of days that mentum was going against the democrats and that they weren't going to win the possibility of bringing in further witnesses. that's right and that's despite today's latest development which was a report from the new york times that john bolton who had been at the top of the list most coveted by democr

pat toomey wants to make a deal with the dimms.itch mcconnell confirmed he does not have the votes to block witnesses from testifying in this farce. joining us now, house minority leader kevin mccarthy. let's start with the word we just received from the senate. mitch mcconnell says he does not have sufficient votes in the senate to stop witnesses being called. your thoughts? >> i think that's disappointing. that's not the role for the senate. if they are thinking because the "new york times" on the last day puts an article out that says they might have heard something bolton said because he's selling a book makes no difference. adam schiff inside the house didn't even subpoena bolton. and it doesn't change the outcome. you have the transcripts of the call. ukraine got the money. ukraine did nothing to get the money. the idea of what they will do to keep moving forward on this to get more witnesses, that's not their role. chairman nadler said on impeachment we have proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt. the senate is supposed to jud

plankford, pat toomey an lindsey graham. lankford -- trouble won oklahoma and pennsylvania.g about? >> the truth of the matter is. even if they go against the president they won't get any democrats. they will lose republican support. that will cost them enormous chances of winning again. if i were mrs. collins, i would say i'm with the president all the way and go out and turn out my base. she is the -- she is the most vulnerable. lou: the president is showing in polls and as we reported in his rallies, the campaign is pick up. independents and democrats are being drawn to this president. >> he's doing what reagan did. he has brought in the blue collar people. those are independents and democrats and that's the road to victory. lou: let me put it this way. who else is working for the american worker? the american working man and one and? their families? the middle class. who in the senate and the house is applying that standard? this president is not only doing it. he said he would do it. i' -- he's delivering on it. >> don't forget the military. he's rewarding the military

toomey: thank you, mr. president. it appears that we are likely to be considering some version of the usmca implementing legislation this week. and so i want to address this agreement, but in order to do that, i think you kind of have to start with the underlying nafta agreement which has been in place for some years and ask a question which is why did we go down the path of renegotiating nafta in the first place. and so let's start there. i can imagine one reason that one might want to renegotiate a trade agreement is if the trade agreement in question were not a reciprocal agreement, if it treefted one party differently -- treated one party differently than it treated the other parties, you might question whether that's a fair arrangement and might decide that if it's not, it needs to be revisited. well, that certainly would not describe nafta. nafta is entirely reciprocal. another reason you might decide to renegotiate a trade agreement is if you had tariffs, so it wasn't really a free trade agreement. it was an ag

one of the 10 senators who voted against the american worker was republican senator pat toomey of pennsylvania who claimed the usmca would hinder trade other than promote it. he unsurprisingly the retro zoomy's top donor over the years has been the free trade advocacy group club for growth that donated over $400,000 to the senator since 2015. free traced what has cost this country trillions of dollars in economic growth over the past 45 years. you remember ukraine military funding, on the dave the house n the day of the so-called articles of impeachment. let's enjoy the spectacle of the group of congressional members chosen to deliver in solemn procession the articles to the united states senate. look for the world like pallbearers and seemingly unaware their procession looked as though they were heading to a proper resting place and their frivolous assault to harass and subvert president trump and his administration. there they are. the gao to continue the story suggested the trump administration's office of management and budget broke the law byessional approved military aid to ukraine for a

pat toomey's senate candy desk hangryevent lawmakers.ocusing on that desk in the senate stacked full of candy stocked by senator pat toomey. he has been handling that duty since 2015, but the practice dates back to 1965 when george murphy of california, a republican with a strong sweet tooth, began keeping the treat stash in his desk that he shared with colleagues. other republican colleagues took up the mental after murphy was defeated, forging the tradition baghe senate filling the with candy could run afoul of bets to lawmakers, but could made widely available. pat toomey is from pennsylvania and plenty of candy companies are in pennsylvania. his spokesperson said the current lineup includes hershey's bars with almonds, rolos, palmer peanut butter cups, and peanut chews manufactured by just born. that is the candy desk. if you want a picture of the candy desk, here is a picture from the u.s. senate history senatehistory.e @ that picture may be from a few years ago. if you want to see where it is located on the senate floor, this is fr

one of the 10 senators who voted against the american worker was republican senator pat toomey of pennsylvania who claimed converter box is slightly why i were you you you you you you impeachment sham and the perception you mentioned earlier. lou: the president having to deal with the impeachment charade and the solemnity. i was mocking what the house members did as they came in there. they looked like pallbearers. it's so disgusting that with all that this president has achieved and the work he puts in every day, that he has to put up with this nonsense. and that the taxpayer dollars continue to flow to the democratic party in charge of the house so they can carry out this farcical nonsense. >> i have to say when i saw the pallbearers walking today, i wondered if they had any of nancy's souvenir pens in their pockets from yesterday. but the president is undaunted as you have seen. he signed the religious freedom executive order today. we are welcoming lsu to the white house tomorrow. and we are leaving for davos tomorrow. he's not worried about it. he continues to work. >> the list goes on. i

senator toomey complained that it was too democratic and had too many protections in there for labor rights. john thune said this was too democratic. and today they are having a ceremony that if this original piece had been offered up to us that the president submitted, it would never have made its way out of the ways and means committee. because it's a tax issue and tariff issue, it originates in the ways and means committee in the house of representatives. but we went to work on it with the task force that the speaker and i assembled. we engaged in intense, sometimes fiery negotiations with the u.s. trade rep. here's what we achieved. by any objective standard stronger provisions for workers. sounder funding mechanisms to implement the labor and environmental positions. a better enforcement mechanism than any trade deal in american history. this is the largest one to today. on top of all that, we preserve congress' right in terms of freedom to bring down drug pricing. if anybody said at the beginning that we could get the afl-cio and teamsters to endorse this trade agreement, would

speak up. >> what do you make of the toomey story that came out?> that seems to be the emerging republican position. partly because republican senators told me privately this morning they want political cover. they don't want to go home and say we didn't push for witnesses at all. if they do push for witnesses, they want to put democrats in an impossible position by having to call witnesses like hunter biden or chairman schiff. >> they don't need democratic votes to do this, that's all within their caucus, that's decision? >> at this point it's in republicans' hands. 51 votes are probably there for witnesses of some sorts but there's no consensus about arrangements for a witness deal where democrats would feel comfortable. >> thank you very much. professor, thanks for joining us. this thing keeps changing. the story now seems to be will there be a deal within the republicans caucus. what role, if any, does the chief justice have as providing officer now? can he -- can he call witnesses? what can he do on his on right now? >> it's pretty limited. th

senator pat toomey is responsible for making sure it is well supplied.iming in on the strange impeachment menus, david says i would rather sneak in piÑata's and chips. it is kind of funny these conception rules, milk, water, candy on the senate floor, as the senate classroom. it matches that menu. >> a rough 12 hour day. >> ilhan omar and the squad have a powerful force on the left. one republican is making a case to her minnesota district. >> i'm running because ilhan omar is doing irreparable harm not only to her district, not only through her state but to the whole country. >> gop challenger joins us with why ilhan omar must be stopped. >> time to check in with todd pyro in jupiter, florida, to see what is going on on "fox and friends". i heard you say it is 30 degrees out there. >> the monthly trip down here, you see the instagram shot. it is beautiful, 40 mile an hour gusts, 30 degrees this morning. nature. anyway. let's focus on what is important. john kennedy, senator from louisiana always good for an awesome soundbite and from the great state of