gun? >> katie: no, we just took it outside. we let it go. >> greg: snakes, what can you say about snakes that haven't been said, dana? >> dana: a lot of snake talk tonight. all right, set your dvrs, never miss an episode of "the five." "special report" is up next. >> bret: welcome to washington i'm bret baier we're expecting a dinner break and we'll have a recap of the questions and answers and more of the news as well. let's go back to the senate floor and listen to alan dershowitz responding to a question about high crimes and misdemeanors. >> it was whether the crime clinton was charged with was a high crime. the issues was whether a crime was required. two years earlier in an op-ed on academic grounds that you could not impeach for abuse of power

and that a technical crime was not required but criminal-like behavior was required. i stand by that view. the framers rejected maladministration. that was a prime criteria for impeachment under british law. remember british never impeach prime ministers so they didn't want to adopt the british approach and rejected now administration. and what's the metaphor or a synonym for maladministration, abuse of power. and when they rejected maladministration they rejected abuse of power. mr. congressman schiff asked a rhetorical question can a president act in abuse of power with impunity and i ask can the president ask with maladministration with impunity that is a question you could is

james madison but it's not an impeachable crime. maladministration is not impeachable and abuse of power is not impeachment. issue is not whether crime is required but whether abuse of power is a permissible constitutional criteria and the answer from the history is clearly unequivocally no and if that had been put through the framers they would have rejected it with the same certainly they rejected maladministration. >> the first said treeson of bribery. that was rejects because it wasn't inclusive enough.

somebody put maladministration. found too vague. so they said high crimes and misdemeanors and a well understand law in the hastings impeachment going on and meant primarily abuse of power. that's the main meaning of high crimes and misdemeanor. charles pinckney said those who betray this will be held in public trust and i quoted a story the other day every impeachment in american history has been for abuse of power in one form or another. the idea you have to have a crime. bribery is right there in the constitution. treason was not a crime and it count be impeachment. crimes and impeachment are two different things. impeachments are protections of

the republic against a president who would abuse his power and would threaten liberty and threaten administration of powers and threaten the powers of the congress to ag greg -- aggregate powers himself and you can't put him in jail as you would for a crime or fine him as you would for eye -- a crime. a crime need not be an impeachment offense and two different texts understood that way through american history and by all scholars in our history except for mr. dershowitz. >> thank you, mr. manager. the senator from north carolina. >> i sent a question to the desk for the counsel of the president.

>> senator burr asks, we've seen the house managers repeatedly play video clips of acting chief of staff mick mulvaney's press conference in which they stated a quid pro quo how do you respond to the allegation mr. mulvaney supported their claims in his press conference? >> mr. chief justice.

senator, thank you for the question. we respond as mr. philbin did earlier today with that which is mr. mulvaney has issued two statements. one after his press conference and then monday after the new york times article concerning mr. bolton's alleged statement in his manuscript. i think the easiest thing is just to read them and understand what he said and to put it in to context for everyone in the chamber. this is the day of the press conference. once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biassed and political witch hunt against president trump. let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo

between ukrainian aid and the 2016 election. the president never told me to withho withhold any money until the ukrainians did anything related to the server. the only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern of lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption. multiple times during the more than 30-minute briefing where i took over 25 questions, i referred to president trump's interest in rooting out corruption in ukraine and ensuring tax dollars are spent responsibly and appropriately. there was never any connection between the funds and the ukrainians doing anything with the server. this was made explicitly obvious bit the fact the aid money was delivered without any action on the part of ukrainians regarding the server. there was never any condition on the floor of the aid related to the matter of the dnc server.

then on january 27, which was monday, there was a statement from bob driscoll, m mr. mulvaney's attorney i'll read in its full. the latest story from the new york times coordinate wade book launch has more to do with publicity than the truth. john bolton never informed mick mulvaney of the purported august conversation with the president. nor did mr. mulvaney ever have a conversation with the president or anyone else indicating the ukrainian military aid was held in exchange for a ukrainian investigation of burisma, the bidens or the 2016 election. furthermore, mr. mulvaney has no recollection of any conversation with mr. giuliani described in the manuscript as to withdraw

himself from conversation to preserve attorney-client privilege. i wanted to read those statement in full so everyone has the full context. even after mr. philbin referenced the statement after the press conference, the house managers came back and said mr. mulvaney indicated or admitted there was a quid pro quo. that's not true. if mr. mulvaney misspoke or garbled he corrected it that day and has been very clear. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. >> the senator from maryland. >> mr. chief justice i send a question to the desk for the president's counsel and the house managers.

the question to both parties and house managers will go first. what did national security adviser john bolton mean when he referenced whatever drug deal sondland and mulvaney on this, end quote and did he ever raise that issue in any meeting with president trump? >> mr. chief justice, senators, when john bolton and this is according to dr. hill's testimony brought up the drug deal was in the context of a july 10 meeting at the white house. there were two meetings that day. a meeting john bolton was there

for and another when he abruptly end the first meeting. in the first meeting ukrainians naturally wanted to raise the topic of getting the white house meeting president zelensky so desperately wanted and after raising the issue ambassador sondland said no, we have a deal. they'll get the meeting once they announce the investigations. this is the point where ambassador bolton stiffened. you can look the exact words i'm paraphrasing but he stiffens and the end the meeting. hill then goes and follows sove sondland and the delegation to another part of the white house where it continues between the white house delegation and ukrainian delegation and the bidens are brought up specifically. hill then goes to talk to bolton and informs him what's taken

place in the follow on meeting. bolton's response is, go talk to the lawyers and let them know i don't want to be part of this drug deal that sondland and mulvaney have got cooking up. so at that point that specific conversation is is a reference to the quid pro quo over the white house meeting. we know of course, from other documents and testimony about the quid pro quo and the white house meeting and all the efforts from giuliani that the investigations are mentioned in order to make this happen. but don't take my word for it, we can bring in john bolton and ask him exactly what he was referring to when he described the drug deal. now, did bolton describe and discuss this drug deal with the president? well, it certainly appears from what we know about the manuscript they talked about the freeze on aid. and whether john bolton

understood and at what point he understand the drug deal was even bigger and more pernicious than he thought and involved the meeting and the military aid there's one way to find out and add this in terms of mr. mulvaney. maybe i'll add it later. >> mr. chief justice. >> two and a half minutes. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. thank you senators for the question. the question asks about what ambassador bolton meant and a comment reported as hearsay by someone saying what he said. we know there's conflicting accounts of what happened at the white house meeting. dr. hill said she heard

ambassador sondland something one thing and there was a meeting where he wasn't there but was saying something about it calling it a drug deal. what he meant by that i'm not going speculate about. it's a hearsay report of something he said about a meeting he wasn't in characterized in some way and i won't speculate about what he meant by that. >> thank you. the senator from north dakota. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. i have a question for senator portman and for the president's counsel and i'm sending it to the desk.

>> the question from the senators is as follows, in september 2019 the security assistance aid was released to ukraine. yet the house managers continue to argue president trump conditioned the aid on an investigation of the bidens. did the ukrainian president or his government ultimately meet any of the alleged requirements in order to receive the aid? >> mr. chief justice. >> thank you, senator for the question.

the short answer is no. but i'll explain and i think we demonstrated in our presentations on friday and monday that the aid was released. the aid flowed. there was a meeting at the u.n. general assembly. there was a meeting previously scheduled in warsaw precisely as president zelensky had suggested and there was never any announcement of any investigations undertaken regarding the bidens, bir is marx the 2016 -- burisma, the 2016 election and no investigations announced began by the ukrainian government. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. >> the senator from virginia. >> mr. chief justice, i send a question to the desk for the house managers.

>> the question is do you know about additional information related to russia disseminating president trump's or rudy giulian's theories and should we have these before we deliberate on the articles of impeachment? >> mr. chief justice, senators, i think there are three categories of relevant material here. the first you do have access to and that is the supplemental testimony of jennifer williams and an encourage you all to read it. i think it sheds light

specifically on the vice president and what he may or may not know vis-à-vis the scheme. there's a second body of intelligence the committees have been provided that is relevant to this trial you should also read and we should figure out the mechanism that will permit you to do so. because it's directly relevant to the issues we're discussing and pertinent and there's a third category that raises a very different problem. that is the intelligence committees are for the first time refusing to provide to the intelligence committee. and that material has been gathered. we know it exists but the nsa has been advised not to provide it.

now, the director says that this is the director's decision nonetheless there's a body of intelligence that is relevant to request that we have made and that raises a concern than the one before this body and that is our now other agencies like the intelligence community that we require to speak truth to power that we require to provide us the best intelligence now also withholding information at the urging of the administration. and that is i think a deeply concerning and new phenomenon. that problems we've had with other departments that have been part of the wholesale obstruction but now it's rearing its ugly head with regard to the i.c. are there other relevant materials? the answer is yes and encourage you and we work together to

figure out how we might access them. >> mr. majority leader. >> chief justice, two questions one from each side it will be the last before we break for dinner. i would ask following the next few questions the senate stand in recess for 45 minutes. >> thank you. >> senator from alabama. >> i send a question to the desk. >> question is directed to counsel for the president. how does the non-criminal abuse of power standard advanced by the house managers differ from maladministration an impeachment standard rejected by the framers. where's the line between such an abuse of power and policy disagreement?

>> thank you, very much for that question because that question i think hits the key to the issue that's before you today. when the framers rejected maladministration and recall it was introduced by mace jon and rejected by madison on the ground it would turn our new rebound into a parliamentary democracy where a prime minister in this case, a president, can be removed at the pleasure of the legislature. remember too that in britain impeachment was not used against the prime minister all you needed was a vote of no-confidence. it was used against lower level people and maladministration was introduced by mason and madison said it was too general. if you look up maladministration in the dictionary there's abuse, corruption, misrule, dishonesty, misuse of office and

misbehavior. even a harvard professor in favor of impeachment. he's in favor of impeachment. he says abuse of power is the same as misconduct in office and he says that his research leads him to conclude that a crime is required. by the way, the congressman was just completely wrong when he said i'm the only scholar who supports this position. in the 19th century which is closer in time to when the framers wrote dean white of the columbia law school wrote the weight of authority by which he meant the weight of scholarly authority and judiciary authority this is 1867, the weight of authority is in favor of requiring a crime. justice curtis came to the same conclusion. others have come to a similar conclusion. you asked what happened between 1998 and the current that changed my mind?

what happened between the 19th century and 20th century to change the mind of so many scholars? let me tell you what happened. what happened is the current president was impeached. if president obama or hillary clinton was impeached the weight of scholars would be in my position because these scholars do not pass the shoe on the other foot test. these scholars are influenced by their own bias, by their own politics and their views should be taken with that in mind. they simply do not give objective assessments of the constitutional history. professor tribe suddenly had a revelation when clinton was impeached he said the law is clear you cannot charge the crime of a sitting president. now we have a current president

and professor wilk with no new came to the conclusion, oh, but this president can be charged while sitting in office. that's not the kind of scholarship that should influence your decision. you can make your own decisions. go back and read the debates and you will see that i am right. the framers rejected vague, open-ended criteria and abuse of power and what we have is a fundamental mistake again by the manager on reasons why we have impeachment we feared abuse of power and maladministration and feared incapacity but none of those made it in to criteria because the framers had to strike a balance. here's the reasons we need impeachment, yes. now here's the reason we fear giving congress too much power so we strike a balance. how did they strike it?

treason, a serious crime. bribery a serious game or other high crimes and misdemeanors to treason and bribery. that's what the framers intended. they didn't intend to give congress a license to decide who to impeach and not impeach on partisan grounds. i read you a list of 40 americans presidents accused of abuse of power. should they have been impeached. reject my argument of crime if you choose to. do not reject my argument that abuse of power would destroy the impeachment criteria and turn it to make every president, every member of the senate, every member of congress to define itself from within their own

prism. and if you need proof beyond a reasonable doubts or preponderance. >> thank you. >> thank you, chief justice. >> senator from maryland. >> chief justice, i have a question on behalf i'll send to the desk for the house managers. it's on behalf of senator markey and myself. >> the question is as follows, supreme court justice byron white in a concurring opinion in nixon versus united states, 1993 acknowledge the senate, quote, has wide discretion in specifying impeachment requirement procedures and state the senate would abuse its discretion, end quote, if it were to quote, insist on a

procedure that could be a trial of judge and if it doesn't allow for additional evidence and tm of key witnesses with first-hand knowledge of president trump's actions an intentions would it constitute a constitutionally fair trial? >> i think the answer is yes. i don't know we need to look to the words of a prior justice to tell us that a trial without witnesses is not really a trial. it's certainly not a fair trial if the house moves forward with impeachment and comes before the senate and wants to call witnesses and wants to make its case thou shalt not call witnesses. that's not a fair trial. i think the american people

understand that without reading the case law. they go to jury duty themselves every year. they see the first thing that takes place after the jury is sworn in is the government makes its opening statement is the defense makes theirs and then begins the calling of witnesses. i do want to take this opportunity though to respond to professor dershowitz argument while fresh. you can say a lot of things about alan dershowitz, you can't say he's unprepared. he's not unprepared today or 21 years ago and to believe that he would not have read 21 years ago what mason had to say or madison had to say or hamilton, i'm sorry i don't buy that. i think 21 years ago he understood that the administration was reject -- maladministration was rejected and so was a provision of

confinement to treason and bribery alone was rejected. i think the alan dershowitz from 21 years ago understands that while you can't impeach for policy difference you can impeach for abuse of power. that's what he said 21 years ago. nothing has change. you can't write off the consensus of constitutional opinion saying they're never-trumpers. let's play a snippet from professor turley in the house defending the president recently. >> on abuse of power min view it's clear, you can impeach a president for abuse of power. you can impeach a president for non-criminal conduct.clear, you president for abuse of power. you can impeach a president for non-criminal conduct.it's clear president for abuse of power. you can impeach a president for non-criminal conduct. >> we can't argue plausibly his opinion is owing to political bias. a few weeks ago he was not house

arguing the case for any gop colleagues the president shouldn't be impeached. she -- she he said if you can prove these things that's an abuse of power. you can impeach for that kind of abuse of power and that's what we have here. we're not required to leave our common sense at the door. if we're to interpret the constitution by saying the president can abuse their power and i think the professor suggested before the break he can abuse his power in a corrupt way to help his re-election and you can't do anything about it. you can't do anything about it. if he views it as in his personal interest, that's just fine. he's allowed to do it. none of the founders would have

accepted that kind of reasoning. in fact the idea that the core offense the founders protected against. the core offense is abuse of power and beyond the reach of congress to impeachment would have terrified the founders. you can imagine any number of abuses of power of a president who with holds aid from another country at war as a thank you for that adversary allowing him to build a trump power in that country but do we have to say we have to permit a president of the united states to withhold military aid as a thank you for a business proposition? now, counsel acknowledges crime's not necessary but something akin to a crime. well, we think there's a crime here of bribery or extortion, condition of official acts for

personal favors. that's bribery and what the founders understood as extortion. you cannot argue even if you argue well under the modern definition of bribery you have to show such and such, you can't argue it's akin to bribery. it's bribery but certainly akin to bribery. but that's the import of what they would argue. no, the president has a constitutional right under article 2, he can do anything he wants. he can abuse his office and do so sacrificing national security, undermining the integrity of the elections and there's nothing he can do about it. >> thank you, mr. manager. >> we're in recess. [gravel] >> bret: as you heard the senate impeachment trial is on dinner break for about 45 minutes. we'll have a redhaech questions and answers from capitol hill

and the response from the white house in moment. i'll speak live with joe manchin about where he stands in the impeachment trial. let's start though with a few headlines in other news today. about 200 american citizens evacuated from the coronavirus from china it landed at an air force base in riverside being screened again for the virus. it comes as the death toll from the outbreak eclipses 160 in china. in the u.s. there's still no deaths and so far five confirmed cases. we're learning the helicopter that crashed sunday killing kobe bryant and his daughter and seven others did not have a crash warning device. the experts say it's unclear whether the terrain warning system, which is not required, would have saved their lives. an investigator with the national transportation safety board said the pilot slammed into a foggy hillside after a

minute-long high-speed plunge. this morning bryant's widow, up dated her instagram with a pick her of her lost husband and daughter. the dow gained 12, the s&p 500 lost a fraction and there was the longest smuggling tunnel ever found stretching more than three-quarters of a mile from tijuana, mexico to the border. the tunnel originates in an industrial area in mexico and extends a total of 4,309 feel. we're now on a break in the senate impeachment trial as senators ask questions of the legal teams. both sides. the biggest question of all whether senators will vote to allow witnesses. that's still to be decided friday. both republicans and democrats are fighting to keep their sides unified. both camps are deal with

potential breaks in their ranks. we'll speak as i mentioned with senator joe manchin on how may vote on all fronts and first john roberts at the white house with a huge political win for president trump today. the signing of the usmca deal amid the impeachment showdown and begin with mike em emanuel. >> the senator met with a moderate republicans who has expressed an interest in more testimony. on the senate floor there's been plenty of questions and answers. >> this say question -- is a question for the counsel of the president. >> written questions from questions submitted to the chief jus dis. >> it was a partisan and political impeachment they wanted to get done all around timing for the election. >> does it matter if there was a quid pro quo? >> the questions are a mixture

of political rhetoric and wonky constitutional ground didn't break new ground. >> if a president does something he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. >> the q&a session so far mostly allowed each side to reiterate some of their central themes. >> when you have a witness as plainly relative as john bolton who goes to the president's egregious misconduct is at odds with being an impartial juror. >> the real drama begins with witnesses and it could be a close vote and susan collins says she doesn't want to hear from just john bolton. >> it's important there be

fairness and each side is able to select a witness or two. >> democrats are adding to the pressure for waivering republicans. >> they need to vote for witnesses. they're afraid this president will come in to their states and campaign against them. >> joe manchin and doug jones of alabama and another are considering voting to acquit the president. that hit a nerve with democratic leader chuck schumer trying to hold hit caucus together and whether the white house team gets to call its own competing witnesses. >> we have had total unity. it's not up to joe manchin whether to call hunter biden. >> until now democrats have been unified the fracture comes ahead of critical votes as soon as friday. >> thank you. president trump telling republicans not to be bullied into allowing witnesses in the impeachment trial. we just received a statement

from the lawyer for john bolton on his possible testimony and the president signed the new north american trade deal. an agreement he called cutting edge and state of the art and was bipartisan piece of legislation. john roberts has the story live from the north lawn. good evening. >> good evening, bret. it was a campaign promise the president's opponents and even supporters didn't see a need for but he has built a case to rewrite the trade relationship between the united states, canada and mexico and sold it to congress. with the backdrop of workers and union leaders president trump celebrate the biggest bipartisan win of his presidency signing the usmca in to law. >> people said it was too

complicated, couldn't get done. we got it done. >> he hadn't put pen to paper before nancy pelosi claimed credit for it. >> it will make vast improvement. if it weren't we wouldn't have been able to pass the bill. >> the ceremony was to draw contrast with the proceedings on the capitol hill. and urging republicans to resist increaseti increasetion -- increasing pressure to call witnesses. saying remember the democrats already had 17 witnesses. we were given none. witnesses are up to the house, not up to the senate. don't let the democrats play you. today, a revelation regarding the number one talked about witness, former national security adviser john bolt jeff. in a letter in his book there's classified information some at the top secret level.

manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information. that letter was sent january 23. three days later, significant portions of the manuscript were leaked to the new york times. national security adviser robert o'brien doubts it was leaked from anyone under his charge. while bolton claims in the manuscript he was concerned about the ukraine policy in the interview at the end of august he appeared to show none. >> he and president trump have spoken twice and they were warm called and the success of the ukraine maintaining its freedom and system of representative government and free-market economy free of corruption and dealing with the problems of crimea are high priorities here but high priorities for the united states as well. >> the president himself could be fueling the fire to call

bolton. today tearing a strip off him on twitter saying bolton couldn't get approved for ambassador to the u.n. begged me for a non-senate approved job and mistakenly says libyan model on tv and then writes a nasty and untrue book, all classified, national security. we got a statement from bolton's attorney, chuck cooper, who included a statement in response to the january letter about bolton saying, quote, if he is called to testify it's certain he'll be asked question that will elicit questions dealing with his involvement with matters related to ukraine. we don't believe it could be considered classified and give jep -- given he could be called to testify it's important we have the results of the review of that chapter as soon as possible and in the statement

cooper says he's heard nothing back from the nfc on that request from friday. >> thanks. >> bret: there's a handful of senators considering acquit and one is senator joe manchin. thanks for the time. we know you have to get some dinner. i don't want to keep you too long. what did you learn today, if anything. you asked a question today. did it change your opinion on anything? >> it just gives us clarity. there's discrepancies that came back. the first two or three days in the prosecution and from the defense of the president. i think both were compelling. both were articulate and presented well but there were some contradictions and we wanted to make sure. i think the questions being asked are to give clarity to that. tomorrow should help immensely and we'll see where we go and the witnesses are a big thing. i believe and that think you

know i feel witnesses are needed. and also document are pertaining to the charges brought against the president because at one time i heard the president say and a greed with him he said i don't think i can get a fair trial over in the house. i need a fair trial and i want witnesses and he should get a fair trial and the senate is where the trial would be. >> bret: you know opening the door to witnesses opens the door to republicans calling witnesses. >> i want to make sure i clarify this, the clarity is the republicans have a right to call witnesses. if the democrats called two witnesses shouldn't republicans have a right to call two or four they agree on. what they may not agree on this person is not relevant whether it's the bidens or somebody else. you know what, my opinion was my opinion but there should be northbound and i would think

chief justice roberts is that person when there's a discrepancy to be a witness because they have pertinent information that could contribute to whether the president is convicted on the true articles of impeachment or acquitted. that's all i have said and still say. >> bret: if the vote comes down and republicans manage to get the votes to prevent witnesses, could you consider a vote to acquit in that scenario? >> it's just so hard to have a fair trial. i've never been a juror or been called to jury duty in my entire life. this is something new to me and it's fascinating and i take it serious. they're serious charge. >> bret: you could consider -- >> i have everything open. i have not made my mind up. i'm impartial and want to wait until the whole process is over.

>> bret: why you come from, west virginia seems to be make its mind up. back in 2016 voted for president trump by about 70% and the recent polls on i mpeaching and removing the president is about the same and 20% of west virginians could you convict the president and look at your constituents and say i -- you have a vote in nine months but it's so egregious we have to kick him out now. >> i've been in west virginia a long time and been elected to many positions in this great state and there's wonderful people in west virginia and a governor for two terms and they expect me to do what's fair and right and i have to be able to go home and explain it. if i can't explain it i can't

vote for it. that's why i've been waiting to see all the evidence. i haven't been quick to judgment. anyone who's prejudge the president one way or another and everybody is innocent until proven guilty and that's the rule of law. >> i understand you have a couple more days here. republicans say one, the aid was released and flowed out on time. two, there was a meeting at the u.n. with the president of ukraine. no announcements were made on the investigations of the bidens and burisma and the ukrainian president said they didn't feel pressure and information the presentations you've seen to far, if you get to friday and there are no witnesses considering those stipulations can you vote -- >> let me give you one more scenario, bret.

and they're fighting russian gression. have you a president with no political experience whatsoever coming in. that person comes in, zelensky and basically he's talking to the super power in the world the most powerful person and sure he's needing this and 2017 and 2018 that was clear he gave them javelin weapons to protect themselves. then the assertion has been made we have to make sure we uncover every stone. you cannot be involved. we cannot allow foreign enemies to be involved. that's opposed to who we are as a country. >> bret: and to what happened and can you turn to west virginians saying i know this didn't happen but because of how democrats presented it we need

to kick him out of office nine months before election. >> no one should be kicked out of office unless the charges are absolutely factual. should we just say the same thing as what mcconnel had said. it's one year, why should we do anything. >> bret: do you have any concerns with the whistleblower and the contacts with the house intelligence committee? adam schiff said again today he doesn't know who the whistleblower is. >> i try to trust the people that i work with. if they lied to me once, then shame on all of us because i'd never believe them again. if they're saying they didn't know i believe they're telling the truth. if they're willing to do it under oath it tells me more. it is what it is right now. we're in a he said-she said and what side are you on. i'm a proud west virginia democrat but a more proud american and i'm not going to make a decision.

i want my president to succeed and do well and i want to live within the law and they're not above the law so we all have to make sure we're doing everything by the law. >> bret: i tried to get to announce a couple times. senator we appreciate your time and we'll get you get some dinner and head back in. >> you'll get an answer pretty quick, i can tell you that. >> bret: up next a live report from iowa as the countdown to the iowa caucuses continues. sometimes your small screen is your big screen.

and with the xfinity stream app, which is free with your service, you can take a spin through on demand shows, or stream live tv. download your dvr'd shows and movies on the fly. even record from right where you are. whether you're travelling around the country or around the house, keep what you watch with you. download the xfinity stream app and watch all the shows you love.

>> bret: intimates democracy 2020 report, joe biden leads bernie sanders in one of the major polls, the same survey finds nearly half of those responding still open to switching their vote and it's close. corresponded peter doocy reports tonight from des moines them. >> the senator from vermont is ready for an impeachment. >> you asked me if i'm ready to be campaigning in iowa, i would. >> the democratic majority for issue with a very personal attack ad from iowa. >> i have some concerns about his policies and the fact that he had a heart attack. >> it's no secret we taking on the political interests and one

rival standing up for sanders. >> i would prefer to have this whole election negotiated on questions of policy. >> with five days left before the iowa caucuses, 40% of democrats could still change their mind but the top five for now according to a new monmouth pole, is biden, sanders, buttigieg, lauren, and klobuchar. >> announcing that campaign in the middle of a blizzard in february and i look back at it, i don't think some people thought i would make it through that announcement. a week before, six days before the iowa caucuses. i knew it to my staff knew it. >> klobuchar quickly snuck away to iowa as warren opted to campaign by. >> i wish we were doing and in person town hall but this is the best we can do. >> biden saying his age could be a factor of his running mate. >> one is immediately be

president because i'm an old guy. >> uncommon on the trail but not as uncommon as talking dogs for bloomberg. >> i like mike. i licked mike! >> wade missy which candidates are still around and bernie sanders believes he'll be one of them. >> deeply impressed by the number of volunteers that we have were knocking on doors in the cold weather and i think we have a chance to win back in iowa. >> sanders is strong here and in new hampshire despite not spending time in either state but like most of the field. the teams on the ground are biden, buttigieg, steyer, and y. >> bret: will be there sometime this weekend. thanks for inviting us in your home tonight. that's it for this "special report." the short little bit different

tonight with the senate testimony of the arguments, the q and a bye the senators. we've got you covered here on "the story" hosted by martha maccallum starts after this quick break. yeah, we're going to just do a lap and we'll come back. okay. well, we'll be here. man! why isn't this working? my mouth is watering. i think that's just your rabies flaring up. with geico, the savings keep on going. just like this sequel. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. we got gristle pot pies!

and my side super soft? yes. with the sleep number 360 smart bed, on sale now, you can both adjust your comfort with your sleep number setting. can it help me fall asleep faster? yes, by gently warming your feet. but can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. so, you can really promise better sleep? not promise. prove. and now, during the ultimate sleep number event, save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus 0% interest for 24 months on all smart beds. only for a limited time.

no matter how much you clean, does your house still smell stuffy? that's because your home is filled with soft surfaces that trap odors and release them back into the room. so try febreze fabric refresher. febreze finds odors trapped in fabrics and cleans them away as it dries. use febreze every time you tidy up, to keep your whole house smelling fresh air clean.

fabric refresher even works for clothes you want to wear another day. make febreze part of your clean routine for full home freshness. la la la la la >> martha: welcome to our seven of the of the question-and-answer period of the impeachment trial. the events unfolding on the senate floor tonight are only one piece of this puzzle. a growing number of leaks in the missions could depend the trial ends in 48 hours or enters an entirely new phase. i am martha maccallum and this is "the story." the latest of the last minute revelations comes from house foreign affairs committee eliot engel. the new york democrat claiming today that late last year, he says john bolton strongly implied to him that something improper had occurred in the firing of ukraine and basinger

e