Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs trashed his former Fox colleague John Bolton on Monday night, claiming the famously hawkish conservative has become a “tool” for radical Democrats and the so-called deep state. The New York Times first reported on Sunday evening that Bolton—who worked as a Fox News contributor for 11 years before joining the Trump administration—will allege in his upcoming book that the president told him he was freezing military aid to Ukraine to force officials there to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son. Bolton’s assertion contradicts Team Trump’s defense that Trump wasn’t seeking a quid pro quo.Despite Bolton’s longtime association with Fox and Republican politics, the fervently pro-Trump Dobbs went on a full-scale attack during his show Monday night. Labeling Bolton a “RINO,” Dobbs showed off a chart that showed Bolton’s ties with Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT)—who has now expressed a willingness to have Bolton called as a witness in the impeachment trial—and other “deep state” operatives, including former FBI Director James Comey.“Mitt Romney’s call for John Bolton’s testimony comes as no surprise,” Dobbs, who serves as an informal adviser to Trump, said. “Romney has been, let’s say, wobbly throughout. He’s long had connections with foreign policy RINOs and they with him. Bolton one of them.”“He served as Romney’s foreign policy adviser during Romney’s failed 2012 presidential run,” the Fox host continued. “And current national security adviser Robert O’Brien also served as a foreign policy adviser to Romney.”Dobbs went on to note that the three top donors to Bolton’s super PAC were supposed anti-Trump conservatives who supported Romney in 2012 but opposed Trump. One name on that list, however, was billionaire Robert Mercer, a major funder for pro-Trump news site Breitbart who donated $15.5 million to a super PAC that supported Trump in the 2016 election.“See how it works?” Dobbs said. “You bet. Not so complicated, is it? John Bolton himself has been reduced to a tool for the radical Dems and the deep state with his, well, with his allegation that the president once told him the aid to the Ukraine was entirely dependent on whether or not Mr. Zelensky carried out investigations of his political opponents.”Reacting to Dobbs' charts linking Bolton with Comey and other “Never-Trumpers” due to their mutual use of literary agency Javelin, Matt Latimer—a partner at the firm—took to Twitter to fire back at Dobbs, pointing out other notable Javelin clients are Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Dobbs himself.“Are you part of the conspiracy?” Lattimer concluded. Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

After staying relatively quiet throughout the House’s impeachment inquiry, Mitt Romney now finds himself in the middle of an increasingly bitter debate in his own party.

The Utah Republican has long been open to hearing from former national security adviser John Bolton and other witnesses in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, a position shared by Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). The trio has searched for a fourth crucial vote to win a majority, but up until Sunday, those appeals seemed to be going nowhere.

Yet following a New York Times report that Trump told Bolton that frozen Ukrainian aid would only be restored if officials there announced an investigation into the Bidens, Romney’s push for witnesses has some life — and some Republicans are displeased.

Romney “made a strong pitch” for witnesses during a closed-door lunch of Senate Republicans on Monday, according to Republicans familiar with the meeting. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) urged his colleagues to wait until after Trump’s defense team finishes its presentation and senators go through a lengthy question-and-answer session to make a decision on what’s become the biggest issue of the trial.

But Romney is already making his move. And though he serves on the Republican whip team, Romney is now effectively working against party leaders and arguing to colleagues that the proper way to test each side’s contention is to hear from people directly involved in the Ukraine saga.

“It has been pointed out so far by both the House managers as well the defense that there has not been evidence of a direct nature of what the president may have said or what his motives were or what he did,” Romney said on Monday evening. “The article in the New York Times I think made it pretty clear that [Bolton] has some information that may be relevant. And I’d like to hear relevant information before I made a final decision.”

Romney’s push for Bolton to testify is drawing blowback from some of his colleagues, with recently appointed Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) asserting he wants to “appease the left.” Loeffler and her husband, New York Stock Exchange Chairman Jeffrey Sprecher, donated more than $1.5 million to a super PAC that backed Romney’s 2012 White House run. But now Loeffler is expected to face a challenge for her seat from GOP Rep. Doug Collins, and she’s eager to demonstrate her loyalty to Trump by taking on an occasional Trump critic.

Still, Romney isn’t going full Trump resistance: He knows his group can’t bring in Bolton alone without enraging some of his colleagues. So any successful effort to hear new testimony would also likely have to include witnesses that Trump wants to subpoena too.

“My expectation is that were there to be that testimony from Mr. Bolton, that there would be testimony from someone on the defense side as well in order to get some 50-plus people to agree,” Romney said. “I’m not going to be counting noses as to who would support or not support that at this stage, but I may down the road.”

A 72-year old former governor of Massachusetts, 2012 presidential nominee and wealthy businessman, Romney makes an unlikely freshman senator. But he’s mostly fit in with his colleagues — even hosting the party’s informal dinner on Monday with helpings of Chick-Fil-A.

Yet Romney does get a rise out of Republicans when he challenges the president. Romney's GOP colleagues remember his harsh rhetoric against Trump during the 2016 campaign, though tensions have ebbed and flowed in the last four years.

“I’d rather he not” push for witnesses, said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.). “He isn’t all that close to the administration … I don’t agree with him.”

Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) has compared Romney to “Jeff Flake on steroids,” and Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) asserted last fall that Romney “thinks the worst of the president.” Trump himself called Romney a “pompous ass” when he expressed concerns about asking other countries to investigate Joe Biden.

A senior administration official acknowledged Bolton’s book could hurt the GOP’s efforts to block witness testimony but said it wasn’t because of anything Romney is doing.

“He’s doing what he’s already doing. It’s personal" between him and Trump, the official said.

Romney on Bolton testimony: 'It's relevant and therefore I'd like to hear it'

Romney, though, rarely engages on any insults or digs at him. Asked about Loeffler’s Monday diss, Romney praised the brand-new senator and said he was glad she’s serving.

"He's a leader,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) of Romney. “I have respect for his views, not that I agree with him all the time."

Romney’s proposal to include the president’s witnesses along with any Democratic-preferred witnesses like Bolton has been frequently discussed among Republicans, most recently on Monday. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) was among the Republicans broaching the idea, though it didn’t seem to be catching fire in the broader Senate GOP.

“I don’t think that’s going to go anywhere. I really don’t think so,” said Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.). “I think it will get to the point of where you have a few considering it.”

Most Republicans are eager to dispense with the Trump trial and have argued that bringing in witnesses could drag it on for weeks if issues of executive privilege are raised in the courts.

Senate GOP leaders acknowledge that Romney is pushing his position, but so far, they publicly argue the dynamic inside the Republican conference has not changed despite the Bolton revelations.

“It’s not a new position for [Romney]. He’s been on that position for quite a while,” said Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.), the number three Senate Republican. “He didn’t say anything new at lunch that he hasn’t said before.”

If the effort to subpoena Bolton moves forward, Republican leaders will respond with their own explosive push to call Hunter Biden or another witness favored by the White House. Other Trump allies are also echoing this line, declaring that if Bolton is called, then “the floodgates are opened.”

“I don’t see the need to have more witnesses unless we have a lot more witnesses,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). “I don’t know what the country would gain from that.”

Romney sent shockwaves through the Capitol when he said on Monday morning that it’s “increasingly likely” that more Republicans would embrace his call for witnesses.

Among the senators most likely to join Romney, Collins and Murkowski are senators like Toomey, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio) or Bill Cassidy (R-La.), according to GOP sources. But none have taken the public plunge.

Barrasso said that the witness vote — set for Friday — "is still going to be close. They need four. And I haven't seen anybody shift."

Romney said later Monday evening that he didn’t base his earlier statement on any inside intel. He just thinks that if Bolton is willing to talk, logically, Republicans should be willing to listen.

“My sense was that based upon the fact that there was apparently relevant information, material information that others would say: ‘Yeah, OK, that’d be interesting to hear if we could,’” Romney said.

Heather Caygle and Marianne LeVine contributed to this report.

The Senate impeachment trial hadn’t been in session for an hour on Monday before the man famous for his drive to impeach Bill Clinton was lecturing senators on the solemn nature of impeachment and bemoaning the politicization of the process. “Like war, impeachment is hell—or at least, presidential impeachment is hell," said Kenneth Starr, the special counsel who investigated Clinton for years and who now served as part of President Donald Trump’s defense team. His words carried not a whiff of irony. “Instead of a once-in-a-century phenomenon, which it had been, presidential impeachment has become a weapon to be wielded against one’s political opponent.” The combination of the declaration and the person making it seemed to stun Democrats in the chamber. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) looked up from his notes and glanced around at his colleagues as if to see if they too were in disbelief.It was appropriate that the second day of the White House’s defense of the president began with a bit of shock and awe. After all, the proceedings appeared designed not only as a vigorous challenge to the case laid out by House impeachment managers, but also an elaborate troll aimed at triggering them and the Senate’s Democratic jurors. By the end, at least one GOP Senator had seemed to concede that the entire spectacle hadn’t been about defending Trump at all; but, rather, damaging a leading Democratic rival to Trump on the eve of a contentious primary season.“I'm really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters, those Democratic caucus goers,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) told reporters. “Will they be supporting Vice President Biden at this point?”Biden Calls for Impeachment Investigation of Trump for ‘Abuse of Power’Well before then, the mood was highly charged, as Democrats who entered the chamber were already buzzing about breaking revelations in the New York Times detailing ex-Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton’s account of the president’s scheme to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals.  In addition to Starr’s lamentations, Trump’s team of attorneys threw out a number of topics seemingly designed to make Democrats’ blood boil—and delight the president and his supporters. One of the first things mentioned by the president’s counsel Jay Sekulow, for example, was pens. Specifically, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to hand them out to lawmakers during the December signing of articles of impeachment—a common practice with significant legislation—has become proof beyond doubt  among the pro-Trump internet that Democrats’ talk about the sadness and solemnity of impeachment was bunk.There were also, on Monday, discussion of the so-called “basement bunkers” where Democrats allegedly held the impeachment depositions without Republican participation (in reality, more than 45 House Republicans were permitted to attend and ask questions). Trump attorney Patrick Philbin at one point declared House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) a  “fact witness” in the matter of the Ukraine scandal as Schiff sat just feet away, stone-faced.Then came White House lawyer Jane Raskin’s  lengthy, back-handed, defense of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Guiliani, who she described  as “a minor player” in the scandal; “that shiny object designed to distract you” who had, in the end,  been right more often than Schiff. “The score,” said Raskin. “Rudy Giuliani, four. Adam Schiff, zero.”   ‘Fox & Friends’ Desperately Tries to End Unhinged Giuliani Interview, Repeatedly FailsAs the day wore on, Trump’s lawyers turned the Senate floor into a corruption trial for former Vice President Joe Biden, his son, Hunter, and Ukraninan energy company Burisma. Hunter’s involvement on the company’s board is relevant to the impeachment at hand in the Senate only in that Republicans charge that the story validates Trump’s stated desire to get to the bottom of corruption in Ukraine. The Biden part of the presentation was no surprise: Sekulow telegraphed the attacks last week. And Republicans largely seemed to delight in the spectacle. “I'm sure it's very hard for them to listen to all of these facts that the managers left out,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). But when it was folded into a case for why former President Barack Obama should be impeached, it became too much for some Democrats to take seriously. And as Eric Herschmann, another member of the president’s team, spoke, Democratic senators—who had sat largely expressionless throughout the day— tittered at the analogy drawn between Trump and President Obama’s 2012 “hot mic” moment with then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, during which Obama said he’d have more “ flexibility” on issues like missile defense after winning re-election.  Leaving the Senate floor afterward, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) described the presentation as “a campaign ad, oppo research, and a little bit of owning the libs, just for yuks.” “They can’t help themselves,” he added.Beyond the political point scoring, however, was some substance too. The president’s legal team spent time laying the legal foundation for their case that Trump should be acquitted, which leans hard on two claims: that the president’s July 25 call with Ukraninan President Volodymyr Zelensky reveals no quid-pro-quo and that any other evidence to that point is based on unreliable hearsay. Philbin, a member of the defense team who has impressed Capitol Hill Republicans, argued that House Democrats ran roughshod over law and precedent in pursuing Trump’s impeachment.The Trump team’s final presenter, Harvard Law professor and celebrity lawyer Alan Dershowitz, took a GOP argument—that Democrats’ articles of impeachment are weak because they do not allege crimes—to its logical extreme."Purely noncriminal conduct, including abuse of power and obstruction of Congress,” said Dershowitz, “are outside the range of impeachable offenses."As Trump’s legal team worked the Senate,  outside the chamber, his allies were busy trying to dull the impact of the explosive Times report on Bolton’s forthcoming book, which details how Trump himself linked Ukrainian aid to an investigation into the Bidens. Victoria Toensing, an informal legal adviser to Trump, posted to Twitter, “It matters NOT AT ALL what @realDonaldTrump told John Bolton. We do not prosecute people for thoughts or words. Only for conduct.”Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney whose role is at the center of the Ukraine saga that led to Trump’s impeachment, messaged The Daily Beast on Monday evening that “of course” he agreed with Toensing’s  analysis, but added that “I am sure Backstabber Bolton is not telling the truth. What POTUS said when he was unknowingly tapped [sic] is definitive: ‘no quid pro quo.’”Privately, numerous senior administration officials and Trump associates began to rally around a simple explanation for what was going on—that Bolton was merely a liar out to make a quick buck. Four White House officials who spoke to The Daily Beast since Sunday each independently denounced Bolton as a habitual double-crosser and notorious “rat” and “leaker,” an allegation he has emphatically denied in the past.All of which created a scene odd enough to match the moment: Democrats pining for a longtime GOP nemesis to come testify before them, Republicans—many of whom had been supported by Bolton in the past—acting as if he was suddenly persona non grata, and the president’s  legal team simply ignoring the bombshell he’d set off. . “This was out-of-body surreal,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said. “The rest of America is talking about John Bolton, and not a single mention of him in this chamber.”Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

(Bloomberg) -- Donald Trump’s defense lawyers resumed their presentation Monday after opening their arguments Saturday by saying House managers failed to prove the president should be removed from office.Here are the latest developments:Dershowitz First Trump Lawyer to Name Bolton (8:54 p.m.)Constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz said the reports about former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s upcoming book don’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense. He was the first Trump lawyer to mention the Bolton allegations after almost eight hours of arguments.”Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense,” Dershowitz said.The New York Times reported Sunday that Bolton wrote in the manuscript of a forthcoming book that Trump told him in August that he didn’t want to release the funds until Ukraine turned over material related to Joe Biden, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate.After Dershowitz completed his argument and the day’s session adjourned, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell shook his hand and said, “wonderful!”Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic presidential candidate, wrote on Twitter, “Alan Dershowitz’s argument is contrary to both law & fact.”GOP Senator Touts Possible Damage to Biden (8:44 p.m.)The focus on the Bidens could intensify if the Senate votes to seek witnesses. Several Republican senators have said they will force votes on calling Hunter Biden and perhaps others if the Senate votes to allow fresh evidence later this week.Iowa Republican Senator Joni Ernst suggested the presentation by Trump’s lawyers could hurt Joe Biden’s showing in Monday’s caucuses.“Iowa caucuses are this next Monday evening and I’m really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters, those Democratic caucus-goers. Will they be supporting Vice President Biden at this point?” Ernst said.Biden spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement, “Senator Ernst just said the quiet part out loud: Republicans are terrified that Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee, defeat Donald Trump, and help progressives gain seats in the House and take the Senate.”Dershowitz Says Trump Charges Too Vague (8:01 p.m.)Constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz said the charges against Trump are so “vague and open-ended” that the nation’s founders would have rejected them as grounds for impeaching and removing a president.The founders “would have explicitly rejected such vague terms as abuse of power and obstruction of Congress,” said Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor emeritus.“They did not and would not accept such criteria” for fear of turning the U.S. into a “British-style parliamentary democracy” in which the president serves “at the pleasure of the legislature,” Dershowitz said.The Constitution requires a crime for impeachment, he said.“I would be making the very same constitutional argument had Hillary Clinton, for whom I voted, been elected” and been impeached on the same grounds, he said. -- Steven T. Dennis, Laura LitvanTrump Call ‘Less Than Perfect,’ Defense Says (7:45 p.m.)Former independent counsel Robert Ray said Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraine’s president was “less than perfect,” but that doesn’t mean it’s an impeachable abuse of power.It would have been better for Trump to have pursued an investigation “through proper channels,” said Ray, a member of Trump’s legal team.“While the president certainly enjoys the power to do otherwise, there is consequence to that action as we have witnessed,“ Ray said. “That is why we are all here.”Defense Attacks Hunter Biden’s Burisma Role (5:40 p.m.)Trump defense team member Pam Bondi told senators the president had ample reason to be concerned about Hunter Biden’s work as a paid board member for the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings.Bondi quoted multiple media reports questioning the propriety of Biden’s position on the board.She said he was paid more than $83,000 a month for his work even though he had no background in natural gas or in Ukrainian government relations while his father Joe Biden, then the vice president, had a key role in U.S. dealings with the nation.“All we are saying is that there was a basis to talk about this, to raise this issue, and that is enough,” Bondi said.House Democrats contend that claims of any wrongdoing involving the former vice president’s son amount to debunked conspiracy theories, and that Hunter Biden has no knowledge of the central allegations on Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine.Then-Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko said in a May 2019 interview with Bloomberg News that Hunter Biden “did not violate any Ukrainian laws.” Trump’s former special Ukraine envoy, Kurt Volker, during House testimony last November called it a “conspiracy theory” that Joe Biden’s work in Ukraine would have been influenced by his son’s board seat.Another Trump lawyer, Eric Herschmann, said Hunter Biden “didn’t know anything about the natural gas industry at all.” He played a video of an ABC television interview in which the vice president’s son was asked whether he would have been asked to be a member of the Burisma board if his name were not Biden.“I don’t know, probably not,” Hunter Biden responded in the interview.Andrew Bates, a spokesman for Joe Biden’s campaign, said in a statement the allegations regarding Burisma have been widely debunked. As vice president, “Joe Biden was instrumental to a bipartisan and international anti-corruption victory,” Bates said. -- Mike Dorning, Jordan FabianPence Aide Says No Tie of Funds to Biden (5:01 p.m.)Vice President Mike Pence‘s Chief of Staff Marc Short said Trump never told Pence he was tying financial aid for Ukraine to investigations of the Biden family or the Burisma Holdings energy company.Short, in a statement Monday, described attending meetings with Pence and Trump while the vice president prepared to travel to Poland to meet with Ukrainian officials. Trump expressed frustration that European nations weren’t providing enough aid to Ukraine, and he also expressed concern about corruption in that country, Short said.“At no time did I hear him tie aid to Ukraine to investigations into the Biden family or Burisma,” Short said in the statement.Pence discussed only corruption and the U.S. share of financial aid with Ukrainian officials “because that’s what the president asked him to raise,” Short said. -- Jordan FabianTrump Team Defends Giuliani as Minor Player (3:38 p.m.)Trump’s legal team defended his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani as a minor player in the Ukraine saga, not the villain portrayed by House Democrats.“If Rudy Giuliani is everything they say he is, don’t you think they would have subpoenaed and pursued his testimony?” asked Trump lawyer Jane Raskin.Raskin said that instead, the managers rely on “hearsay, speculation and assumption” instead of first-hand knowledge of Giuliani’s activities.“He was not on a political errand,“ Raskin said. “He was gathering evidence regarding Ukrainian election interference to defend his client against the false allegations being investigated by special counsel” Robert Mueller in the Russia probe.“Do not be distracted,” Raskin said.Within minutes, House Democrats sent reporters a copy of Giuliani’s May 10, 2019, letter to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy congratulating him on his election and asking, as Trump’s personal lawyer, to meet with him on a “more specific request.” -- Jordan FabianTrump Team Ignores Bolton, Says Aid Not Tied (3:04 p.m.)Trump’s defense team reiterated its argument that he didn’t link financial aid for Ukraine to that country’s help with investigations of Joe Biden, even after a bombshell news report that former National Security Advisor John Bolton disclosed such a link in his book manuscript.“Not a single witness testified that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigation and security assistance, a presidential meeting or anything else,” Trump attorney Jay Sekulow said on the Senate floor.Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly depended on the lack of firsthand testimony that the president tied the aid money to investigations into his political rivals. But that argument could be challenged if Bolton speaks at the trial.Bolton has said he would testify if subpoenaed, while Trump has signaled he’ll attempt to block such testimony by citing executive privilege.The New York Times reported Sunday that Bolton wrote in the manuscript of a forthcoming book that Trump told him in August that he didn’t want to release the funds until Ukraine turned over material related to Biden, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate.The report increased pressure on Republican senators who are undecided on whether to support calling witnesses in the trial. The Senate needs 51 votes to subpoena witnesses and documents.Trump tweeted early Monday he “NEVER” told that to Bolton. Sekulow said the defense team wouldn’t address “speculation” and “allegations that are not based on evidentiary standards at all.” -- Jordan FabianStarr Decries ‘Habit’ of Hounding Presidents (1:34 p.m.)In an ironic twist, Trump’s defense turned to Bill Clinton’s prosecutor Kenneth Starr to complain that impeachments are becoming too common.“We are living in what I think can aptly be described as the age of impeachment,” said Starr, who investigated Clinton for years as independent counsel.Starr said that after the Clinton impeachment both parties decided “enough was enough” and allowed the independent counsel statute to expire.But, he said, “the impeachment habit proved to be hard to kick.”Starr contended that impeachment should charge criminal violations, and not just any crimes but high crimes, given the ability of the people to select a new president in the next election.“Let the people decide,” he urged the Senate.Mulvaney Denies Leaked Bolton Account (12:56 p.m.)The lawyer for acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said he denies knowing anything about Trump making demands of Ukraine in exchange for U.S. financial aid.Mulvaney’s lawyer, Bob Driscoll, said in a statement the reports about former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s upcoming book have “more to do with publicity than the truth.”“John Bolton never informed Mick Mulvaney of any concerns surrounding Bolton’s purported August conversation with the president,” Driscoll said. “Nor did Mr. Mulvaney ever have a conversation with the president or anyone else indicating that Ukrainian military aid was withheld in exchange for a Ukrainian investigation of Burris, the Bidens, or the 2016 election.”The lawyer also said Mulvaney has “no recollection” of a conversation with Trump and the president’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani about the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.Trump Lawyers Won’t Finish Defense Monday (12:40 p.m.)Trump’s legal team won’t complete its case on Monday but will continue its presentation Tuesday, according to an administration official.The president’s defense lawyers gave two hours of arguments on Saturday and are permitted to make as many as 22 additional hours of arguments Monday and Tuesday, under the trial rules.Graham Wants to See Bolton Manuscript (11:57 a.m.)GOP Senator Lindsey Graham said he wants to see the manuscript of former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s book, according to a tweet by a Washington Post reporter.“I want to see the manuscript,” said Graham, a staunch Trump supporter.Schumer Says Mulvaney More Important Witness (11:30 a.m.)Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney would be an even more important trial witness than former National Security Advisor John Bolton, said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.“He was chief cook and bottle washer” and witnessed more events than Bolton, Schumer told reporters Monday.“We want the eyewitnesses to what the president did to testify,“ Schumer said. -- Laura LitvanTwo GOP Senators Lean Toward Calling Bolton (10:59 a.m.)Republican Senator Susan Collins said the reports about former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s book “strengthen the case for witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues.”Collins of Maine said on Twitter, “I’ve always said that I was likely to vote to call witnesses, just as I did in the 1999 Clinton trial.”Separately, Senator Mitt Romney said it’s “increasingly likely” that more Republicans will say the Senate should hear testimony from Bolton.“It’s increasingly apparent that it would be important to hear from John Bolton,” Romney said on MSNBC, though he said he wouldn’t make a final decision until both sides finish presenting their cases.“I think at this stage it’s pretty fair to say that John Bolton has relevant testimony,“ Romney said, a day after a New York Times report that Bolton has first-hand knowledge of Trump’s personal involvement in a scheme to extract dirt on a political rival by withholding aid from Ukraine.“I think it’s increasingly likely that other Republicans will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton,” the Utah senator said. -- Steven T. Dennis, Laura LitvanNSC Says No Outsiders Saw Bolton Manuscript (10:03 a.m.)No White House personnel outside of the National Security Council have viewed the manuscript of John Bolton’s book, NSC spokesman John Ullyot said in a statement Monday.“Ambassador Bolton’s manuscript was submitted to the NSC for pre-publication review and has been under initial review by the NSC. No White House personnel outside NSC have reviewed the manuscript,” Ullyot said. -- Justin SinkSchiff Says Bolton’s Notes Are Vital to Case (9:10 a.m.)Lead House impeachment manager Adam Schiff told CNN he will press not only for testimony from John Bolton in the Senate impeachment trial but also for “contemporaneous” notes Bolton took during his time as Trump’s national security adviser.“We ought to not only have John Bolton testify but we ought to see what he wrote down in his notes at the time,” Schiff said.House managers will ask for Bolton’s notes to be produced as evidence. “These are contemporaneous,” Schiff said. “These notes took place while the events were happening, while they were fresh in his mind. Those, in many respects, are more important than the manuscript.”Representative Jim Jordan, a key Republican ally of Trump, told Fox News Monday that a New York Times report on Bolton’s knowledge of the matter “doesn’t alter the fundamental facts.”White House Dismisses Bolton Book Revelation (8:15 a.m.)The White House is pushing back on a bombshell New York Times report that Bolton has first-hand knowledge of Trump’s personal involvement in a scheme to extract dirt on a political rival by withholding aid from Ukraine.“That’s just not true,” White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said in an interview with Fox News on Monday. “The timing of all of this is very, very suspect.”“The president did nothing wrong and we stand by exactly what we’ve been saying all along and exactly what the transcript has been showing all along,” Grisham said.Meanwhile, Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, said on Fox that if the Senate calls Bolton to testify, it should also hear from all witnesses that are “material and relevant,” including former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden, the Ukraine whistle-blower and Schiff.“If we’re going to call witness, than we need to call all the witnesses that are material and relevant,” Hawley said. “This isn’t just about John Bolton.”Trump Senate Trial Heads Into Pivotal Week (6 a.m.)The president’s lawyers on Monday plan to expand on the preview they offered during a two-hour argument on Saturday. They can make up to 22 hours of additional arguments over two days, though they’ve said they may not take all of that time.After Trump’s lawyers finish presenting their case, senators will have up to 16 hours to ask questions of either side through written queries submitted to Chief Justice John Roberts.Then the prosecution and defense will argue for four hours over whether to subpoena witnesses or documents, as Democrats have demanded and most Republicans oppose. A Senate vote to call for witnesses and documents would lengthen the trial, while a rejection of the proposal could lead swiftly to votes on a final verdict.A report Sunday by the New York Times about former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s potential testimony puts new pressure on Republican moderate senators to accept Democratic demands to subpoena new witnesses.Catch Up on Impeachment CoverageBombshell Bolton Report Pressures GOP on Impeachment WitnessesTrump Caught on Tape Saying ‘Get Rid Of’ U.S. Envoy in 2018 (1)Key EventsHere is House Democrats’ web page containing documents related to the impeachment trial. House Democrats’ impeachment brief is here. Trump’s initial reply is here, and his lawyers’ trial brief is here.The House impeachment resolution is H.Res. 755. The Intelligence Committee Democrats’ impeachment report is here.Gordon Sondland’s transcript is here and here; Kurt Volker’s transcript is here and here. Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch’s transcript is here and here; the transcript of Michael McKinley, former senior adviser to the secretary of State, is here. The transcript of David Holmes, a Foreign Service officer at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, is here.The transcript of William Taylor, the top U.S. envoy to Ukraine, is here and here. State Department official George Kent’s testimony is here and here. Testimony by Alexander Vindman can be found here, and the Fiona Hill transcript is here. Laura Cooper’s transcript is here; Christopher Anderson’s is here and Catherine Croft’s is here. Jennifer Williams’ transcript is here and Timothy Morrison’s is here. The Philip Reeker transcript is here. Mark Sandy’s is here.\--With assistance from Justin Sink, Billy House, Daniel Flatley, Mike Dorning, Jordan Fabian and Jennifer Epstein.To contact the reporters on this story: Steven T. Dennis in Washington at sdennis17@bloomberg.net;Laura Litvan in Washington at llitvan@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Joe Sobczyk at jsobczyk@bloomberg.net, Laurie AsséoFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

The irony of Ken Starr declaring that the Senate is "being called to sit as the high court of impeachment all too frequently" was not lost on MSNBC's Ari Melber.Starr, the former independent counsel who pushed for President Bill Clinton's impeachment, is now one of President Trump's impeachment defense lawyers. He made his debut on Monday, likening impeachment to "domestic war" and asking, "How did we get here, with presidential impeachment invoked frequently?"When Starr was the independent counsel, he was a driving force behind Republican efforts in the House to investigate Clinton, and his Starr Report found that Clinton's conduct "may constitute grounds for impeachment." In 1998, his ethics adviser, Sam Dash, quit, writing in a letter to Starr, "You have violated your obligations under the independent counsel statute and have unlawfully intruded on the power of impeachment."On Twitter, Melber said Starr's opening was "BEYOND RICH coming from him." Later, he told MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace: "This was a disaster for Republicans. A total unmitigated legal and constitutional disaster. Ken Starr at no point in this, dramatic at times, mournful opening explained in any factual or legal way what's different." This was "Starr vs. Starr," Melber continued. "Usually you want someone else's name on the other side. He was out there shadowboxing against himself. ... Constitutionally, we watched Ken Starr punch himself in the face and then walk off the floor."
During his own show, Melber played a mashup showing just how different the Starr of today sounds compared to the Starr of yesterday. Watch the clip below. > WATCH: Ken Starr backtracks his argument that impeachment is at the "sole discretion of the Congress," to now claiming impeachment must be based on charges of a "crime" or "violation" of law.https://t.co/6dDdVaIJcM pic.twitter.com/XokyOgTCqy> > -- TheBeat w/Ari Melber (@TheBeatWithAri) January 28, 2020More stories from theweek.com John Bolton just vindicated Nancy Pelosi It's 2020 and women are exhausted Biden: Joni Ernst 'spilled the beans' on Trump using impeachment trial to smear him