impeachment trial. join the conversation all morning with your phone calls, emails, facebook comments and tweets. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning, it's the washington journal for january 23. impeachment managers will continue to make their case against president trump in the senate and will start 1:00 this afternoon eastern standard time and you can watch on c-span 2, c-span.org and our free c-span radio app. we will continue taking your calls on the senate impeachment trial during the course of this three-hour program today. here's how can you make your thoughts known, 202-748-8000 01 for ocrats, 202-7480 epublicans and independents, 202-748-8002 and post on twitter and our facebook is facebook.com/c-span. many, many hours yesterday in the senate with house impeachment managers continuing to make their case and here to give us a summary of what happened. guest: 8 hours and 31 minutes is how long the national was in and convened at 1:04 p.m. and adjourned at :43 yesterday. there were no motions filed ahead of yesterday's proceedings. that was something that had been allowed for under the senate trial rules and was an issue that was debated as part of those rules how much time would be allowed to respond to those motions but they didn't file any of those motions yesterday. we're also starting to get the numbers coming in at how many americans are paying attention to the impeachment trial. this from the daily mail story looking at the nielsen ratings from the first day, the tuesday of the impeachment trial. some 11 million americans tuned in to watch the proceedings that number is down from roughly the 13.8 million viewers who tuned in last november for the first day of the house of representatives impeachment inquiry. the nielsen numbers covering the six major networks including abc and cbs, nbc, msnbc, cnn and fox news. those numbers don't include those who watch via this network. c-span doesn't use nielsen ratings and doesn't include those who watched live online via streaming and social media. to give you a sense of how many people are being driven to the impeachment proceedings through those avenues, this is c-span's jeremy art looking at c-span's youtube live coverage for the second day in a row, c-span's youtube live stream was trending number three on youtube during the day. get a sense of public opinion on the impeachment proceedings, several new polls out. this from the associated press looking at various aspects of the senate trial. overall the public slightly more likely to say the senate should convict and remove president trump from office than to say it should not. that's 45% to 40%, a sizable percentage, 14% say they don't know enough or have an opinion yet. americans on both sides say they feel strongly about their positions and 3/4 say it's not very likely or likely at all they'll change their mind during the impeachment trial. to give you a better sense of the breakdown by party when it comes to the question of whether president trump should be removed from office or not, just 9% of republicans saying he should be removed and 83% saying he should not. when it comes to democrats, 80% saying he should be removed and 9% saying he should not be removed. one more poll for you this morning, pedro, from the pew research center on various aspects of the impeachment trial. they note as was the case in public views in the house impeachment inquiry in the fall the public doesn't express much confidence for either party to be fair and reasonable in the senate trial. 48% are somewhat confident the senate democrats will be fair and reasonable while a slightly fewer percent say about the republicans in the senate. of course senators will have a chance to influence public opinion again today starting at 1:00 p.m. when the senate impeachment trial resumes. host: many ways can you follow along, too. if you have a chance to watch you can watch on c-span 2 or go to our website at c-span.org and follow along there and we've lued a special segment related to the impeachment trial. watch there if you can. if on the go download our free c-span radio app and listen to it as you go along. we'll take your calls for three hours. 2-748-8000 for democrats and 8001 for the republicans and 8002 for the independents. post on facebook.com/c-span. mr. rogers saying the democrats will suffer the repercussions for years. president trump will be re-elected not because of this but in spite of this. there are no democratic candidates that can compete with his performance. and then off of facebook, too, saying without witnesses and documents the process is a scam and cover-up. mid anytime mitch, referring to the senior majority leader has to go. the topic of witnesses and documents came up several times in the doris of the trial and we'll talk about that in a little bit. to our call, sadie starts off on the democrats line, what did you think of yesterday's proceedings? caller: i want to make an observation, he should be impeached, no questions asked. i want to know if he's looked in the mirror recently with what he has on top of his head. i remember mrs. bush said she doesn't know how any woman would vote for him because he disrespects the woman. host: let me go back to your first statement. why do you think he should be impeached? aller: he's a conartist. and he's like jim jones. these were meant especially -- host: you made that point already. faith in california, republican line. go ahead. caller: yes, they keep complaining that trump is against the united states and he gave aid to ukraine, as in money for weapons but obama gave them blankets and nobody complains about that or they didn't want to get bombed for treason when he gave aid and comfort to the enemy, when he gave billions to them. that flies in the face of justice. host: when democrats made the case of aid being released after according to what adam schiff said the president was discovered what do you think about that argument? caller: no, there's no proof of that. host: christopher, englewood, new jersey, democrats line. you're next up. hello. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have to disagree on the republicans on either side who think trump has nothing to hide. the evidence is absolutely overwhelming and the defense team knows it. they don't realize how dangerous trump really is. four years ago we warned everybody about trump's lies and rhetoric and yet they still voted for him and now we're facing impeachment and removal from office and we're fighting for our lives right now. even my life is at stake. host: when you say the evidence is overwhelming what do you point to by the arguments made by house democrats? caller: according to the imolulent clause you can't do anything as favors as president as well as the call to ukraine withholding money for a certain investigation and everything and that they are trying to hide something. i believe there's a lot they are hiding, the republicans. host: did you get all that from the democratic presentation yesterday? caller: oh, my god, schiff was extraordinary. every single person on the management team who really know what they're doing is outstanding. they're making an iran class case for impeachment. host: elaine from washington, republican line. caller: pardon me. there's one thing they keep perpetuating like they did yesterday and this is a lie. they keep saying trump said, but he did say this but the context is important, he could do anything under article 2. that came out of he was on tv with stephanopolous on abc and they were interviewing him and hey asked him if he could fire mueller and he said yeah, i can do anything under article 2. so the context related to mueller but they keep making it sound like he's some kind of, you know, person who wants to be a king and he's going to use article 2 to get there but that wasn't the context at all. it was specific to firing mueller if he wanted to under article 2. host: elaine from the republican line from washington state. it was during the opening arguments yesterday in the senate that adam schiff, lead house impeachment manager talked about the warning that he would get if the senate failed to act. [video] >> the damage the president has done with key strategic partner will be remedied over time and ukraine continues to enjoy strong bipartisanship support in congress. but if we fail to act, the damage to our democratic elections, to our national security, to our system of checks and balances will be long lasting and potentially irreversible. as you'll hear in the coming days, president trump has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance. his conduct has violated his oath of office and his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law. he's shown no willingness to be constrained by the rule of law and he'll continue to abuse his power and instruct investigations into himself causing nurt damage to the pillars if he's not held accountable. he cannot be charged with a crime so says the department of justice. here is no remedy for such a let but bemoval of the office of the president of the united states. if impeachment and removal cannot hold him accountable, then he truly is above the law. we're nearly 2 1/2 centuries into this exeerment experiment of democracy but our future is not assured. as benjamin franklin departed got, ings, what have we a republic or monarchy. and he simply said a republic if you can keep it. a fair trial, impartial consideration of all of the evidence against the president is how we keep our republic. host: if you want to see more go to c-span.org. with more here's john. john: pedro, a big focus in the opening days of the trial op and off the floor is the idea of should there be extra witnesses called. senators won't take up that issue until after the impeachment -- the produce thinkers make their case and then there's a time period for questions by senators committed through the chief justice and then the senators will come back and take that vote whether there will be different instance but the idea of perhaps a witness swap where the president's lawyers get a certain amount of witnesses for the house impeachment manager getting witnesses. we're talking a john boldon and hunter biden or joe biden or perhaps the whistle blower. this idea was floated to vargs members of both sides yesterday. this is adam swift responding to reporters in the senate subway takeout area before proceedings started about the idea of a witness swap. host: are you open to in principle a witness exchange so epublicans can't call on hunter biden. mr. schiff: it's not we'll offer you this if you give us that, we'll offer you a witness who is irrelevant and immaterial but a witness to let us smear a presidential candidate if you want to get a legitimate witness. that's not a trade. trials aren't trades for witnesses. we offered last night to have the chief justice of the supreme court rule on a question of materiality for any of the witnesses and you know something, not surprising, the president's team was vehemently opposed. not because the president's team doesn't trust the chief justice to make an impartial decision but because they do trust the chief justice to make an impartial decision about materiality. that's not what they want. they want to smear biden and effectuate the scheme that they when they to do tried to get ukraine to smear the bidens, they want to use this trial to smear the bidens and that's not the purpose of the trial and the senate should not allow it to be abused in that way. host: congressman schiff before the proceedings began yesterday. this is chuck schumer and came later in the afternoon during one of those breaks in the trial proceedings. [video] >> senator, would you be open to, say, a witness trade for hunter biden. >> no. that's off the table. first of all, the republicans have the right to bring in any witness they want. they haven't wanted to and that trade is not on the table. host: chuck schumer yesterday and joe biden getting the same question on the campaign trail yesterday. this is "the washington post" story, a voter in iowa asking about this tion witness swap idea and joe biden shutting it down saying it's not a rational question to ask but he's not engaging in such a trade. "the washington post" noting that biden said the reason i would not make the deal, the bottom line is this is a constitutional issue. we're not going to turn it into a farce or political theater. i want no part of that. he also defended his son hunter saying no one suggested my son did anything wrong. that was joe biden from the campaign trail yesterday. on the republican side of the aisle, here's a story from "the daily caller" about ted cruz's response to this idea saying that the case made by the house managers has now made hunter biden's testimony both directly relevant and critical. the texas republican who said last week that he's open to the possibility of the senate calling witnesses including the whistle blower contended if house manager's case is based on the allegations of corruption concerning hunter biden and joe biden being a scam than the senate being able to hear from the bidens is directly relevant. again, the senators won't decide on this issue until after both sides make their cases and after that round of questioning. the timing on that is up in the air but a little bit of speculation yesterday, this is senate majority whip john thune playing out the sequence of events forward saying it could come up on wednesday when the senators could take up this idea of calling witnesses. thune said that timing depends on the house impeachment managers who are expected to take the full 24 hours to make their case and the president's lawyers. it's unclear exactly how long they will take to make their case. one of the president's lawyers gaggling for a bit with reporters just before the trial began yesterday in the senate saying, according to lauren fox of cnn, that his team -- he declined to say exactly how many hours his team will use to make their case. so that's still up in the air but again, we'll all find out together in the coming days. host: we'll hear from joe next. mount airy, maryland, independent line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: hopefully this helps people. every morning i listen to c-span and every morning you sort of hear the same on both sides where they sort of cover their points we've already heard on the news and think that would be a good exercise for all people is to be to listen to what the other side is saying because they're so galvanized and is a rorschach test on how you view the country. on the democrats side they very rightfully view the evidence of all the back channel, rudy giuliani flying over there to ukraine. and it strains belief to think that trump did not have his thumb on the scale for wanting to get this biden case reviewed even though -- and he was smart enough, it's come up a few times on the phone call to say no quid pro quo, he's not a dumb man and he's going to do that. i think it's beyond belief to think he did not want that to be done. and if that's what the standard is for the impeachment, removal of office, i think that is probably a done deal. now, i think the better argument is that sort of something he should be removed from office from and at least we can move on from whether or not he was trying to influence ukraine on that. now on the second side for dementsd listening to the republican friends and neighbors, i think there is a legitimate thought about trump and when he's reviewing biden, i think he thought he had an opening there. if you look at hunter biden and how he was given that job, it certainly does give the appearance for influence. and i think trump believed he had a window where he could do that, an illegal format even though it was obviously to go after the previous vice president of biden. o i think if people at least understood the filter the neighbors and family members were looking things through, maybe it would make politics not such a bloodsport because, you know, you're not answering each others questions i guess i want to say. host: because of what you heard has anything swayed you or come across as new or cause you to rethink some things? caller: that's a good question. not really. i think if you're looking at things from the democratic side, i think you have all the evidence you need. again, if you're going to be looking at things from that point, i think if you're looking for the impartial side you have your answer. on the other hand if you're looking at it from the republican side, i think they're saying wait a second, why are we even talking about trump? why don't we find out more details what was going on here? was there a quid pro quo? and secondarily, would there ever have even been this type of trial if the media would have put their attention on hunter biden versus on, you know, trump. i think it depends. i don't want you to feel like i'm biased either way because i understand the point and i think i overplayed the republican point. the democrats side, too. host: let me ask you one more question from what the democrats presented. do you think then if you take their argument do you think it rises to an impeachable offense? caller: i think in a neutral country it does, meaning if everything was the same, it does. but i think that the republican argument that the media does influence stories, does influence direction, it's a larger context churl thing. in my heart of hearts i think if a contempt was president and talking about one of bush's sons being on the board, i think the entire momentum of this would have been taken differently and maybe that's my own biased and something i have to deal with. again, i think that's the larger question. i appreciate you listening to my opinion. host: joe from mount airy, maryland. let's hear from tony in lansing, illinois, democrats line. caller: hi. listen, the democrats made their case that trump violated the constitution. that happened. they made the case for the need for witnesses during primetime fox news showed the trial without sound with pro trump commentary instead. so you know, a lot of republicans, they're just not getting the information. host: when you said they made the case, how specifically? caller: specifically, they made e case he violated the imolent clause and there was quid pro quo and there was bribery involved and absolutely that there was obstruction of justice as that continues. host: did you get that from the presentation of yesterday? caller: absolutely. host: did you watch? caller: all day. all day. host: let's hear from kathy, nothing pog, texas, republican line. caller: good morning. this truly has been so painful to watch. adam schiff, i think it's hakeem, he continued to use half truths and partial texts to make our president look like he's a crazy lying racist. why they're bringing in race us iminto this, i don't know. i haven't figured that out yet. the new word is cover-up when the senate is, i believe, going to get to the bottom of this and everybody has to remember, trump does have executive privilege. and some of these, like bolton, i hope they put bolton on and we get biden because if you don't know that biden and his son and his entire family is getting rich off of our tax dollars, then you're blind and don't want to see it. host: kathy, let me ask you this, half truths and partial texts, what do you mean by that, give me examples? caller: when adam schiff was up there for 5,000 minutes, he started saying things zelensky never said. they'll take little texts, they'll take portions of a text from the witnesses they had during the house procedure and they cut things off and they paste things together. listen, this -- host: such as what? caller: i didn't write it down. you can blatantly see. you'll see it when the republicans put t