lawsuit against this department in which a fellow deputy said wisenberg punched a handcuffed black man in his face and when the a.c.l.u. asked if he had ever used racial slurs on the job he replied i may have used the n word adding it's not something i'm proud of or do every day normally this is when i say something like he talks about using the n. word like we do when we eat an entire pint of ice cream in one sitting. except that is something i'm proud of and i do do it every day. except when i accidentally by rhyme or reason. oh god we're talking about the n. word doesn't look bad that i'm removing all the dark bits. the company is making things worse by redesigning it's apt to focus more on private groups rather than the. news feed but even if they ban the group they don't necessarily ban it's members meaning they could just regroup and change the groups they have to something more ambiguous like the cops who are in anti social justice warrior pinochet's helicopter pilot academy a reference to chilean dictator augusto pinochet who had his political opponents thrown out of helicopter

running me now as sol wisenberg, former deputy counsel and robert ray of the legal defense team. did you get the sense that senators from this very methodical and mostly unemotional but comprehensive performance by him, didn't sway any of the wobbler is one way or the other? >> i think so, i know it's hard to see that over the course of so many hours but i thought the most important question that was asked and who asked it was significant. it was senator sue collins, it was senator murkowski and it was senator romney together with a question. the question was what are we supposed to do with a case involving mixed motive? this situation has now addressed the question of the president's motive to have burden sharing among europeans in connection with aid to ukraine. anticorruption efforts and what this impeachment is about which is a question of asking for investigations by the ukrainian president and the answer back i think was significant in a case of mixed motives, all three of those things where there, you would never be able to show by clear and unmistakable evidence no matter

here's what sol wisenberg got wrong earlier in the first hour of this.51 votes to stop it, it's 67. it would take two-thirds of the senate to stop the chief justice from calling the witness. you can't get 14 democrats to join 53 -- >> ed: but he says, "i'm not going to decide, i will kick it back to the senators," that it's a straight up or down vote. >> i'm talking about the fact that if john roberts is asked to subpoena witnesses and he says yes, the only way you can stop them is with a two-thirds vote of the senate, and that's what we are today and where we should be. >> sandra: bill? >> i agree with mary anne that this is about witnesses. he reminds me of the brett kavanaugh thing, proceeding along, and at the last minute we get some thing to change. i think this is designed to make it harder for the marginal republicans in tight races to vote against witnesses. i don't think it's going to change the outcome. i'm not sure -- a vote for witnesses is also a vote for really lengthening this trial, and i'm not sure everyone is on board with that. >> when

joining me now, sol wisenberg, andy mccarthy, former assistant u.s. attorney.oth are fox contributors. in this particular type of case, what legal precedent is out there that would govern? >> there is certainly no case law president. let's just assume, let's play along and assume the senate votes to your john bolton. at that point in time, president trump and his team could go immediately to the courts and try to stop it based on executive plumage. i don't think they would do that. i think they would make a motion to the chief justice roberts and i think he would have the option of throwing it to the senate or deciding initially himself and being subject to being overruled by the senate. if it's killed by either roberts or the senate, that's the end of it. bolton does not testify. if the senate and/or roberts, if chief justice roberts says bolton, you have to testify. executive privilege doesn't apply here. the president will go to the courts, and i think the courts will say, it's a political question. >> laura: i completely concur. from what i've read on this,

joining me now is sol wisenberg, babar and john eastman's senior constitutional scholar, let's start with you. john bolton, mick mulvaney or any of the other witnesses -- i should add general kelly who is really relevant to this conversation, do any ofal them change the underlying facts of this case that night after night we have been laying out? >> i think alan dershowitz and jay sekulow today made that point even if the leaked story about what they claim bolton says in his unpublished manuscript is true, that the president withheld the aid a bit in order to try to get investigations of biden, i think pam bondi's testimony yesterday really manifested and clearly showed why that was a perfectly appropriate thing to do. there is massive evidence of corruption that we ought to be looking at in this country. even if the leak it says bolton says he said is true, it shouldn't alter the outcome here because it's not anf impeachable offense. >> laura: wait a second, what does john kelly think about this?: i'm stuck on that. >> even if kelly -- it kelly was at a cafe, overheard someone else

joining me, sol wisenberg, former deputy whitewater independent counsel, and harmeet dhillon, 2020 advisory board member. what do you make of nancy's impeachment managers, as a whole? >> well, i think the way they are handling the impeachment, not just the managers, but particularly speaker pelosi, it reminds me a lot about they tried to do with brett kavanaugh, in the sense that they are bringing stuff in, supposedly dramatic information at the very last minute, when it really should be beyond the deadline, and they are dubious witnesses, and they are sleazy witnesses. the whole thing is like a hot mess. as i said the other night, she is not serious. there was a way to have handled this seriously from the very beginning, and she blew it. so now they are desperate, and they're pulling out all the stops. >> laura: harmeet come according to pelosi, the impeachment trial isn't actuallt proof or evidence. >> is not a question of proof, it's what allegations have been made, and that has to be subjectivsubjected to scrutiny w we go forward. >> laura: harmeet, i don't understand, she is quoting ol

bob barr, former clinton impeachment, and sol wisenberg, former whitewater independentbj counsel.asy would it be, or not be, i've been hearing differing responses to this question, to change the impeachment rules? does it require 67, or a simple majority? >> it's just the rules. the senate can do that anytime it wantsan to. what moves all of this is simply the rule -- under its current -- rules, the senate moves forward with setting up the rules for an impeachment, or the trial itself, until the managers have been o appointed and the documes delivered to the senate. all the senate has to do is change that, and they can do it pretty much any time. >> laura: last night, i think i was talking to ted cruz over in the makeup room, and he said need 67 votes to change the rules in the senate. h he's a pretty smart guy, and he says it's not that easy. your thoughts? >> well, the current rules for impeachment do say that you need 67 votes to change the rules. my point is a little different. i interpret the current rules as here is what we do when we get articles of impeachment exhibited to

when i think of humor, i think of solol wisenberg. >> just call me chuckie. >> laura: the president today is overseas and he does this press conference because he knows the impeachment is about to kickoff, watch. >> when that be great? i would love to sit right in the front row in the stare in corrupt faces. >> that's not the way it works, presidents don't do that. >> laura: the president this showboating, i would love to stare down schiff -- there is nothing that would prevent him from going but it would not be advisable, jay sekulow said. >> i thought it was waiting for a quote from sekulow. the president needs to be careful about what he says during the impeachment process. that kindd of thing has gotten him in trouble before and i'm particularly concerned that he might say something criticalte f chief justice roberts which i think might really turn some people and some citizens against him. i think he needs to be careful. >> laura: he's just having fun, he likes to stare them down. i think people are desperate -- if they're going to make this a show with clips and video, trumps attorn