has got to pony up more money, that was the first part of the call. great to have you on. tomorrow night, full coverage of the impeachment trial. shannon bream takes it from here. >> i am laura ingram and you're looking at the senate for live where the debate rages over the resolution about the rules resolution, how the impeachment trial of donald trump will proceed. for those who have actual lives, jobs that have been glued to your television all day let me catch you up on what matters and what you needed to get from the proceedings and if you didn't get it we were tortured for you, the senate led by mitch mcconnell has so far voted to table four amendments offered by chuck schumer and are currently

debating the fifth amendment, democrats thought they might feel gop defections but so far they have not seen one. in the past few hours, this is big, the washington post is reporting an hour or two ago that senate democrats are considering a trade. i will trade you, my kids have pokémon cards, i will trade you hunter biden for john bolton. politico also reporting that adam shifts, this is my favorite story of the day, was caught in another by. this time ms. characterizing a communication from the democrats new darling star witness, love parnas. guess what, they are caught again. the back of the proceedings, the

president's team was led by pat cipollone who has been me in the past, he is a dear friend of mine, and impeachment attorney to the president, j sekulow and others, democrats have most of their house managers give presentations today but it was adam schiff who took center stage and it was a curious move given some of the blatant partisan tactics during the house hearing but that was yesterday, today is a new day. throughout the day it was adam schiff and cipollone going back and forth. >> a partisan impeachment is like stealing an election. that is exactly what we have right now. >> a great many, perhaps most americans do not believe there will be a fair trial. >> they are asking the senate to

attack one of the most sacred rights we have as americans, the right to choose our president. in an election year. >> they believe the result is pre-cooked. the president will be acquitted. not because he is innocent. he is not. but because the senators will vote by party. >> the president of the united states declassified that telephone call and released it to the public. how is that for transparency. >> you don't get credit for transparency when you get caught. >> it is long past time we start this so we can end this ridiculous charade and go have an election. >> you know how i feel but i will let you determine who has

more credibility between those two. we expect a number of breaks in action for votes for recesses during that time. we will bring in the best legal analysis out there plus we will hear from the white house directly and senators who were inside that room but first for what we can expect in the coming hours and days we will go to mike emanuel who is live in capitol hill, no idea how long this will go. mitch mcconnell clearly wants to move this along. where does it stand now? >> a pleasure being with you. mitch mcconnell said to chuck schumer, having a test of wills over these democrat amendments being offered seeking things like white house documents, state department documents, even trying to subpoena the acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney. they have a gone down 53-47 partyline vote, 53 republicans, 47 democrats and so mcconnell has proven he's been able to

hold his conference together so the expectation at some point was they would get through these amendments and late night tonight they would vote on the rules package to go forward with the trial and that was passed on a partyline vote and at some point tomorrow they would come back and house democrats would start their 24 hours of arguments in favor of the articles of impeachment and when they exhaust their time the white house attorneys would get their 24 hours to defend donald trump on the articles of impeachment, now we are waiting to see if that will get bumped back and delayed because they are still bickering over these democrat amendments. mitch mcconnell is kept as republican conference together at this stage, after august, 24 was each side we expect there may be a vote on more documents and witnesses. additions clear if there will be four or more republicans will cross over and vote with democrats to call for more witnesses at some point next week.

bottom line, it may be possible after these marathon sessions strapped to their desks on the senate floor some senators might say they have already heard enough. >> it is time for our legal eagles to break down today's proceedings. former clinton impeachment manager saul weisberg, former deputy whitewater independent counselor can be dylan and saul, it has been wise of schumer or not to call amendment after amendment knowing that each will fail, explain what the amendments have been about and what their strategy might be? >> the amendments are both about issuing subpoenas for documents with the house majority, were not able to get during the actual house impeachment process and now they are about subpoenaing the witnesses the managers wanted. the strategy behind it which i

think has worked to an extent is in the debate over whether or not to subpoena these documents the house managers are telling their story and telling the factual story about what happened. i think the president's lawyers have been very effective for the most part but have not been arguing facts and so they may be a slight disadvantage. >> we also heard from chuck schumer tonight. i want to go to bob barr on this, who is claiming that the white house wasn't really making the case for why we don't need witnesses. everyone should understand they are supposed to be dating the resolution as this which would allow a vote on witnesses later but schumer is say we are not going to do that. this is what schumer said tonight. he stepped out to say this. >> we hear a lot of arguments

from the president's council. none of them directly address why there shouldn't be witnesses and documents, they talk about how bad the houses. i don't agree with that at all but they don't make a single argument the why there shouldn't be witnesses and documents. that speaks volumes. >> is that accurate? what was he listening to? i was hearing sekulow and their% same as the underlying case, they had a chance to do this in the house and now they want the senate to play cleanup for them. >> that is exactly what the house managers are trying to do and exactly what the white house lawyers are taking them to task for his what surprises me is the fact that the house managers have been allowed to talk about evidence that was not in evidence in the house record according to the house resolution 660, that is this

parnas nonsense, that should not be allowed to be discussed at this point because it was not included in the house record yet for some reason objection has not been made to the house managers straying from what they are supposed to be presenting and getting in that sort of stuff that should not be admitted. shannon: there was a point today where adam schiff was also advancing another interesting new standard. that constitutes a neutral juror. >> many of you in the senate and many of us in the house of made statements about the president's conduct. in this trial that is all in the past. nothing matters now but the oath to do impartial justice. that requires a fair trial. shannon: that was then, this is now. is that how our framers intended

the impeachment process to go. the impeachment itself should be completely divorced from the trial and the people carrying out the impeachment, their motives, intentions, communications with other people on the outside, none of that matters now? is that right, including the senators sitting at hearing the case are running for president? >> adam schiff lecturing anybody on objectivity and impartiality is a farce. the clip you just played pointed out the problems with adam schiff being a manager in this process in the first place. a fact witness in this case, in any real court would have been recused, sanctions, have nothing to do with this whole thing. he is saying the past doesn't matter and some sort of solemn artificial universe is silly. he brought us to the point they have a defective case and he is one begging somebody else to save them. it doesn't make any sense.

shannon: the president's team is arguing against this new amendment, amendment number 5. we will zip into this and hear what they are saying. >> the issue of when this body should decide whether there should be witnesses and documents, that is the issue before the body now, not the question of whether there should be witnesses or documents, as the majority leader made clear multiple times the underlying resolution allows the issue to be redressed a week from now. the only question at issue now, house managers keep saying how can you have a trial without witnesses or documents, that is not the issue. the issue is only now whether you have to define that issue to subpoena documents or witnesses now or decide it in a week after you hear the presentation.

why are you still eager, why is it necessary to make that decision without having more information? in the clinton trial this body agreed 100-0 that it made more sense to have more information and then decide how to proceed. that was rational to have more information, to hear the presentation and then decide what more was necessary. why is it so important that you've got to make that decision now without that information. that doesn't make any sense. the rational thing to do is to hear what sort of case they present and to hear the president's defense because the president had no opportunity in the house to present any defense. we heard a lot about the rule of law and about precedent. what was unprecedented with the process used in the house, the process that began with an impeachment inquiry that started without any vote by the house,

the constitution assigns the sole power of impeachment to the house, not to any single member of the house, so the press conference speaker pelosi held on september 20 fourth did not validly initiate an impeachment inquiry nor did it validly give power to committees to issue subpoenas so we are talking about the dod documents, what efforts did they make in their proceeding to get the documents, they should one invalid subpoena, totally unauthorized under the constitution. it was unprecedented because it was issued in an impeachment inquiry purportedly without any vote from the house, never happened before in presidential impeachment. it was unlawful. shannon: that is at philbin, one of the senior members of trump legal team making the case the

house has a chance to push trying to subpoena the dod documents during impeachment and decided for whatever reason not to pursue that. what about this argument late in the night, all these guys are tired, don't care who you are or how strong you are, sitting there, most of the time on your backside for the whole day, making these arguments, you have been in course a long time, many hours, making long, arcane points about constitutional law and procedure, it can get pretty difficult. >> i'm not an expert on parliamentary procedure but i think the point that one of the previous speakers made is a good one that this issue wasn't supposed to be decided about whether or not to have witnesses or additional documents until later in the process but by allowing them to make these amendments they are effectively

arguing for now but would it is allowing them to do tactically is getting to be evidence and since the position of the president's council is it is just insufficient on its face i think tactically it has been a good move by the democrats. shannon: i want to go to you on this, bob. a lot of this is show. this is, people think you are talking to the four wobbly republicans are all 100 senators but you were there during impeachment in 1998-1999, you are talking to the american people, they are the ones who are going to put the pressure on romney, collins, murkowski, cory gardner and any other -- republican who can't get their act together, the american people are the ones you got to hit. >> they are and that is why it is rather disturbing as i mentioned a few minutes ago that the impeachment managers are

being allowed to present evidence that should not even be part of the case and has not even been admitted into the case. when you go into court in a real trial in civil or clinical course you can only argue that evidence which is properly going to be your has been before the court. in this case, i don't know why the republicans are allowing this but this is something that has disturbed me not just in these proceedings but all sorts of proceedings even though mitch mcconnell is a strong parliamentarian i don't know why the republicans are just sitting back and letting the house managers argue this. shannon: you got to give points to shift for this, back to congressman jason crow who is making the case on this amendment. >> the better question is why not now. this trial has started. let's have the facts and information now.

latest gentlemen, the time is right. there is no reason shouldn't issue those subpoenas, get the facts, get the testimony, have the debate, let the american people see what is going on here. mister chief justice, i will yield the balance of my time. >> i will be brief but i do want to respond to a couple points my colleagues have made. first is the argument you have heard before and i have no doubt you will hear again that the subpoenas issued by the house are invalid. that is really wonderful.

i imagine when you issue subpoenas they will declare yours invalid as well. what is the basis of the claim they are invalid? because they weren't issued the way the president wants. part of the argument is you have to issue a subpoena the way we say and that can only be done after a resolution we approve of adopting by the full house. first they complained there was no resolution, no formal resolution of the impeachment inquiry is when we passed a formal resolution they complained about that. they complained when we didn't have one, they complained when we did have one. they made that argument already in court and they lost. in the began case they argued the subpoena for mister mcgann is invalid and you know what the judge said? that's nonsense. the president doesn't get to decide how the house conducts an impeachment proceeding, the president doesn't get to decide whether a subpoena isn't valid

or invalid. the house gets to decide because the house is given the sole power of impeachment, not the president of the united states. council says why are we going through all these documents? aren't all these motions the same? the fact of the matter is we are not talking about the same documents. they would like nothing better than for you to know nothing about the documents we seek. they don't want you to know what defense department documents their withholding. of course they don't want to hear that. they don't want you to know what state department documents are because if it is just abstracts, just where you are arguing for documents they can say well, that's not that important. is just some generic thing. but when you learn as you have learned today, tonight, what those documents are, when you see the efforts to conceal, freedom of information act emails my colleagues just referred to and you see what was

released to the public and it is all rejected and we find out what is under those redactions and surprise, it is incriminating information, that is not supposed to be the basis for reduction of the freedom of information act. that is what we call a cover-up. they didn't want you to see that today. they didn't want you to see before and after, redacted and non-redacted. they don't want you to hear from these witnesses about the detailed personal notes they took. ambassador taylor took detailed personal notes. they want to try to contest what ambassador sondlnd said because after he talked to the president talked directly with ambassador taylor and talk directly with mister morrison and explained his conversation with the president. guess what did you mister morrison and ambassador taylor

took detailed notes. there is a dispute about what the president told him, wouldn't you like to see the notes? they don't want you to know the notes exist, they don't want to have this debate, they would rather argument is just about documents, it is just about when. we want the senators after 16 hours of questions before they can see in of this stuff and then we will move to dismiss the case. when as i said earlier means never. and finally the clinton precedent. president clinton turned over 90,000 pages of documents before the trial. i agree, let's follow the clinton precedent. it is not even going to take 90,000 documents. the documents are already collected. you heard the testimony of ambassador taylor, they will be turned over shortly.

we are still waiting. they are still sitting there at the state department. we played a video for you from secretary esther saying we will comply with the subpoenas. that was one week. then somebody got to him and all of a sudden he was singing a different tune. they don't want you to know what these documents hold and yes, we are showing you what these witnesses can tell you. what mick mulvaney could tell you and we are making it hard for you to say no. we are making it hard for you to say i don't want to hear from these people see these documents, we are making it hard. not our job to make it easy for you. it is our job to make it hard to deprive the american people of a fair trial and that is why we are taking time to do it.

>> majority leader -- >> with your what the white house thinks listening to adam schiff claiming it is an attempt by the white house to withhold information from the american people so now the american people can't get a fair trial. joining me now is the white house impeachment spokesman, your response to shifting the white house is involved in a cover-up? >> this entire day has been about this for democrats trying to get a redo for their failed efforts to prove anything criminal, anything impeachable in the house process that they completely control. if you want to talk about unfairness at have created a process in the house that deprive the president of every right possible. 's attorney today has had the first opportunity to engage in

the impeachment since it began somebody some odd days ago. when you talk about the hypocrisy of that is schiff's case, if he has no evidence, has no facts, all the witnesses he is trying to talk about bring into the senate, he never asked for them in the house process. the evidence he is a is necessary to go forward after once arguing they had overwhelming evidence proven in the house process, he never asked for it, never subpoenaed that evidence in the house, didn't demand the evidence. it is a complete sham. that is the process. if you want to that evidence, you take the time to get to strengthen your case. he keeps talking about witnesses. they had 17 witnesses, they controlled that process and what is even more ironic is 7 democrats in the senate today were here during the clinton impeachment at all 7 of those democrats including chuck schumer voted against having witnesses during the clinton impeachment. chuck schumer asked second the voters united states senator was to not allow witnesses in a clinton impeachment process. this entire process is revealing what we have known all along and

cipollone made the point. shannon: what about the tactical issue of adam schiff pushing this issue of the amendments and so far it looks like mitch mcconnell has allowed these emotions to pile up. now they are all tables, he's not getting what he wants in these amendments but it is allowing them as saul just said to put on part of their case where this is about, let's debate this resolution, now they are getting into mentioning parnas, getting into real specific centers that put your guys back on their heels? >> not at all. it is a lot of theater, not substance and it will not have a meaningful impact on the votes. they are sticking together because they don't take kindly to the fact the democrats have taken advantage of the process. cipollone said the attempt by democrats is an insult to the american people, the voter and

the election system and shows below regarding adam schiff, nancy pelosi and others have for what the american people wanted in a 2016 election which is donald trump has president and are trying to interfere in the 2020 election. shannon: that is a strong argument by the white house that this is about not just invalidating the last election but stealing the next one, the ultimate charge of meddling. the election as cipollone says is 9 months away. let the people vote, let's govern and you govern and let's go vote. for regular people, why can't i vote who i want? if i don't like trump i will vote against trump. >> that is why this is unprecedented, and impeachment happening in an election year. election is supposed to be the ultimate determiner of who is president of the united states. >> the president in davos spoke

before or after greta thunberg and is on his way back. have you been in contact? have you discussed -- >> the president has been monitoring the situation. he has extreme confidence in his legal team. i know he feels very confident in the fact republicans stuffed together democrats to support us, the american people support the president. that is very important to him, his support his risen. shannon: it gets better for him the longer this goes on? cipollone said let's get the show on the road? >> it is pretty good when after all the theatrics the only thing democrats can do is advanced two articles of impeachment without an allegation of a single crime. that is something we have to come in mind. shannon: they said they don't need a crime. we will have you back.

we appreciate you joining us tonight. we want to go to congressional correspondent chad program joining us live from capitol hill. they wrapped up voting on the fifth schumer amendment to subpoena dod docs. any chance they are done tonight? they pull and on later? >> not quite. they just voted to table are set aside this proposal dealing with the latest proposal by chuck schumer to deal with the pentagon documents. just in the past couple seconds, nanoseconds before we came on the air there was a proposal by chuck schumer on another subpoena to subpoena robert blair and michael duffey so we will have two hours of debate. i'm trying to decipher what they might do because the hour is getting late, people are getting cranky and there might be an effort to wrap this up. last hour they finished a vote and chuck schumer told the

senate majority leader it might be a while, we have a number of amendments to go through it looks like they are going to start on the next proposal. you would have to get unanimous consent meaning all 100 senators agree on how they are going to proceed and as long as chuck schumer doesn't back down that means you are locked in and he can continue to offer these amendments and you keep toggling back and forth in these debates and right now sylvia garcia, democrat from texas, a freshman, one of the 7 impeachment managers is now talking about this issue subpoenas for robert blair and michael duffy which means we will be locked back in here for at least an hour and a half at the minimum. it seems democrats, house prosecutors have been taking their entire our, the president's legal defense team heavily been taking 20 to 30 minutes but as we look at this at 10:30 somebody asked me like

this wrap up? predicted midnight because things tend to close around midnight. chuck schumer said to mitch mcconnell on the floor earlier we don't have to do everything tonight realizing the chief justice, john roberts has responsibilities to hear oral arguments at 10:00, that is why the senate impeachment rules mandate the trial starts at 1:00 to accommodate the schedule of the chief justice so if they go really late tonight you will have some bleary-eyed people as they get into the oral arguments prospect if we which will start tomorrow presented by the house impeachment managers. shannon: joining me now is matt gates, house judiciary committee member along with two members of donald trump's defense team, leaves selden and mark meadows. when did you become -- >> last night. >> every time i turn around someone else is an impeachment defense team are impeachment manager. it seems the senate democrats

didn't learn from the failed theatrics of the house democrats but in watching schumer tonight i think this has taken on the feeling of punishment, this is part of the punishment, these long nights, we will keep it going and every amendment and need unanimous consent and we will withhold unanimous consent. >> not only is it the punishment we are seeing before our very eyes but we have five amendments from the democrats which is 5 more than we were allowed on the house side but they haven't learned anything because what they don't understand is that the american people are rejecting this kind of politics as usual effort. it is theatrics, adam schiff on the floor having outrage every

time he gets up. the american people are smarter than that. >> mcconnell based his rules resolution on the clinton impeachment trial but democrats are still very unhappy. watch. >> following the clinton precedent there would have been all this discovery done and that is not what is happening at all. shannon: that is not what is happening. all of us following -- >> at the house level, we were calling that out over several months. at the end of the process jerry nadler -- they proved the case beyond a doubt answer their factor uncontested, indisputable and their first day of the senate trial they spend the entire day when we are seeing right now on the screen, all the different things they don't yet know. they spent the day telling the american public and the senate all the ways they haven't yet been able to prove their case. we have been saying for several

months that it is totally contested, you're relying on presumptions, years and lives. shannon: why, if they are innocent, if the president is innocent, all these charges, they are not criminal charges, no crime but if he is innocent what the witnesses come forward which is not the way we as defense attorneys which i'm formerly when you don't have to prove your innocence, they have to prove your guilt but they want to flip the table on the president. >> you can fact checked the entire day, dozens of times they lied. when they talk about executive privilege we are sitting in closed-door depositions during the entire hearings when the president's council isn't even allowed to be there to exert executive privilege, they never exerted executive privilege or jason crow was just on the house for talking about omb, we don't know that. mark sandy told us why there was a hold on 8, the president was concerned about other countries

paying their fair share. why aren't they talking about president the lindsay thing "quid pro quo. why won't the democrats told the american public the truth that president zelinski didn't have confirmation of a hold until august 20 ninth? but they want to use ambassador sondland, they don't mention it, that was a guest. shannon: so much of this hinges on discerning the subjective intent of the president. that was on page 28 of the white house brief, 171 pages long but there was an important section that didn't get much play. they mind read the president's intend, 13 people listening, he had the subjective intent to do something that would abuse his executive authority to hurt the us national security. that is a wild precedent we are setting for the future.

>> if the american people are watching the waterfall crazy allegations from democrats they see you can categorize all into either hearsay, conjecture or a fundamental policy disagreement with the president. shannon: we are going to get back to you. right now i want to go to capitol hill where we are joined by someone who has been sitting through this, marsha blackburn, senate judiciary committee member, great to see you. how late do you expect to go tonight and what is it like in that room. i make it over there today. >> we probably will go until 1:00 and it is important that we get through this, set the resolution, will that we hear from the house managers, that we hear from the president's team, we ask our questions and decide if we want to move forward with this or if we want to move to a

summary judgment to acquit the president. >> what is the sense among your colleagues talking about people like cory gardner, susan collins, mitt romney and others, any sense from them whether they found mitch mcconnell, isn't quite lenient with these amendments and hasn't put a lot of pressure on schumer to start wrapping this up. >> every vote has been 53-47. every senator has voted with leader mcconnell and voted against the schumer amendments, sooner or later the democrats should begin to realize, i've got to tell you i think the house managers should begin to realize we are not going to do their job for them. they keep saying if you would call these witnesses then we would not have to go to court. we didn't call them because we didn't want to go to court and they want us to call them so

they can get this done before the election and bear in mind this is not only about in their minds damaging donald trump but removing him and taking him off the ballot. they are talking about, the same phrases, talking about people all being in the loop on some grand scheme and how the president is trying to cheat in the next election. you see what their phrasing is. they are all going to give you the talking points, a stepford wives of liberalism, they will get a point and stick to it and say it until the cows come home. >> they are putting on a show with exhibits and graphics. senator blackburn going to soundbites, they are putting on their own show and they -- i

will tell -- no one is saying this tonight but i will tell you what really is going on, this is the 2020 campaign. they are running a campaign. they are not really thinking it will change anything, that bolton will show up and deliver everything in a silver platter, they don't think that. this is about the election. >> all politics all the time. it is a political, partisan impeachment, nancy pelosi was giving out party favors at the signing of the impeachment documents, those gold pens with her name embossed in gold, this is just so inappropriate. shannon: drink your milk. if i hear one more comment about all they can do is drink milk and water like you guys aren't

going to eat. >> i'm ready for this. all right, we will check back in with you later in the week, thanks for joining us. these senators, here is mister impeachment himself, adam schiff who put on quite a performance on the senate trial fools resolution. >> if you only get to see part of the evidence, only allow one side or the other a chance to present their case, your verdict will be predetermined by the bias in the preceding. if the house cannot call witnesses or introduce documents and evidence it is not a fair trial. >> this isn't fair and he said don't try to dictate what we did in the house but what you are doing is not fair. >> adam schiff has amnesia. he has forgotten the 71 days we denied the president legal counsel to be in their, when he's talking about what is fair.

the headline should be today corrupt investigators demand fair trial. how do you do that? >> what pat cipollone said the congressman weren't allowed in the skiff. clear that up for us because it was only house intel members. >> mark and lee were on the select committees that allow you access to the evidence. in the house judiciary they had cory lewandowski as their maiden voyage for impeachment but it never made out of the harbor before sinking as a result of lewandowski torching them in public opinion. and russia, put out as much information as possible. they learned the lesson that they looked more ridiculous for the american people saw the evidence of a try to constrain

it and hold it secret as long as humanly possible but if you look at what we learn today it has been absolutely nothing. if you woke up today in a medically induced, and only come to be awake as a consequence of the intermingle, no new evidence, no new information and more -- shannon: you are probably getting from across the country going what is going on in washington. that is what everyone keeps saying, what is going on in washington. imagine if we had this many hours in a 24-hour period devoted to enforcing our border, devoted to ensuring people who are in the country illegally and part of criminal gangs are summarily removed. >> that would be a crime. this is no crime, no victim, people cross our border it is a crime when they do so. shannon: we should throw up a montage what we do this, nobody is above the law but wait a second. there are a lot of people who seem to be above the law in the

democrats understand it, the bidens, people who are undocumented in the united states, cannot only above the law but you will give them healthcare, democrats are saying. >> in new york state there is a new with automatic voter registration and just started a law a few weeks ago giving all illegal immigrants -- >> plenty of people are above the law. when you watch this to the extent the american people are following it closely which i doubt there following very closely, do they see this as the democrats last-ditch effort to scuff up this president before 2020, both the democrats in earnest -- >> what i'm hearing from people back home is they are mad. they believe adam schiff and his colleagues believe they are more important than the voters are going to show up in november. they said how can 100 senators, 435 members of the house believe

there will is more important than the people's will and they are not having it, they're not buying it. >> there is a moment in the hearing today where cipollone really personalized it. i want you to react to this, specifically focusing on this guy charlie copperman. >> they withdrew the subpoena, eve ate a decision and they are asking you to become complicit in that evasion, it is ridiculous. obstruction for going to court? is an act of patriotism to defend the constitutional rights of the present because if they can do it to the president they can do to any of you and they can do it to any american citizen. >> exerting his right, his right, they want to punish him. >> last i checked this is why we have courts, when there's a conflict between branches the reason we have people that wear black robes and resolve these disputes but pat cipollone did a phenomenal job today and i'm

here. it is clear those guys are a little competitive with one another and getting the best of both. they got better as they went on. shannon: thank you very much for being here, late night for all of you. congressman sylvia garcia is debating schumer's sixth amendment for subpoenas of omb officials. >> again, no one else. why this decision made so secretly and without any explanation. why is the president compromising the safety of a strategic ally in the region. why was he harming our national security interests in the process? on july 2, '06, duffy, attending a high level executive branch official meeting made clear that the freeze on military aid was

based on donald trump's express direction but apparently he could not explain why there was a freeze beyond a vague reference to concerns about corruption. >> the official said. >> witnesses who testified before the house all provided the same consistent recounting of what happened. as you can see from the statements on the slide, officials were not provided clear explanation for such a dramatic step. >> as we discussed earlier and will explain in more depth during the trial these facts contradict the white house's recent claims of why donald trump froze the ukraine and. those facts clearly show efforts

by this president and those around him to fabricate explanations after the president's illegal scheme came to light. in fact, the white house counsel's own review of the freezer portably found mulvaney and omb attempted to create an after-the-fact justification for the president's decision. that is applied way of saying mulvaney's team led an effort to cover up the president's conduct and to manufacture misleading, pretextual explanations to hide the corruption. but senators, there is still more. blair and duffy were involved in the events surrounding the president's july 20 fifth phone

call with president zelinski. on july 19th blair, along with other officials received an email from ambassador sondland, describing a conversation with president zelinski, zelinski was, quote, prepared to receive notice's call and would assure him he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will, quote, turn every stone. as reflected in this - shannon: congresswoman garcia. our panel of legal eagles, they keep haggling over aid that eventually was released, and it turns out ukraine didn't even know that it was held until

august 20 ninth or something like that so shouldn't the case basically end their? >> most of the fact of been known for quite some time so as i have said many times on your show, there is an argument for taking everything that has been considered by the house and then argue from that. can you get additional -- people would like to hear from john bolton, i would like to hear from john bolton. that would be great theater. as you and i talked about be careful what you ask for. i think john bolton is more likely to be damaging to rudy giuliani than to donald trump but the basic facts are known. each side put a different spin on it but they are known. >> i want to play what cipollone

said earlier about the need to move this forward. >> if i showed up in any court in the country and said my case is overwhelming but i'm not ready to go yet. i need more evidence before i can make my case, i would get thrown out in two seconds and that is exactly what should happen here. >> in court every other week, checking up on your litigation, you are very busy. does pat have that right? >> thrown out in sanctions, yes. absolutely right and also the way this thing is going with arguments that include reference to evidence of not in evidence being made in this court, the house managers are getting away from murder and for political reasons they are not objecting every other sentence.

patters right, what would never fly in court and it is extraordinary for former prosecutor adam schiff to come with a straight face and say i was a guy in charge on the other side and the prosecutor on the other side and i need more time, doesn't make sense. shannon: this is what schumer said about the need to keep this going. >> we believe witnesses and documents are extremely important and a compelling case has been made for that. we will have votes on all of those. which we regard as extremely significant and important to the country. >> we keep going back to this point but getting those documents and that testimony was incumbent upon the house managers to take the deliberation, time and effort required to pursue those

documents and if they didn't get them go to court to enforce their subpoenas but it was urgent until pelosi decided before christmas it was not. >> that is the case but what chuck schumer is doing is very smart. i saw him operate when we served on the house judiciary committee when he ran rings around republicans, time and again. chuck schumer is a street fighter, he is tough, he knows the rules and will push the limits. he knows for example that if he can keep this going and where down 2 or 3 or 4 republican senators, those you mentioned earlier and if they in fact are hearing from their constituents about arguments the house managers are making, why is the administration hiding evidence? why shouldn't there be witnesses? what about this guy parnas? i think chuck schumer is playing it very smart. for some reason the republicans are letting them get away with

it and house managers as well. >> is that a characterization? quote, letting schumer get away with it? or with the rules of unanimous consent, you don't have to be a parliamentarian but you can't move this forward without unanimous consent meeting schumer is the gatekeeper. he wants to keep things in the morning and do that too. >> i don't know how much mcconnell can do about it, people will get tired of it but if i can go back to a point about copperman who is mentioned by bob barr, very important, this official who worked for bolton tried to do the right thing, got a subpoena from the house and went to a court, the white house counsel told him you can't evade that and he went to a federal court and said to the court tell me what to do. i want to obey the house

subpoena but the president of the united states told me i can't do it and the judge set an expedited timetable to decide this and the house withdrew the subpoena? why would they do that? they never subpoenaed bolton so to say we need the evidence because the president wouldn't give it to us but you wouldn't even subpoena this president to respond by saying it would have been in the courts for years, that is not true. judges expedite. in this kind of the case, impeachment, and impeachment hearing you don't think they would expedite that? the most important thing the house and senate can do except for declaration of war? come on. i think it was a tremendous blunder by nancy pelosi. >> richard leon, the one who

handled the issue expeditiously. thank you, each of you. i know you will be with us a lot this week. it is now secret the media are rooting against the president, they want a conviction, they want biden or war or a combination to take over next year but they are also letting democrats get away with making some outrageous claims. here's what the house's lead prosecutor adam schiff told cbs news in an interview that aired tonight. >> it would not be appropriate for the president to seek to call witnesses to try to perpetuate the same smear campaign was foiled when his plot was discovered. it will allow them to continue to attack political opponent. that is in a legitimate abuse of trial. the chief justice who may have an opportunity to rule on materiality of witnesses as a senator should not permit that kind of abuse. shannon: here to debate it,

investigative journalist and fox news contributor richard goodstein and former clinton advisor, why is adam schiff talking about hunter biden? why does adam schiff seem to have such a version, why don't you want witnesses, why can't you have documents but when hunter biden's name comes up they run for cover. >> joe biden or adam schiff, a conspiracy theory to think hunter biden did something wrong. it is not a conspiracy theory. it is a fact that joe biden brags about firing the prosecutor. it is a fact that hunter biden's company was under investigation at the moment joe biden forced the firing of that ukraine prosecutor. it is a fact that hunter biden's from collective $3.4 million from the ukraine gas firm and that in march of this year before all this stuff started with the linsky and donald from ukraine prosecutors reopened

this case because they thought they were new corruption allegations. shannon: wasn't it you pursuing some of this? ken vogel of the new york times. richard, do you think the democrats might be, republicans done this before too. if we only got bolton then -- you don't know what you are going to get ever. might be a good thing for them, might not be so good. >> i don't think bolton is going to be john dean. shannon: what about the idea of this push for witnesses one by one by one and the amendment? >> as regards hunter biden? >> regarding the process. >> i think democrats have done a great job preparing for today. if you hadn't followed things and you tuned in and sign an hour where there are putting up videos and graphics and had most of their presenters did a pretty good job and tied things together and pushed each hour of primetime as if somebody was tuning in who really was

unfamiliar. i don't think the white house counsel did. they have the votes. >> they didn't want -- that is fair. adam schiff had his best day he ever had in politics. gentlemen, the biden campaign is dictating to reporters how to cover the biden family's ukraine dealing, they sent a memo to news outlets that says to fail to make clear the conspiracy theory and false accusations have been comfortably disproven, to artificially prop up these egregious lies is to make you an enabler of misinformation, might as well just be directed at you and others on the show and anyone else. >> he named me in the state. joe biden isn't the victim of a smear campaign. he is a person who failed to see he had appearance of conflict of interest and didn't recuse himself when he should have.

that is not just my position, state department witnesses adam schiff called made the point. >> this is just out tonight from politico, schiff may have mischaracterized parnas's evidence according to the documents. he claims in this memo relating to mister z in these text messages. the most charitable view of the situation that his staff, the relative congressional malpractice by not looking more than an inch deep to determine the facts before foisting this erroneous information on the american public and a senior gop aide says given - in oculus meeting is an insidious one simply because their surname start with the z. this is schiff screwing up the

transcript, mischaracterizing -- >> is there lead presenter, totally mischaracterized about access to schiff. are these guys who were under the gun and have a lot to keep track of going to makes mistakes? yes. >> mister z, look like this was not zelinski. there are other things parnas have said that i asked giuliani about and he wouldn't answer the questions, he did answer the one about bob barr, william barr, that is -- never even had a conversation with william barr. he was adamant about that but wouldn't talk about -- >> if donald trump really care about corruption in ukraine everything john talked about he would have brought up with whoever the head of ukraine was in 2017 and he would have brought up corruption rather than something looking for an announcement of an investigation. >> the president ran on stopping

-- he ran on gravy train and said nato has got to pony up more money, that was the first part of the call, what a wild hour, great to have you one, we will be back tomorrow night, full coverage of the impeachment trial. shannon bream, take it from here. >> the president relies on the theory of absolute immunity, embarrassing the president's counsel talk about this today. >> the only one who should be embarrassed is you. heather: happening at 4:00 am on the east coast of fox news alert. sparks flying on the senate floor. the heated first day of donald trump's historic impeachment trial stretching into the we hours of the morning. the senate adjourning just hours ago but the battle is just beginning, we are live in washingto t