and lisa murkowski. and towards the end of the day we heard questions from lisa murkowski and the first question from lamar alexander that -- >> lisa murkowski's question was essentially why shouldn't bolton testify. >> that was her first question, which suggested that she wanted to hear from bolton. but then she participated in a question that said, even if bolton testifies, will it make any difference in the result? which would suggest she asked the defense lawyers and they said, of course, it wouldn't make any difference. so that would suggest that she doesn't want to hear from witnesses. in other words -- i don't know what she's thinking. >> elliott? >> it's hard to read where lisa murkowski is on account of those questions. we all let out a gasp when she asked that question really suggesting she wanted to hear from john bolton. when she joined that lindsey graham question an hour or two ago, that stayed -- and they used the lawyerly language of read in the light most favorable to the impeachment, do

murkowski says no. the moderate republican senator from alaska says she will call against calling for witnesses in president trump's impeachment trial. amanda: plenty for the markets to chew on. that stepping up of the level of emergency from the world health organization maybe one thing preoccupying markets. in theseeing big moves s&p 500, energy leading the declines. groups moving at 2%, 3% increments. definitely some momentum at play here. the dow giving up its gains on the year. we are also getting some earnings. amazon crossing the chilean dollar, but caterpillar going the other way today. check out the 10-year, watching yields on bonds. the u.s. 30 below 2% for the first time since october. it has some now saying this will be a catalyst for the fed to move as soon as march or april. we are starting to see calls on a fed rate cut being priced into the long bond. at 1.53.he 10-year picking up steam on the downside for the s&p 500. energy companies really pulling on it, the last day in january as wel

it could be a dramatic moment depending on where murkowski comes. he could be served up the way it is and any other impeachment the vice president would preside over and we will see. it is a longshot for the dems at this point. >> there's a question whether doug jones of alabama and joe manchin of west virginia and kirsten cinema could vote to acquit. how big would that be for your campaign? >> it would be a huge deal. if they are in their right mind and want to win the elections a stand with donald trump. it would be a huge deal, much like there was a bipartisan vote against impeachment to begin with that let's look at the democrats. the naked ambition has always been determining the outcome of the 20/20 election which is why you had alan greenspan we know we can beat him is what he said, this is about reelecting the president, alexandria ocasio cortez saying we have to avoid a disastrous outcome in 2020, donald trump will be elected in greater numbers than before, they know it, that is what this is about. >> look at the facts. >> there. to be no c

how much of an impact do you think senator alexander will have on senator murkowski. i was told had they had that meeting that cnn reported on last night, he wasn't trying to lobby senator murkowski, but give her the courtesy because they're close of telling her what his decision is and why. but you still have to wonder how much of an impact it is, since it was so thoughtfully and really carefully written. >> no question. they're very close. they had the meeting, i asked him if they coordinated their statements. he said they did not coordinate. he said he wanted to touch base with her ahead of time, which is what they did. this could certainly have an influence on what she decides. mitch mcconnell does not want this to be a 50/50 vote. it looks worse for the republicans. the one running for re-election, they could be hammered for saying they're the ones who kept a decisive vote against witnesses and documents, easier, they believe, to make that argument if it is a 51/49 vote, versus 50/50 and the question about what chief justice roberts would do in a 50/50 split. tha

i do want to get back to lisa murkowski. i think her argument was curious to just read it again what john is basing the idea that she is moving away from witnesses. she said the house made a decision they didn't want to slow things down by going through the courts. and yet now they're basically saying you guys got to go through though courts. we didn't, but you need to. since then, things have happened. john bolton has come forward. in fact, secretary of state mike pompeo, both of them have said if subpoenaed, we'll be happy to testify. that's different than what the house had at their disposal. >> yeah. things have changed. murkowski's argument is flawed. why not now? you can do it. and what mitch mcconnell seems to be setting up here is a choice. either do it my way meaning no witnesses and we're done quick, or the hard way. and that's this strategy we're seeing now which system of the republican senators are getting the talking points of. if we go down the road of witnesses, we'll have an executive privilege fight. what's

that could be a dramatic moment, depending on where murkowski comes. it could be served up to roberts the way it is. any other impeachment that the vice president would preside over, and then we will see. but it is, i think come a long shot for the dems at this point. >> mike: also a lot of buzz about whether moderate democrat in alabama, arizona, how big would that be for the campaign? if they voted to acquit? >> would be a huge deal, and if they are in their right minds and want to win reelections on the road, the state of president trump because their states stand with president trump. will be huge deal, much like there was a bipartisan vote against impeachment to begin with. and let's look at the democrats. their naked ambition has been determining the outcome of the 2020 election -- predetermining it. that's right had al green saying we can't beat him, essentially what he said. this is about reelecting the president. alexandria ocasio-cortez saying we have to avoid a disastrous outcome in 2020. president trump is going to be elected in greater num

and murkowski has to vote yes. she knows if she votes yes, she's putting am this pressure on john roberts. this could be putting pressure on her. >> if roberts says i'm not touching this and it's 50/50 the motion fails. we will not have witnesses. >> which i think is an important point. normally with a tie, one side doesn't lose. normally with a tie, one side wins. normally with a tie, it's a tie. >> you need a majority. 51 would be a majority. now, there's a great sentiment in the public here in favor of witnesses. polling has shown 70% to 75% wants to see witnesses. it's a trial 37 here are some of the arguments and we will hear debite today against witnesses. argument number one, it's just going to take too long. here's what a couple of leading republicans have said about the issue. >> there are things you can't do from the standpoint of executive privilege. >> we'd be here for a very, very long time. that's not good for the united states. >> we don't need to prolong what's already taken five months of the ameri

but we don't know where lisa murkowski is yet. he's leaning -- she's curious about talking to witnesses, but she's mum about whether to move forward. alexander has bipartisan relationships so his decision to make this announcement decisive is going to come tonight. >> can you imagine them splitting? let's just to play this out for people. if lamar alexander votes for witnesses and murkowski votes against witnesses, then you end up with a tie and a tie is a situation no one wants to be in. republicans don't want that, democrats want that, john roberts doesn't want that, no one wants that. would you see them splitting on this issue? >> according to what lamar alexander told me they are acting independently but there is a push. no senator wants to be the decisive vote. that's easier for republicans to message so republicans can't be blamed to be the decisive vote to move against witnesses and also raising the question of whether the chief justice will force that tiebreaking vote. so, that's why members don't want to go that route. we

what about senator lisa murkowski? she is set to make her announcement on that some time this morning. it could be any moment. but even if she joins the yes column, that still leaves the senate with a 50/50 split. >> and it leaves this key question. will the chief justice who is presiding over the trial vote to break a tie? all indications are no. that would make this the first senate impeachment trial in the history of the country to end without hearing from a single witness. let's begin on capitol hill with congressional reporter lauren fox. you have been speaking to lisa murkowski's team this morning. any sense of where she goes on this? >> we don't have any guidance to when she'll release the statement. and we don't have any guidance on which way she's learning. now yesterday we did see her enter the hideaway with lamar alexander during that dinner break. obviously highly anticipated after lamar alexander asked his very first question in the impeachment trial. a big and surprising moment because i'm told alexander

lisa murkowski told nbc news tonight that she would announce her decision on witnesses in the morning. but at this late hour, the elusive fourth vote that's needed in order to hear from more witnesses and see more documents does not seem to exist. does this move from senator alexander change the calculation for those other swing vote republicans? is there another senator out there, another republican senator who will step up at the 11th hour? and could john bolton still throw another wrench into all of this? >>> earlier lead house impeachment manager adam schiff made a last-ditch effort suggesting limitation of the -- limiting the deposition of witnesses to one week. it was the same length of time used during the clinton impeachment trial in 1999, he said, and the senate as it did then could return to its regular legislative business for that week. >> you want the clinton model, let's use the clinton model. let's take a week. let's take a week to have a fair trial. you can continue your business. we can get the business of the country done. is that too much to ask in the name of fairn

murkowski is the toss up. what is the likelihood we could hear lisa murkowski voting yes, bringing it to a tie vote in which the chief justice will have to be the deciding factor and what happens there. >> look at the language of the question she posed yesterday, it wasn't why shouldn't we call john bolton, it was why shouldn't we call john bolton. the question implies she's leaning toward a presumption of calling john bolton. it wouldn't be a surprise if that's the direction she goes in. she has shown an independent streak throughout the trial along with a couple senators and she may end up calling for his testimony, but given that the likelihood still is, at least the odds are that he won't be called, it may not ultimately make a difference. it may at best lead us to a tie which is really the most fascinating constitutional conclusion in this trial. >> so what happens then with the tie? >> any number of things. number one, the chief justice can always punt to the senators. in a tie he's got to make a decisio

lisa murkowski told nbc news tonight that she would announce her decision on witnesses in the morning. but at this late hour, the elusive fourth vote that's needed in order to hear from more witnesses and see more documents does not seem to exist. does this move from senator alexander change the calculation for those other swing vote republicans? is there another senator out there, another republican senator who will step up at the 11th hour and could john bolton still throw another wrench into all of this? earlier, lead house impeachment manager adam schiff made a last-ditch effort limiting the witnesses to one week. the same length of time used during the clinton impeachment trial in 1999, he said, and the senate, as it did then, could return to its regular legislative business for that week. >> you want the clinton model, let's use the clinton model. let's take a week. let's take a week to have a fair trial. you could continue your business. we can get the business of the country done. is that too much to ask in the name of fairness, that we follow the clinton model, that we take o

so when the senate adjourned last night the office of the person behind me, lisa murkowski, murkowski was the only undecided senator on the question of witnesses that our team is aware of. we were told that she would announce her decision this morning. it's coming on 10:15. that has not happened yet. she is someone who traditionally likes to get every piece of information available to her. a lot of people think that might include in hearing from witnesses and she met privately with lamar alexander last night around dinner time and she was chatting with mitch mcconnell last night. she is -- at least at this moment still a tossup on the witness question. we're looking at a scenario where democrats get 49 or 50 votes in favor of witnesses. that's not enough. 50-50 isn't a tie in the sense that we think of it as something that must be broken to declare a winner. a tie essentially goes to the loser, a tie goes to nothing happening, right? if they get to 50 it's a tie in soccer. that's it, everybody goes home. then the question is what senator murphy was talk about how fast do we go after t

if there are only three -- if it is murkowski, collins and romney -- then the vote, if all democrats stick together on this issue, would be 50/50, and then that would put us in the position that we were just discussing earlier, in which the supreme court's chief justice has to decide whether or not that 50-50 tie results in the measure failing or whether he will be the tiebreaking vote and the measure passes. >> we were discussing yesterday during the show, between the show, yesterday, today, why don't you start. >> last week. >> i've been thinking about it in my life. >> why don't you go first, maya? >> the point i will make and that i hope everyone carries with them, whatever happens, if we're in this situation, is that whatever happens, it's the responsibility of the outcome lay with the senate -- it lays with the senate, because this is not a situation which there should be any question about whether this set, in acquitting its oath and its constitutional obligation should agree across the aisle to hear relevant witnesses, and i think that is the most important thing, not what th

the one senator we're paying closest attention to now is lisa murkowski of alaska. on her way out of the senate chamber as she got in her car to head home, my colleague kyle stewart, who is a producer here, caught up with her, and says she has a 1 1/2 notebooks filled with information, notes she's been taking over the last week. she said that when she gets home, she plans to put some eye drops in and to read some more as best that she's able because she wants to be able to put out a well thought statement in the morning about where she stands on this key question of inviting more witnesses and more evidence into this trial. i will say, though, that house democrats, democrats' best chance, the thing that they're hoping for is she would, of course, join with collins and romney and then would present this tie that the chief justice would have to break. you've already talked about why the chief justice would be reluctant to do that. but we've also heard from key republican senators who have said repeatedly that they are reluctant to present a tie vote to the chief justi

private meetings with murkowski, working all his republican colleagues. and i should note if you listen to the white house counsel's arguments throughout the course of wednesday they repeatedly made the point moving forward with witnesses and documents would be problematic because it would make the trial significantly longer, and set precedent issues republicans would come to regret. that said we'll start another full day of questions and answers. friday there will be a four hour debate from both sides on whether or not to move to witnesses and documents and then there will be a vote. and if that vote goes down i'm told right now mcconnell plan tuesday move very quickly to have a final vote to acquit the president of all charges. >> thanks so much, phil. more ahead on all this plus a desperate search for a missing one week old baby takes a bizarre twist. who's alive, who's dead and who else police are looking for. thousands of women with metastatic breast cancer, which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of the body, are living in the moment a

then alaska's susan murkowski voting no. she says she has concern with the whole process, saying congress has failed. 51-49, voting in on witnesses. the president set to be aquitted of abuse of power and obstruction of justice and mary bruce tonight on when that acquittal will likely come. >> reporter: tonight, democrats' hopes of calling new witnesses in the impeachment trial shattered. >> senator murkowski? no. >> reporter: moments later the top senate democrat speaking out. >> it's a grand tragedy, one of the worst tragedies that the senate has ever overcome. >> reporter: just hours before "the new york times" published new allegations from the man democrats had hoped to call as their star witness, president trump's former national security advisor john bolton. according to "the times," in bolton's new book he writes the president's campaign to pressure ukraine began earlier than previously thought. bolton describing a may oval office meeting with president trump, his personal lawyer rudy giuliani, acting chief of staff m

murkowski especially. i think i would maybe disagree with the list you mentioned and name some people like senator richard burr and lamar alexander who aren't facing electoral consequentials. collins and gardener, they're in a bind, right, because they're in purple or blue states that they need to get reelected in. they need their base to win those states. by sticking their finger in the president's eye is a path to certain defeat. >> i only said a few names, but we had a full screen up. i'm going so ask my control room to put those names up. i'm with you on this, tim. there are others who might be more he inclined. going to ask the control room if they can put that up for me. who may be more inclined. there you've got richard burr, lamar alexander who is retiring, mitt romney who sort of does sometimes decide that he wants to do the right thing. and then you've got a few of them up for reelection including martha mcsally and corey and susan collins. if you need four you might look to the other four instea

murkowski. no. mr. murphy. aye. mrs. murray. aye. mr. paul. no. mr. purdue. no. mr. peters. aye. mr. portman. no. mr. reid. aye. mr. rich. no. mr. roberts. no. mr. romney. aye. ms. rosen. aye. >> emily: what you are seeing there is the senate voting on impeachment witnesses. let's go to chad pergram right now. you speak of this is where they to cut standard roll call vote. this was the seminal vote we have been hearing about. a gateway vote about whether or not they would open the door to call witnesses or not. this is a pretty important vote. susan collins from maine and mitt romney from utah, republicans last night announcing they would vote for witnesses. lamar alexander, republican from tennessee last night saying he would oppose it and lisa murkowski saying this morning that she would oppose it. we expect this to go down. what is unclear after this, the senate is going to take a recess according to the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. what happens next? it was pretty clear that mitch mcconnell had the votes to block this democratic effort to extend the trial and call

murkowski asked a president que the. 's counsel saying if there are disputes about material fact at issue, -- >> such as those raised by reports of john bolton's book -- >> shouldn't we hear from john bolton? >> yeah. >> it was really interesting because basically the argument for the president's lawyer, mr. philbin, when he came out was imagine the precedent you'll set that this will be such a pain for future senates, i guess -- >> yeah. >> that was really the argument. i mean, it was sort of surprising to me how weak it was, but also from the tea leave reading perspective, it's a little bit of a tell, i think, that murkowski, at least is on the fence right now. that's not a dquestion i think you submit if you made up your mind. >> i think it's also worth being humble about what -- about the quality of reporting about mitch mcconnell. heading into the impeachment trial, of course, he said he had all the votes that he needed in order to pass the resolution that he had distributed the night for the start of the trial abou

without murkowski, there are no witnesses. >> without murkowski, it's hard to see how the democrats get four. we know that. although they're coming under pressure from the trump white house and the senate leadership. but just take a second to really look at the argument they're making. the senate is pushing this idea that they're not going to get witnesses anyway, because trump's team will block it. that's totally circular. because they're arguing at the same time they should have got the information that's being blocked by the trump white house. >> it will lead to a fundamental dereliction of duty. and overturn the will of the vast majority of the american witnesses. >> also, since the time that the house was blocked and didn't get the witnesses that they wanted, things have changed. since that time, the former national security adviser john bolton has come out to say that he is willing to testify if subpoenaed. since then, we just heard this week that mike pompeo said if subpoenaed he would be -- his word was happy to testify. so there's new information. things have changed. lisa murk

we heard from senators lisa murkowski and sue can collins, both noncommittal on the issues of calling witnesses, collins seems to back mcconnell's perspective, seems the majority leader will be in the driver's seat whenever it begins. >> he's committed to following the same procedure the clinton impeachment followed rules set by all 100 senators at the time. it was considered bipartisan and fair. he said that's going to happen, the process will proceed like that. as far as collins and murkowski they seem comfortable with this because they will have a chance to vote on whether to bring forward witnesses. the problem we seen with the house witnesses is they refused to testify, the house decided not to take them to court over it so the senate now has to decide if they refuse -- call up the witnesses and refuse to testify, are they going to go to the courts, force them to testify and what does that process look like and how long will it take? there's a lot of considerations there. >> the view from the left mcconnell is saying let's keep the door open to witnesses knowing there's never goi

without murkowski, democrats can't get the four votes they need. sorry, at least you have great hair. despite all the early predictions that republicans were fracturing, the democrats are actually the ones who are falling apart. >> several red state democrats are not ruling out the possibility of clearing president trump in the ultimate vote. >> democratic senators and states that trump won have not ruled out voting to acquit him. >> jones, mansion, kyrsten sinema could be squishy on some aspects of this. >> laura: should the senate voted to hear witnesses, at least one democrat, joe manchin, may be shifting away from his party. >> is hunter biden a relevant witness? >> i think so, i really do. >> would you vote to call hunter biden as a witness? >> if whatever rules it as pertinent, absolutely. >> if the democrats call witnesses, should republicans have a right to call also? >> laura: face with a bipartisan acquittal of trump, democrats and the media are resorting to desperate 11th hour she hour shenanigans, here is the latest fake news from cnn's

for murkowski and romney, i think it also impacts them as well. i think romney obviously is very much on board in terms of, you know, voting to call witnesses and such. murkowski is curious, and we've seen that she has been very critical of the presidential, so i think it definitely does put these three senators really on notice in calling for that. >> you can't help but wonder what was said between leader mcconnell and susan murkowski and lisa murkowski, excuse me, in that private meeting for 30 minutes. danny cevallos, julia manchester, thank you both. i appreciate it. i'm going to talk to you again in a little bit. so stay close. >>> still ahead, president trump launches an attack against former national security adviser john bolton and a democratic congressman comes to his defense. plus, how former vice president and 2020 candidate joe biden is getting ready to take on trump in iowa today. those stories and a check on your weather when we come back. n your weather when we come back introducing new vicks vapopatch easy to wear with soothing vic

murkowski, collins, romney, and murkowski and collins. they are clearly saying we see a lot of things the same way. it's true. we're deeply considering witnesses. so, our reporter in the room noted that senators visibly perked up when the question came later in the day from murkowski and collins. everybody wanted to hear what it was that they had to ask to say. and this was -- this particular question was whether the president had ever expressed concerns specifically about corruption, more broadly in ukraine before zelensky took office. that was the question. what are gop senators reading into the questions when they hear that? >> well, i think broadly the question about who is prepared to vote for witnesses is what people are looking for here. >> yeah. >> and it strikes me that romney and collins have pretty clearly signalled where they are. corey gardner from colorado came out and said he opposes it. so, it strikes me that the locking in is on murkowski and alexander of tennessee. i think the question is which groups of senators are thi

, and susan collins saying that's not true, and lisa murkowski was not happy with the statement made by adam schiff, and she said at one point, you had me until then and then you lost me. and then when chuck schumer was confronted about that moment, he said, well, the republicans are always looking for adiversion, you walk any republican up here, and ask them if they can debate the facts that schiff presented and they're not going to be able to debate that. what did you make of that moment? >> you know, two observations about that, first of all, given the gravity, the seriousness of what we are all going through right now, i do think everyone needs to be careful, to carefully vet whatever it is they're going to say. first of all, is it a surprise that the president might say something like that, no, it's not exactly out of character for him to sort of try to interfere with, you know, what the jurors, what the republicans might do by way of vote. but, you know when we're in court arguing things, we want to be sure that what we argue is factual, is accurate, and is not unduly prejudice

without murkowski, democrats can't get the four votes they need. to compel bolton's testimony. sorry mitt romney, but at least you have great hair. despite all the early predictions that republicans were fracturing, the democrats are actually the ones who are falling apart. >> several red state democrats are not ruling out the possibility of clearing president trump in the ultimate vote. o >> democratic senators and states that trump won have not ruled out voting to acquit him. >> jones, mansion, cinema could be squishy on some aspects of this. >> laura: should the senate voted to hear witnesses, at least one democrat, joe manchin, may be shifting away from his party. >> is hunter biden a relevant witness? >> i think so, i really do. >> would you vote to call hunter biden as a witness? >> if whatever rules it as pertinent, absolutely. >> if the democrats call witnesses, should republicans have a right to call also? >> laura: face with a bipartisan acquittal of trump, democrats and the media are resorting to desperate 11th hour she hour shenanigans, here is the latest fake news

lisa murkowski, the next day she came out and criticized that comment as well. maybe republicans are just simply looking for an excuse to vote against these matters by pointing to something that was maybe not -- maybe a bit off color. not out of line of what the criticism is leveling on both sides. but nevertheless, that is what they're pointing to right now. and this is a crucial moment, chris, as you know because mitch mcconnell needs every vote he can get to make sure he does not lose more than three votes and ends this trial as soon as next week. it appears the democrats don't have those votes. >> manu, thank you very much. >> can i just say one thing? give me a break. i mean, the idea -- no, as usual, manu is like dead on. i'm sure, you know, he is exactly right. these poor republican senators getting the vapors because adam schiff was too mean to them. but the idea that they were going to vote for witnesses. but because adam schiff said a mean thing, they -- they're not going to vote for witnesses. >> go ahead. >> they may have learned something from the p

the key senators, susan collins, lisa murkowski, lamar alexander. i asked murkowski yesterday what she thought about one of the concerns raised about executive privilege and this fight could get tied up in the courts if they try to get john bolton or mick mulvaney in. what she said was she wondered why the house didn't go after this themselves. and it raises the question of where her head is at. doesn't mean she'll vote one way or the other but she's raising the same concern we've heard from mitch mcconnell. >> senator murkowski before that raised some concern as democratic house members were attacking republican senators and said, hey, that's not helping either. >> yeah, 100%. and to hear that from her, jackie, i think could say more than we think, right? because she's been willing to vote against the president and if she is perturbed by this, what is that going to mean for her vote. what are you looking for in these final eight hours for democrats? >> just -- so what you are hearing from democrats when you hear republicans like lisa murkowski crit

where is murkowski and alexander and susan collins? >> i can't speak for anybody but myself. when i introduced my resolution, we got 10 co-sponsors in the senate.

mer kowski murkowski mer kowski murkowski stroke, or death. there's no increased risk. oh! and i only have to take it once a weeki urkowski murkowski ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. once-weekly ozempic® is hel

. >> lisa murkowski, a moderate republican, supporting the witnesses and documents, yesterday the house decided to use the time, to take the time it would go to the courts. if you haven't convinced her are you concerned that you haven't got your message across? >> i think the message is

number one, senator murkowski, you are mistaken. congress as a body did not fail, but perhaps the senate has and breaking from precedent having any witnesses should they decide to do that. that's a failure of the senate not to receive the evidence, not a failure of congress and the house to bring it. number two, i protest vehemently the fact that john bolton is seen somehow as being very magnanimous in all of this, that somehow because of his willingness to testify he is absolved of being asked the question why now, why once you realize that the person kupperman filed a suit about the subpoena and they withdrew it and said no, i still want an answer, why not then offer to tell what you told in your book, why must we hear from the "new york times," why must we hear from people at your lectures or book tours about what you've said, especially now? ifdo you know that you may be t linchpin, why not speak up? instead this discussion of john kelly and john bolton who are pretending as if, oh, i think this is the right thing to do. it's ki

alaska's lisa murkowski will announce her decision this morning. we're waiting for that. if she is a yes, it would be a 50/50 tie. then what happens? well, it would be up to the chief justice of the united states, john roberts, to step in and break a tie. if he wants to. that would be unchartered historic territory. unclear he wants to dive in and cast that tiebreaking vote. >> the impeachment trial continues at 1:00 p.m. eastern. senators have a long night ahead of them. a potential vote to convict or acquit the president could take place late tonight or early saturday morning. joining us now is democratic congressman hakeem jeffries, one of the house impeachment managers and chair of the democratic caucus. let me read more from the statement from lamar alexander. he said it was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold united states aid to encourage that investigation. when elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. b

we don't know where lisa murkowski is. her question as jeffrey was saying, raises some questions about whether she will support a motion for subpoenas for documents and witnesses and if she does, then that puts -- those are three votes. puts it at 50-49 depending on from alexander goes. does he side with the republicans and make it 50/50 and then essentially the expectation being roberts would not break that tie. so that means that lamar alexander's announcement that is going to come tonight could be decisive and ultimately determine whether or not president trump's trial ends as quickly as tomorrow night or if it drags out for another week or even longer. so that is going to be obviously what all eyes are on that. >> okay. >> and, chris, he told me that they just were discussing and touching base, not coordinating their statements. >> but obviously that would be the right person to be meeting with. thank you very much, manu. let's take a break quick. when we come back, we will discuss, well, why would they be meeting? we

but if lisa murkowski -- i don't know she's going to do it. but if she says no witnesses because nadler was harsh -- >> you've got to look at the second part of her sentence. she says she's attentive and working hard to get a fair trial. that's a signal, i believe. fair trial is synonymous with the democrats' point of witnesses and documents. but let me -- i think it's too simple, john avalon, to say whether they take the role seriously. some of these senators are in very tight races. they are looking very closely about how their constituents are thinking. you know, they're taking polls. and they're going to make a political judgment at the end of the day. people like susan collins and cory gardner. many have made their decision, but i don't think susan collins has. >> not too many days ago mike pence praised the senator who broke ranks with the senator who broke ranks during johnson's impeachment trial. that book of course is that some things matter more than party loyalty and leadership requires more than simply following your constituents.

but he's been working hard behind the scenes, private meetings with murkowski. and if you listen very closely to the white house's arguments throughout the course of waensz they repeatedly made the point moving forward with witnesses and documents would be problematic because it would make the trial longer, a lot of the same arguments mcconnell has been making behind closed doors, i'm told. that said they'll start another full day of question and answers. friday there will be a debate on whether to move forward with witnesses and documents. and there will be a vote. and if that vote goes down mcconnell plans to do it very quickly and have a final vote to acquit the president of all charges. >> phil mattingly, thanks so much. >> at it center of the witness fight, john bolton book, now the white house is using information about classified information to keep the national security advisor's book from seeing the light of day. bolton submitted a draft manuscript for review to make sure no classified material was compromised. now a formal threat has been sent to bolto

made of susan collins and lisa murkowski perk all of the new york times artist l ien. democrat from washington go ahead. >>caller: i just want to say either watching quite a bit of the trial just going back and forth to watch fox news i know a lot of conservative republicans watch fox news. they are not covering it full-time. they have guests. they are running all the commercials. i found it quite interesting. but my belief is now is the time for all good men and women to come to their country thank you very much. >> we just heard from the house members no one is above the law my question to them is when are they going after joe biden for his quid pro quo with ukraine that he admitted to? next san antonio texas independent line. >>caller: thank you so much and for independence to watch that coverage and considering myself an independent. and with the farewell address how two different parties can only lead to infighting and though whole trial has been display of that from a pragmatist view the republican party will stand by trump it's the only person that they have to

. >> i sent a question to the desk on behalf of myself and senator murkowski. >> reporter: democrats have argued that trump didn't bring up concerns about the bidens and ukraine until he saw the former vice president enter the 2020 race and rise in the polls. so, the senators asked if the president ever brought up biden and ukraine before that. but the president's lawyer unable to provide an example. >> so, i can't point to something in the record that shows president trump at an earlier time mentioning specifically something related to joe or hunter biden. >> reporter: as the trial enters this new phase, president trump today launching direct attacks at his former national security adviser, tweeting that john bolton "begged" him for a job and was eventually fired "because frankly, if i listened to him, we would be in world war six by now." trump is furious that in his upcoming book, bolton reportedly corroborates the central accusation in the impeachment inquiry -- that trump withheld nearly $400 million in military aid to ukraine to pressure them to investigate his rivals, includin

. >> i sent a question to the desk on behalf of myself and senator murkowski. >> reporter: democrats have argued that trump didn't bring up concerns about the bidens and ukraine until he saw the former vice president enter the 2020 race and rise in the polls. so, the senators asked if the president ever brought up biden and rue yan before that. but the president's lawyer unable to provide an example. >> i can't point to something in the record that shows president trump at an earlier time mentioning specifically something related to joe or hunter biden. >> reporter: the trial enters this new phase, president trump today launching direct attacks at his former national security adviser, tweeting that john bolton job and was eventually fired "because frankly, if i listened to him, we would be in world war six by now." trump furious that in his upcoming book, bolton reportedly corroborates the central accusation in the impeachment inquiry -- that trump withheld military aid to ukraine to pressure them to investigate his rivals, including joe biden. the administration has told bolton's te

i could think of collins, murkowski and romney. i don't know who the fourth is and who the fifth is. the rule is you have to have a majority to write a rule, right, in this proceeding, which is where you can trip up -- where you can trip up mcconnell if he wants to have no witnesses. and, you know, democrats and liberals, they can scream until the cows come home this was a terrible hold up, but the clock was rushed by pelosi. the other way of looking at this was she didn't wait for the supreme court to rule on whether or not don mcgahn had to testify, the white house counsel. they didn't wait on some of these documents. they wanted to get this done by december so there could be a trial in january, so it could be over by the primary season. that is not republican 135ub89. the way this has been handled is an entirely democratic matter and it is not i believe going well for them. that's where i disagree with cynthia. all of this is a big dance about how to make it -- how to put, you know, lipstick on a pig. >> let me ask cynthia about

this -- business insider with this headline, all eyes on lisa murkowski, susan collins and lisa murkowski get the cover they need to vote for witnesses in the impeachment trial. of all three vote for witnesses that would be a 50/50 thai. on his next in baltimore. >> caller: the way i see it is the house presented at trial, it was a kangaroo court, they didn't allow donald trump's team in there and they should have organized all that, they didn't, they dropped the ball into goes to the senate for them to decide and now they want to throw more red herrings in to keep it going. this is over. this is over. the democrats failed. i have been a democrat all my life but not no more. >> host: ray in miami, what is your view? should they be included in this trial? >> caller: know they should not. >> host: why? >> caller: why? right now what i would like to say is i would have liked to ask a question of adam schiff that if trump was proven not guilty, if he is going to continue to look for impeachment. the other thing is if trump is not convicted, is adam schiff going to walk across the aisle and sh

and those republican senators, that group we're talking about, collins, murkowski, have said they want the right to call witnesses. mcconnell has said there is not the will to dismiss this. but if the white house manages to bake in that provision, that option, for a motion to dismiss, that will be a really important element to watch as well on tuesday. >> and then, margaret, what is this about? one of the members of the legal team for the president, alan dershowitz, who has already revealed today he didn't even read the 7-page response coming from the white house that was filed last night, but apparently he also said to cnn that president trump had to phone alan dershowitz' wife, carolyn cohen, to persuade her to support the idea of dershowitz being on the case. but fo but focusing on the constitution in this senate trial. what more have you learned and understand about that? >> well, dershowitz' role is interesting, because the white house waited quite a while to roll out who their legal team would be, but in that rollout, the initial thought was, wow, alan dershowitz is part of the l

so as i'm sure you're aware the news the lisa murkowski is is going to be a no vote on this question of whether to bring witnesses is that basically me now it's impossible for the democrats to win this photo if everybody of course sticks to the positions they've committed to and when it's time to vote. as my colleagues at the capitol reported that there were huge cheers coming out of the g.o.p. lunch today which had signaled the kind of the precursor to. announcing that she was against she's going to vote against witnesses that's a huge win for mitch mcconnell her statement. these kind of got this lockdown at this point i don't think this is going to be an issue the democrats like go it specially with the bombshell new york times report and i think the house will definitely be trying to subpoena john bolton and other witnesses given the new developments. is it likely is it possible to toll early realm of the imagination that perhaps some senators could still change their minds in light of this new revelation that's come out about paul. and i think murkowski was kind of their best hop

alaska's republican senator lisa murkowski has said she may at some point vote to allow a witness to this testimony she says she's committed to delivering impartial justice and has a tons diverse from her colleagues and a delicate reports from anchorage. with only 3 electoral college votes alaska doesn't wield the kind of political power seen in other parts of the u.s. . the state senior senator lisa murkowski though could play a pivotal role in president trump's impeachment trial she's already expressed dissatisfaction with senate majority leader mitch mcconnell's declaration i'm not sure that hill run the impeachment process in total coordination with the white house before previously she's broken party lines on the appointments of supremes court justice brett kavanaugh and disagreed with republicans on reforming health care on impeachment she remains a potential problem for the republicans. that. i am viewed as one who looks openly and critically at every issue in front of me rather than acting as a reference then from my party or my president i'm totally good with that. political

we mentioned lisa murkowski as well. the story from "the hill" newspaper noting that lisa murkowski had a sit down with mcconnell, he had a meeting with his swing voters. trying to block the ability for democrats to call additional witnesses. the hill new story noting lisa murkowski not tipping her hand after that meeting with mitch mcconnell. republicans are feeling bullish. the headline from the examiner. senate republicans see a path to ending the trial this week. if they are able to block witnesses and additional documents, they could move to a vote on whether or not to acquit the president. that could take place as soonest tomorrow, or it could take place after several days of deliberation. senators could go behind closed doors to have those deliberations before a final vote on acquittal. several democrats being watched on whether they will join republicans in acquitting the president. we mentioned yesterday, joe mansion, one of those key democrats being watched. one of our story to talk about is what happens if dem

at the end of the session, before they took the recess, lisa murkowski was seen sitting in the senate chamber with the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. again, this is why we don't know how this so-called gateway vote tomorrow night could go. here's what will happen tomorrow. we'll wrap up the q&a today and then tomorrow they will come in and have four hours of debate on actually finishing this. then they have a vote on the gateway as to whether or not they want to have witnesses and documents or not. if they oppose that, if this goes down and this is why lisa murkowski might be on the fence, then they will probably go to final arguments and maybe even a vote on both articles of impeachment. final verdict sometime tomorrow night. if they do vote on the gateway vote, then to other scenarios ensue. the reason we have so many scenarios is because the votes are on a razors edge. we don't know which way they are going to go. by rule a tie vote goes down in the senate. the second scenario would be where you have chuck schumer proposing a slate of witnesses and may be mitch mcconnell p

. >> murkowski -- basically said she didn't see any way there would be a fair trial, she said congress has failed and that she wants to vote no because she opportunity want to put roberts in the position of casting a tie breaking vote or getting attacked. >> well, she chief justice robert is not the issue. the issue is whether or not there are enough republicans who say we want the fact witnesses. in fact chief justice roberts could say i don't want to get involved. that's not my role to break a tie so shouldn't be a tie. if that's the -- i don't know -- angst she is feeling, i should think that's nothing that should be the reason she wants to vote no on the witnesses. without witnesses we can't have a fair trial and we know the person maple have said you can't have a trial without witnesses. and it's not just any witnesses. it's the witnesses who are actually there, who can speak first hand to what the president was scheming. >> she is saying that come out from lamarr alexander that no what what witnesses came forward or evidence would come forward it wouldn't change the outcome. do y

that's the importance of what the collins' and murkowskis have been saying. not that will change the final outcome, but the optics. >> you may be right. and we certainly will see if mitt romney and others will speak out and put a little pressure on mitch mcconnell to at least try to make the trial appear to be a bit more fair. still ahead, rudy giuliani says he's willing to testify in donald trump's impeachment trial. we'll talk about his potential impact on the case and his impact on the president every time he steps in front of a line of microphones. it's usually not good, i'm not so you're it was good this past weekend either. we'll talk about that next on morning joe. d either. we'll talk about that next on morning joe. when you move homes, you move more than just yourself. that's why xfinity has made taking your internet and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with

Ãbsenator lisa murkowski just told us that adam schiff overreached tonight. she said he is a good order, cross the line at the end of the night. she said she hasn't decided whether to support witnesses and will wait until president trumps lawyers make their case. we will hear from charlotte, a democrat in kids texas. do you agree that adam schiff overreached tonight, charlotte? >> of course i don't. that's ridiculous. that's just another example of murkowski beginning with this statement that she wants to hear witnesses or she's considering it but not backing it up with her vote. her and cohen's and the others i'm hoping they come through. i'm disgusted by republicans talking about being bored and and not doing their duty. 70% of americans want witnesses. it's my understanding, 70% of republicans want witnesses. so who are these representatives representing? >> let's go back to the house, why do you think the house did not follow through and get witnesses? >> that's pretty simple, isn't it? they were obstructed. people talk about mueller as this thing that ki