john: i was. david: the advantage is that they put a lot of time and attention in on you, is not a good thing? john: they focused everything on me. they got divorced when i was three years old. my dad loved in a studio apartment not far from downtown. my mom lived in a large house. they were different political persuasions. my mom was republican, and my dad was a democrat. i learned to negotiate two different words. david: you went to a famous school known for its k-12? david: i -- john: i got there in ninth-grade. david: you are a basketball player? john: i was. david: you played basketball at princeton? john: i was fortunate to play basketball for the hall of fame coach at princeton. he was a legend in someone who transformed my life. david: you were a captain your senior year? john: i did -- i got the chance to be one. the coach told me i would not be an mba player. i was the 15th person on the team, he said you are legally blind, and i cannot teach vision. you cannot dribble, but you work so h

the process is critical, too, john. the way it's going to work, the defense team is going to finish their argument in the next um can of days. afterwards senators will have 16 hours of questioning. once those questions are done, that's when there will be four hours of debate about the witnesses and then a vote by the end of this week about whether to move forward with new witnesses. if there's a simple majority to move forward, 51 senators, 47 democrats and four republican senators, then they could have more votes to subpoena witnesses. then there would be another vote to subpoena john bolton. if there were 51 votes for that, have them behind closed doors, the senators decide to have them testify in public, then there would have to be another vote to testify in public. there are several steps that still would need to occur until ultimately bolton were to testify. but ultimately require enough senators to decide it's time to hear from him. that's what's got the republican leadership and white house concerned this morning

so, that's what john kelly says. if john bolton says that in the book, i believe john bolton. do you believe john bolton? >> whether you do or don't, even if all those things are true, i know professor dershowitz is coming up to be your next guest, these do not raise to the level of impeachable offenses. this impeachment is partisan and political and impeachment wasn't supposed to be done that way. we are at a point where they're starting to vote in iowa on monday. we are in an election year. let the american people decide who they want to be their president. 100 members of the united states senate should not make that decision. and this doesn't just try to overturn the election of 2016. this removes president trump from the ballot in 2020. >> they would have to move to do that obviously in addition to what they've done. can i just ask you the question about alan dershowitz? that is a point. there are some senators in your caucus saying he did it but it's not impeachable. they seize on alan dershowitz's testimony to make that argument. the other constitutional law expert who h

john bolton has something to say. john bolton, come out and say it. nobody is stopping him. >> well, there's a lot of hysteria about mr. bolton's testimony. >> sean: not here. >> frankly i think his testimony will be redundant. i speak just for me, sean, but i'm willing to stipulate that mr. bolton will likely testify that the president paused aid to ukraine while asking ukraine to investigate vice president biden. my response to that is, your point is what? that doesn't tell us anything. why do the president asked for an investigation of joe biden? he didn't ask for investigation of elizabeth warren. or bernie sanders or amy klobuchar. he didn't get joe biden's name out of a phone book. he asked for an investigation of vice president biden because he was investigating corruption. how do we know that? four words: hunter biden and burisma. now, we know for a fact -- i'm not accusing anyone of anything, sean, but the ukrainian government is historically and organically corrupt. vice -- rather, president obama placed vice president biden in charge of the

but john bolton doesn't do coincidence. john bolton does calculation. and john bolton calculated that the worst thing he could possibly do to donald trump today is say, i am prepared to testify, and john bolton did that. no one has dreamed of war with iran and regime change in iran more fervently, and the reward that john bolton gave the president today who has brought us closer to that war than any previous president was the announcement, i am prepared to testify in the impeachment trial of that president. does that mean now that war with iran is simmering, john bolton wants the steadier hand of mike pence at the controls? john bolton doesn't want a rerun of the time when president trump called off an attack on iran ten minutes before it was scheduled to take place. john bolton doesn't want a president tweeting that he will commit war crimes by bombing non-military sites in iran, including cultural sites. john bolton wants war with iran done right if it's going to be done. he wants it done pompeo and pence style. in the obama white house, susan rice wa

john took 12 years to write this book. the last conversation i had with john was three days before he passed it was about maryland basketball so with the 25 greatest athletes and then said he's not on the list. what are you talking about? and then said it doesn't belong. and he convinced me not to because there was a great high school career saw some of that myself then that was it. he was dead. he didn't get a chance to do all these things. and t say wow i cannot believe he talked me out on this list pico but that is how he is. sell an old newspaperman like m me. and do it for popularity. and said hurry up and write this book. and then unfortunately everything happened so just a couple pages of john's book. so looking back to the segregation days. and john went back so the research in this book is tremendous. but one thing in particular just to read a couple of pages because i thought it shared some great detail. so if you are following along on page number 38, armstrong coach watched baylor torture his team during the re

ambassador to the u.n., john bolton. who better to bring in than american enterprise's ambassador john bolton. >> ambassador bolton, always good to see you. >> ambassador, good morning to you. >> good evening, ambassador, merry christmas. >> we love seeing you each and every day. >> ambassador john bolton is being walked into the studio by steve ducey. >> come on! >> he wants to see if you're in shape. he's watching! >> yay! ♪ ♪ >> trevor: whoa! oh, man! if shakira's hips don't lie, then those hips are pathological liars because look at that. look at that. it looks like his legs are fused directly to his shoulders. it's like warping cp30 trying to twerk. that's what that look likes. and you can tell, you can tell how much people at fox cared for john bolton. you know. he was like the goofy uncle to just wants to have fun and wipe iran off the planet. but now that bolton's allegations could hurt president trump, fox news has made it very clear that he is no longer invited to the family cookout. >> we heard from other

to be a john dean. maybe a lev parnas, a truth teller that has that ability to wake these republican senators up and say you know what, the truth will be known. where do i want to come down when history tells the story. >> lev parnas is describing a criminal enterprise. >> lev parnas was an actor in a criminal enterprise and is a charged criminal. he has been charged with felonies by southern district of new york. you know what happens if he lies to congress? it is a good bet whatever he said to rachel maddow matches what he said to congress. because if it isn't, he will be charged with more felonies. i feel today the cool front is the tradition and history for the third time in our country's history, a president will stand trial for high crimes and misdemeanors. wow. that the hot, tropical sweaty front colliding with it is all of the dirt that lev parnas revealed yesterday, the implications of john bolton's knowledge and efforts to sound alarms by going to the lawyers. the implications of a sitting att

blair, john a. eisenberg, michael ellis, preston wells griffith, russell t. vought, michael duffey, brian mccormack, and t. ulrigh brechbuhl. these actions were consistent with president trump's previous efforts to undermine united states government investigations into foreign interference in united states elections. through these actions, president trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the house of representatives in the exercise of its "sole power of impeachment". in the history of the republic, no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the house of representatives to investigate "high crimes and misdemeanors". this abuse of office served to cover up the president's own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment -- and thus to nullify a vital constitutional

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

ohio lieutenant governor john yusuf. thank you, john. thank you, john, great job. -- state treasurer robert sprague. thank you. you have a lot more money in the bank, robert, than you ever did. court justice judy french. thank you, judy. great job. , a highlyte president respected man. thank you, larry. and a woman who really has great friend of mine. she took over this party. other people never had a chance against jean. and the man who was in charge of my campaign in ohio. i said i like this guys name. i don't know why. his name is bobby do check. -- bob. he said we are going to win big, sir. we keep hearing we cannot win unless we win the great state of ohio. that's these guys. once i was leading ohio by a lot in the polls, they were not saying it anymore, it was terrible. but bob was incredible, did a fantastic job. i said bob, we don't have the governor. we don't have the head of the republican party. minor problem, running as a republican. he pumped out on us, right? this guy. he said sir, you have the people. happens -- sohat bob,

he doesn't have to go to john roberts. he could say we're going to take this straight to the federal district court judge and work our way through the court system and the defense for that could be well we want the chief justice not to be conflicted when this issue gets to the supreme court when he has to walk across the street. >> i spoke with a republican senator who said he would like to hear from witnesses given it would take so long he felt it was not a good idea to do that. >> they could get this done pretty quickly. i think you could get it down in a matter of certainly a couple months but maybe not before the state of union. depending, they could go to the chief justice and say no we don't want him to testify and we're going to ask you to quash the subpoena. but those two -- again what we saw from senator klobuchar sharp i thought was interesting because the reason the presidents don't like executive privilege because they are arguing the public shouldn't be able to hear this. that's not an easy political argument

john bolton, now we revert back to this question about witness witnesses. i don't think there's any problem here. the aide was released, the aide was increased, legal aid, what the president said or didn't say it, what he used in a conversation with an eta, doesn't matter. if adam schiff thought john bolton was so set to impeachment, he would've subpoenaed him, fought to keep that subpoena. just so everybody listening understands, when you are not senate confirmed, congress can't take a white house advisor and say you must come talk to us. because he's not senate confirmed, you have to go to court or go through protracted negotiations to get that collate to testify. you know what adam schiff said? it's not that important to the case. they thought they already had a case. now that they realize they don't have a very good, strong case, they don't the votes, they are about to lose democrats on this question of acquittal. of course they want to bring you more witnesses, they are not trying to find the case. >> melissa: how much do you think it would change thin

john bolton -- i have disagreed with most of john bolton's policy as agents for the last 30 years. no one would question his solid conservative credentials and bone evita why wouldn't we have him since he was in the room. i know the president's lawyer said that the manuscript hearsay or whatever. let's bring him in the room. if the president also wants to bring in his chief of staff, mick mulvaney n, and he will take an oath and swear to tell the truth, he can clear their president. let's hear from him or other political appointees that still work for this president. i don't understand when we all realize how serious this is. we don't want to do this lightly or quickly. we want to do it with the whole truth out there. >> neil: isn't it weird, senator, for republicans, mr. bolton has turned into a pariah. for democrats, a rock star. >> it was to be 11 months ago or three months ago or two weeks ago. there is this pattern. you would acknowledge as well, this president -- this part i will give him credit for. he is not partisan at all in terms of, when he gets angry at you, if you sta

you get old, but john and i were at tens of games together and everyone liked john. i think he was probably the most popular sports writer among the sports writers in the area because he knew everyone from baltimore and washington and annapolis, one of those rare triangles and it has been a grievous loss. every time i see john's picture on tv it just hits me and how much i miss him. i missed him when i was reading the book because i was looking through things and one in particular he quoted bill mccaffrey. a bill was great guy, legislator who knew sports inside and out and was also a ballplayer and i left and wanted to pick up the phone ago john, you talked to bill mccaffrey who never told the truth about anything so you know it was just-- that's how it is every day. you just want to call him up. we talked turf all the time. that was his passion and mine. we started watching early 70s, mcmillan days and i was the publisher of john's classic book where we got it together and that was a great remembrance. we even talked about-- yeah, remember when you and john and i we

i welcome john bolton to come on this show. i reached out to his representative and did not hear back. john bolton could do so in a very vocal way on any platform he choose. but instead it's this cloak and dagger behind the scenes and he wants to testify. they had their chance. we know what their motives are. the principle of this stuff. they are messed up. if you want to do an investigation toi -- into ukraie and biden inc, that's worth entertaining. but task at hand, i don't see why anybody would give john bolton the time of day. >> you said it best. the american people are smart. you can make fun of half the country if you want. but the american people are smart. when you get up in front of the camera and say my witnesses are relevant. i have got to call all these witnesses and the other side's witnesses have no relevancy and have nothing do with the trial, the american people see that for what it is. they do. and i have got to tell you, dershowitz, here is a liberal left-wing law professor from harvard who voted for hillary

namely, john michael mulvaney , robert b blair, john eisenberg, michael ellis, preston wells griffith, russell vaught, michael duffy , brian mccormick and t aldrich michael. these actions were consistent with president trump's previous efforts to undermine the united states government investigations into foreign interference in the united states elections. through these actions, president trump sought to abrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope and nature of the impeachment inquiry into his own conduct . as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the house of representatives in the exercise of its sole power of impeachment area in the history of the republic, no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the house of representatives to investigate high crimesand misdemeanors . this abuse of office served to cover up the president on repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment and thus to nullify a vital consti

if john bolton said it must be true. even the president said it didn't happen, these were all known that he had his witnesses. talk about relevance. why was adam schiff relevant as a witness when him and his staff met with the whistleblower before it became public. they want to the whistleblower out there but when it became public that he no longer had contact there's a relevancy issue but they didn't do it. what they want to do was a talking calendar in the house. you can make arguments they should be done in the senate right now but go back to clinton and nixon. and clinton there was almost three years of a starr report in which everything was aired in grand jury at the white house was involved in, there was nothing there. when the starr report was issued to the house they had their hearings and went forward from there. 70 one of which were never involved with the president but these are relevant witnesses, where was the cover relevant witnesses when adam schiff was holding hearings and not going forward so the premise

i'm john king. we begin the hour with the just breaking major news related to the trump impeachment inquiry. john bolton issuing a statement just moments ago saying he's now willing ask ready to testify in a senate impeachment trial if -- if -- the senate issues a subpoena demanding his testimony. let's get straight to the state department. our correspondent kylie atwood joins us live. kylie, what do we know about this development? >> reporter: this is a major development because it really is the thing we focus on in the next few days. john bolton, the former security adviser to president trump, who was pushing back against the president withholding the ukraine aid. he knows things about withholding that aid. he is now saying he's willing to testify if he is subpoenaed by the senate. now, of course, the house, in their investigation that they led at the end of last year, they did call for john bolton to come and talk to them, to provide them with testimony about what he knew. but he didn't show up.

are still reeling from the revelation of john bolton and what he has to say the very relevant probative quality of the testimony as i'm sure you have seen the president's own former chief of staff general kelly says he believes john bolton and more j importantly that is extraordinary of itself the chief of staff believes john bolton in that implication does not believe the president of the united d states that he worked closely with for such a long time but he also recognizes the importance of calling john bolton as a witness to swear him in and that senators hear from him themselvesst that very relevant testimony. the president's lawyers today and in prior presentations cannot defend the president on fax instead they went through a list of grievances which i'm sure the president was delighted to hear but not relevant to the charges against the president here today to use their time to smear the bidens with the whole ukraine scheme to attack the managers but as far as the facts themselves although at their disposal any agency officials who worked with the president this whole period of

john harwood at the white house. dana, what kind of reaction are you hearing from there on the claim of the bolton book? >> reporter: the feel up here is different today than it was just a couple of days ago when the kind of sense was that this was a train heading right for a potential final vote without witnesses. what i'm not hearing republican senators saying, okay, yes, count me in for witnesses, what we're hearing is a lot of silence, a lot of frustration that this is coming at this time. and specifically i'm told from a source familiar with conversations that republican senators are making clear to the white house that they are very frustrated, that the white house apparently had this manuscript or the key parts of it, back at the end of december, and that nobody on the hill was told about or key players were not told about it. there seems to be some scrambling going on as we speak to figure out who in the white house had their hands on it, more importantly how much did they disseminate, for example, one key qu

why john bolton would say this. we have some sense of what john bolton knows. but how would you think about this as a prosecutor? bolton if you had to divide it up is still team trump more than he's team democrats and impeachment. so what does this mean that he seems to be so interested in testifying all of a sudden? >> well, i think he's mostly team bolton. the cynic in he says this is a pr move. he has a book deal. he wants to be able to sell his books in it. at the moment he's in a tight spot because he refused to tell his story publicly to the nation, but he wants to sell books with that story. and so i think this is an effort to make it look like he was willing to testify if the senate served him with a subpoena. he likely knows that's unlikely. >> if you're adam schiff, why not subpoena john bolton right now? if john bolton is willing to testify to the senate, wouldn't he be willing to testify before the house? >> i think that's a shrewd move. i think it's a key question. there's this idea that impeachment is over and now we're onto removal trial in the s

john bolton or president trump? >> i am inclined to believe the president says a lot of things that the president never follows through with. so that's -- it would not surprise me that at some point the president in a moment of frustration said that. >> when the president says he never -- when the president said that to john bolton or says he didn't say that to john bolton, he is now lying? and i do think that's important. paul, senator santorum said he found john bolton to be a man of enormous credibility. what have you felt about john bolton? >> i think he warred us into war in iraq. but we have a way to resolve this. swear under oath. why is rudy going on fox news instead of going into a deposition under oath with pain of perjury? why don't we have the documents? we've been doingis in in anglo american jurisprudence for hundreds of years. you get all the evidence, the facts, the documents, the testimony and that gets you to the truth. all we have now is a sham and a farce and a cover-up. and i know the deal is ri

we see it with people like john bolton or john kelly or anyone who leaves this white house. if they leave on certainly or that be a and even those who have been friendly or allies of john boltons for years, the imwho haithey are saying, he's not someone to trust, he's got a book out. the dividing line right now is if you are a trump follower. >> which side will justice roberts go for when it comes to the crunch on friday, if it comes to a question of subpoenaing witnesses? will he join the call for witnesses? >> i'm sorry, it's a good question. i don't know how he would do that. i suppose there's a request, it it's, would he try to break the trial? there is some precedent. you hear and it a really good question. i don't know procedurally how it would work. i think he would rather leave it to senate and impose his open view didpeter baker, it's great to have you on. everyone is staying with us, except peter. stick with us for special coverage as we continue into the exciting moments when senators get to ask the questions. the qs your home at a great price, the way it works be

hunter biden and now john bolton. john bolton has not objected in any way nobody's cashing million dollar checks. to have schumer come up and say out of the blue, "maybe the president's kids are making money," with no evidence at all, that's defamation and they ought to sue him. >> ed: i hear the anger in your voice. you think this is a misstep for senator schumer to bring the president's children into this? >> it's a transference. we've been talking all along about -- the president asked that corruption be investigated in ukraine and the evidence is out there that hunter biden is getting a million dollars while his dad was busy firing the prosecutor that was going after hunter biden's company. that is all in the record. there is nothing in the record about the president's kids. schumer has just created this whole thing out of -- "when we go after the president's kids yet? we don't know whether the dealings have something to do with the trumps making money." he completely made up. that's defamation of character and he

kelly and john bolton. obviously these are big stories out there and in a different time and place, that would be the headline. >> and they've become semihopeful heroes for some democrats. just to be more straightforward about it. they don't matter to senate republicans because they're not donald trump, and all senate republicans care about is the political power of donald trump. that scares them. they want to be reelected. they're worried about their own political future, and i think that's what's playing out here. it doesn't matter, they're seen as sort of the -- >> trump supporters, it's not trump personally as much as it is the fact that donald trump has 90th-plus percent of support within the republican party. >> is that a real poll number or is that the one he uses? >> it's big. it's as big as i've seen any republican president. >> he has far more political power than john kelly and john bolton. >> again, these are not strong political figures. >> let's talk about lisa murkows murkowski. >> let me rea

i like john bolton. i always got along with him. but that is up to the lawyers. >> of course, david, it it wasn't and it isn't up to the lawyers that john bolton does not work for the white house. he's a private citizen. he could appear any time he chooses and tell his story. he doesn't need a subpoena to do so. but there is a very basic issue here. which is that in any diagram about what you see what happened in ukraine, he's at the center of the overlapping circles so if you care to know what the president said and did, you want to hear from john bolton. how could anybody -- how could anybody say they don't want to hear testify? >> erin, i must say that is what is mystifying me all day. as soon as i heard bolton want to testify, the republicans have no choice, they have to allow him to testify. if this were a court of law, regular court of law, you would have an indictment, by a grand jury just as the house did. but then before trial, if new evidence came in, of course you would admit that evidence. of course you would consider it

will enough republicans come forward to call for john bolton to testify under oath? the trend is at least moving in that direction and there is new reporting that the white house is now bracing for that very real possibility. let's go straight to capitol hill, cnn's suzanne malveaux live there. look, the defense team was supposed to be done yesterday, that was the initial plan, but now they're going into today. this he clearly have more to say or maybe more to clean up. >> reporter: absolutely, john. we were hours away from hearing from that testimony, the white house defense team presenting its last chance to make the case that the president should not be removed from office. it was day two yesterday. i talked to many democrats including senator kamala harris hobbled that the bolton book, that manuscript, was a game changer but republicans meeting behind closed doors there is all abuzz that it is uncertain how this is going to impact the trial. president trump's defense team spending hours avoiding the elephant in the room, former national security adviser john bolt

in a statement, john bolton and simon & schuster, his publishers said "ambassador john bolton simon & schuster jablon literary categorically to state that there was absolutely no coordination with "the new york times" or anyone else regarding the appearance of information about his book "the room where it happened" online sellers any assertion of the contrary is speculation." bill, we were sebo disco's, the swing vote there, they may determine whether or not there witnesses, as romney said, he wants to hear the full presentation from both sides before making that determination. >> bill: thank you john, were going to commercial on a moment, but finally to andy mccarthy, if you weeks ending that has classified information and that whether it came from john bolton are semi at the white house, that is a crime. >> well, it certainly makes you vulnerable to it, bill, there is a state of mind thing where you have to prove that someone has done it willfully and intentionally. if it is not classified information, it could be in violation of people's contractual obligations, and they are ethica

. >> a bombshell report in the "new york times" about ambassador john bolton's forthcoming book. >> john bolton may have the smoking gun. >> ambassador bolton is an important witness to hear from directly. >> the chief justice presiding over this trial. if he signs a subpoena to come, we will get that witness. >> this is "new day" with allison camerato and john berman. >> we welcome our viewers in the united states and all around the world. this is "new day." we are tracking two huge developing stories. first, breaking news from the "new york times". the wait for what john bolton says he knows is over. for the first time, we hear what the former national security adviser says he saw and heard from president trump in the scandal of withholding military aid to ukraine. this new information comes courtesy of john bolton's upcoming book. the new york sometimes got their hands on a manuscript. this changes the equation of what could happen in the senate trial today. republican versus complained that there was no first person witness. now, according to this manuscript, there is. in just a few

john: correct. the important point you are making is people all over china are understandably nervous. obviously, they don't have clarity around the science at this point, as your previous guest indicated. it is not unreasonable for people to be very cautious, staying at home. perhaps they can do things by teleconference, telecommuting. e-commerce will be up as retail sales go down. i would say, in shanghai and beijing, those centers for the moment are not feeling the same threat that obviously people in the province are feeling. however, it's clear there are evident atges, retail in terms of groceries but also medical supplies. government of china has understandably taken a very strong line in terms of anyone trying to profit from excessive price gouging on health supplies, masks, etc.. david: we are talking to john .uelch a lot of people like to compare this with sars. you see the credibility of the government is on the line here. is it appearing so far that they learned a lot from sars and are do

his name was john, john diamond. >> john loved women. john was a lady's man. john always had girlfriends. >> reporter: so debbie devorak, could see him responding to michelle. >> my brother has a great personality. he is an attractive guy and his personality makes him that much more attractive. >> reporter: then a few days after meeting online they met in person at a local restaurant. >> he was charming. he was funny. talked about movies and music and things that me and marty didn't talk about. >> reporter: john diamond was an army staff sergeant based at ft. bragg and trained as a sniper, highly regarded, decorated. had been in the service since he was 18. >> by all accounts he was a good soldier but he was a playboy himself. he had been married once before and had a child from his first marriage, and he left the first wife and married and they had a son together. >> reporter: michelle didn't know that john was still married, but maybe it didn't matter. at least not then. she loved the sex, the attention, the excitement. >> i mean he was very attentive, he wa

john durham is out there looking. from congress's perspective we need to do our job oversight what happened to lead to all the mess. maria: there are 30 districts where president trump won. those people are looking for re-election. what are they saying in terms of, first being rushed, vote yes on impeachment, oh, and now, hurry up to wait? >> if i was one of those right now, i think they are from what we're hearing they need to be furious at the speak. let the american people understand something. the speaker got up there gave grand show of being solemn and our duty and conscious. minute she forced impeachment vote on weakest case in history went out and basically turned into a political document. took a sham vote for them to say impeachment is needed. no, i'm going to hold this pulled the curtain back showed everybody this is simply a political statement against this president to affect the 2020 election because they have nobody can beat the president. economy, everything is working. shown foreign presence is our cou

they don't have to take john kelly's word for it. they don't have to take the president's word for it, they can make their own judgment, but they can't do that if they refuse to even hear what he has to say. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> at the conclusion of today's trial, senate republicans met to discuss what's next. following that meeting we heard from senators ted cruz of texas and lindsey graham, judiciary committee

impeaching donald john trump, president of the united states tar high crimes and misdemeanors. result, the president and donald j trump president of the united states, is the peach for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the united states senate. articles of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives of the united states of america, in the name of itself, and of the people of the united states, against donald john trump president of the united states of america. in maintenance and support of its impeachment, against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. articlesd one, abuse of power.th the constitution provides that the house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that the president shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. in his conduct ofti the office f the president of the united states, and in violation of his constitutional oath, faithfully to execute the office of president of the united states, and i

the house should have taken the two years to force john bolton to testify. and what donald trump's lawyers in the justice department are saying not in the senate but before the court of appeals on the subject on the committee of judiciary it lacks article three standing to sue demanding testimony from individuals on matters related to the executive branch official. here they are the president's layers are this duplicitou duplicitous, they come into the senate which they refer to as a court of the house should have sued in court to force subpoenas like witnesses on john bolton they go to court they must not sue in court to compel the witness to testify. if that is the legal duplicity of the president's team. so will we get a fair trial or not? will the senate here as a key and important witness on egregious conduct or are we not? i don't see how the oath of impartiality can be interpreted in any other way to demand a fair trial with witnesses and documents. >>. >> are you confident enough the senate will follow? >> or are you prepared quick. >> we have a lot

>> i have always been fond of john. but i still think doing it this way, clearly trying to insert himself in impeachment is beneath him. lou: i think it's not perhaps as beneath him as far. >> i have known john for a long time. john desperately wanted to get in this white house and be the national security advisor. it didn't work out. he and the president had a difference of opinion. you say thank you for allowing me to serve and you leave. you don't write a book while the president is still there. and the bottom line is i don't care what he says, the president had a right to do what he did, the idea of abuse of pou -- abuf power is absurd. lou: have you ever seen a national security advisor do what he has done? >> no. the fact that you still have lieutenant colonel vindman in there. why he isn't in a secure outpost somewhere in the military. and his twin brother is the ethics guy who reads the manuscripts. someone is leak together "new york times" which is the enemy. lou: should many those two colonels be somewhere els

john harwood is there. john you saw as you often do a series of attacks and responses and arguments, some overlapping, some contradictly. how is the white house and how are the president's allies reacting to what bolton says he's willing to testify? >> precisely, jim, as we've come to expect from this president and this white house. we've seen president trump himself on his twitter feed say bolton's account is not true, that he never told bolton he was conditioning the aid on those investigations. he claimed in a tweet this morning falsely that the democrats never asked for john bolton to testify. of course they did. although they did not choose to subpoena him for fear of a prolonged court fight. he's also been retweeting aids and advisers and commentators critical of john bolton. one adviser saying sad that people would sell out their country to score a book deal. a fox commentator saying nobody cares about this revelation. so you've seen a predictable response from the president. whenever a former aide t

john especially. the younger brother of the manchester arena bomber has appeared in court in the u.k. capital. faces 22 counts of murder he's accused of helping to plan the 2017 bombing which targeted a concert by u.s. pop star ariana grande his brother died when he detonated his explosive vest when. u.s. prosecutors involved in the jeffrey epstein sex trafficking inquiry want to speak with britain's prince andrew but the chief federal prosecutor for new york jeffrey berman says prince andrew has provided 0 cooperation he said investigators have contacted the duke of york's lawyers. view him but there had been no response some of the last living survivors of the holocaust and shared their emotional testimony about the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the death camp in poland more than a 1000000 people in the jews were killed at auschwitz alone between 940 and 945 china has more from the sermon. facing the entrance to auschwitz birkenau seated alongside the railway line that delivered multitudes m

alys. >> it was joe's wife that introduced john and i. >> yes. >> jill? i didn't know that. >> yeah, and it's just -- they're so intertwined in our life, and -- that sometimes what makes me a bad analyst right now, i think, because i'm so emotionally involved. the pain of grief is -- you can't explain it until you've experienced it. i never could've understood it.e joe is the most incredible --he i call himrief whisperer. the way he interprets pain and grief and loss, ve never -- nove met no therapist, analyst, guidance counseloring, that possibly compares to him on it. ad i think the country's lot of pain. honestly, i don't know what i would be like without him. i think i would be in an en darker place. >> do you -- has it gotten easier after the year mark? >> i thought so, but you just -- i just miss him so much. i miss his sense of humor. i miss watching you guys togeth in sedona. i'm not trying to make you cry. >> oh, you're okay. >> but it's just -- it never --d sn't get easier, and i don't want people to think it gets easier. because i think there's

john avlon has our "reality check." john, what's the answer? >> you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. >> but truth was in short supply at the impeachment trial yesterday. in its place was a surreal parade of denial, lies and gaslighting. denial is how the defense dealt with john bolton's upcoming book which says trump hold thahim th aid to ukraine would be withheld until an investigation into the bidens. they decided to ignore it until the last hour purpose adopting the approach of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. it prompted justin amash to say the defense team strategy depending on pretending the news doesn't exist. if that seemed like gaslighting, wait until you see who the defense opened the day with. ken starr who condemned with a straight face, the age of impeachment he helped usher in. that didn't give you whiplash, they again essentially ignored the evidence against them and instead argued about process and repeated nonsense like this. >> the record the house democrats collected through that process alrea

this is a lot of history. >> we told you how john kept those dueling pistols. john's sister lisa keeps something, too -- that dusty old journal that reconnected her to the green family legacy. >> i learned a lot while we were going through this process. it's pretty astounding, and there's no way to deny where i came from anymore, the more i learned. >> in 2012, new york city finally got around to funding a small andrew green park here along the east river for $5 million. but then the city realized that the pilings along the river would need repairs, costing another 15 million. so for now, andrew green has a dog run and a beautiful view to honor him. and his story, which was in storage for more than 100 years, is finally out of the box. i'm jamie colby for "strange inheritance." thanks so much for watching, and remember -- you can't take it with you. ♪ >> in a wild west ghost town... a teenager stumbles upon a dilapidated gold mine... and its owner. >> she had a "no trespassing" sign at the gate. >> does she say, "i'm calling the cops," or does she pull an "an

john? >> a lot of panic, but thankfully not much damage from a powerful earthquake in the caribbean. this is a 7.7 quake. it struck between cuba and jamaica and could be felt as far away as miami where several high rises were evacuated. in the southern u.s. at this point, bracing for rain and snow in the midwest. let's get to meteorologist allison chinchar with the latest. >> it's been a potent system in the last 24 hours. look at the amount of snowfall that's already come down. liberal, kansas, picking up 15 inches of snow. areas of the panhandle of oklahoma picking up over 10 inches of snow. the question becomes, where does this storm go? for that forecast brought to you by celebrity cruises visit celebrity.com, you can book your award-winning vacation today. here's a look at that particular system. notice some of the heaviest snow coming down across portions of kansas city. spreading into st. louis. but on the southern edge of this particular storm, it's all rain. the focus for the cold

>> i have always been fond of john. but i still think doing it this way, clearly trying to insert himself in impeachment is beneath him. lou: i think it's not perhaps as beneath him as far. >> i have known john for a long time. john desperately wanted to get in this white house and be the national security advisor. it didn't work out. he and the president had a difference of opinion. you say thank you for allowing me to serve and you leave. you don't write a book while the president is still there. and the bottom line is i don't care what he says, the president had a right to do what he did, the idea of abuse of pou -- abuf power is absurd. lou: have you ever seen a national security advisor do what he has done? >> no. the fact that you still have lieutenant colonel vindman in there. why he isn't in a secure outpost somewhere in the military. and his twin brother is the ethics guy who reads the manuscripts. someone is leak together "new york times" which is the enemy. lou: should many those two colonels be somewhere els

i'm john king. thank you for sharing your day with us. >>> the top trump administration official says a bit about the airstrike on the iranian commander. >>> plus nancy pelosi summons her top deputies to meet tonight. topping the to-do list? deciding when to deliver the articles of impeachment to the senate and get questions answered about the trial. and the question now is whether john bolton will be a trial witness. he said he will answer questions if subpoenaed. but one suggests it doesn't have to be so complicated. >> i've known john bolton for a long time. he's a friend of mine. no reason john bolton can't say something publicly right now. i've never known him not to say something right now. >> back to that story a bit later, but we begin this hour on high alert in the fallout after an american killing of an iranian high commander. american forces across the middle east were placed on high alert for possible drone attacks. the u.s. said they killed soleimani because he had an imminent threat on

if john bolton says that in the book, i believe john bolton. adding, quote, every single time i was with him, he always gave the president the unvarnished truth. amid the growing calls for bolton to testify, kelly said this. i think if there are people that could contribute to this either innocence or guilt, i think they should be heard. i think some of the conversations seem to me to be very inappropriate, but i wasn't there. speaking to bolton's character, he added, quote, john's an honest guy. he's a man of integrity and great character. mike barnicle, remember when bolton -- he was right. he believes john bolton should sit as a witness at this trial. >> and who wouldn't go along with what general kelly said yesterday. my problem with general kelly doesn't matter. that's my problem. general kelly, general mattis, where are they? they know more than anybody that's testified i think probably before either -- before the impeachment committee. where are they? and this whole thing is coming down this week. i think from what you hear, from talking