USA Today Washington correspondent Christal Hayes answers the internet, "What did that impeachment trial protester just yell during the trial?"

Sparks flew Monday on the Fox News set between Fox News anchor Chris Wallace and conservative contributor Katie Pavlich, with Wallace demanding his colleague get her “facts straight” after Pavlich insisted that certain witnesses had not been called in the impeachment trial.Moments before President Donald Trump’s defense team began its arguments in the Senate impeachment trial, Pavlich noted during Fox’s pregame coverage that while Republican senators are now weighing whether to call former National Security Adviser John Bolton following his bombshell claims, the House should have presented a more thorough case.“The Senate is not the House, the House did not come with a complete case, and every impeachment beforehand, the witnesses that were called had been called in the House before being brought to the Senate,” she insisted. “So there are questions here about the process.”“That’s not true, that’s not true," Wallace interrupted. “They hadn’t all been called in the House, and in the Clinton impeachment, they’d been called by the general independent counsel. They had not been called by the House.”After Pavlich claimed that was due to an “extensive Justice Department investigation,” Wallace agreed but pointed out that she was “just wrong” to claim that all impeachment witnesses were previously called by the House.“Let me finish. Before the articles were sent to the House, the grand jury material in the Clinton impeachment were handed to the House as part of the articles and given to the Senate,” the right-wing pundit said. “They were not given after the House voted for those articles. That is the difference. The process does matter.”As anchor Bret Baier attempted to have Wallace give his “final thoughts,” the Fox News Sunday host—who has a history of tangling with the network’s opinion personalities—continued to highlight that what Pavlich said “just isn’t true.”“The fact of the matter was is that the whistleblower information was given to the inspector general, who gave it to the Justice Department,” Wallace declared, clearly perturbed. “The Justice Department decided not to investigate, and that is why it went to the House.”“So to say that in the Clinton investigation these people were interviewed by the House, one, they weren’t,” he continued. “And to say it wasn’t done by the Justice Department, because the Justice Department refused to carry out the investigation. Get your facts straight!”“Okay, let’s tone it down,” Baier jumped in.Wallace tearing into a pro-Trump Fox News contributor came just moments after he said on-air that the news that Bolton claims Trump told him that Ukrainian military aid was frozen unless Ukraine investigated the Bidens was obviously big news since Trump supporters were “spinning like crazy” afterward.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.

USA Today Washington correspondent Christal Hayes answers the internet, "Why there's no law that expedites impeachment subpoenas."

Senate Republicans were thrown off-balance Monday by the latest John Bolton revelations, offering a range of convoluted — and at times contradictory — responses to an episode that threatens to upend President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.

GOP senators, who hadn’t yet had time to coordinate their responses before arriving at the Capitol, offered an all-over-the-map assessment of the significance of the former national security adviser’s claim that Trump told him he would continue withholding military aid until Ukraine provided information about investigations he had been seeking into his Democratic rivals, including former Vice President Joe Biden.

Some said it was meaningless. Others said Bolton should make a statement to divulge his knowledge of the case whether he testifies or not. Some said the Senate should obtain the manuscript of Bolton’s book while others questioned Bolton’s credibility. And still others said the prospect of prolonging the trial by calling Bolton or other witnesses could conflict with the upcoming presidential primaries.

“In this case, it may move the needle in one direction or another,” said Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.). “I am not going to deny it’s going to change the decibel level and probably the intensity at which we go about talking about witnesses.

It’s a moment that is testing GOP unity at a pivotal point in the trial. Senators are expecting to vote on whether to permit new witnesses and evidence late this week, and until the Bolton news dropped, it appeared that motion was heading for defeat. But the news has already bred hostility among some Republican colleagues.

Kelly Loeffler, Georgia’s newly appointed GOP senator, slammed Mitt Romney — who expressed interest in calling Bolton as a witness — saying he “wants to appease the left by calling witnesses who will slander the @realDonaldTrump.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has put a premium on keeping his caucus united amid an often unpredictable political environment and a pressure campaign from Democrats demanding a “fair trial” that they say must include witnesses and documents. GOP lawmakers are likely to appear more on message after a Senate GOP caucus lunch Monday afternoon, which is certain to feature a discussion of how to handle the Bolton news.

In the meantime, though, the GOP message was scattered. A daily GOP press conference to discuss the trial, expected to feature Sens. John Barasso (R-Wyo.), Braun, Mike Lee (R-Utah), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.), was abruptly postponed Monday morning, only to be rescheduled with just Barrasso and Braun in attendance.

After days of knocking House impeachment managers for not offering “anything new” in their three-day opening arguments against Trump, some Republicans then turned around and criticized the Bolton claims because they were new. Bolton’s allegations, detailed in a draft manuscript of his forthcoming book, were first reported by the New York Times late Sunday.

“We’re going to have some new stuff coming out every day. That doesn’t really change anything,” said Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).

Barrasso, the No. 3 Senate Republican, had a similar response. “I think there’s going to be something new coming out every day,” Barrasso said told reporters. “New information, old information told in a different way, to inflame emotions and influence the outcome.”

But in the same press conference, Barrasso seemed to undercut his own argument: “To me the facts of the case remain the same. There is nothing new here to what the House managers have been saying.”

But if Bolton’s claims are substantiated, they would deal a major blow to one of the White House's core defenses in the trial — that no witnesses had firsthand knowledge that Trump linked Ukraine aid to his desire for investigations of his political rivals.

Trump disputed Bolton’s account early Monday, saying it was a ploy to sell books. “I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens,” Trump tweeted just after midnight.

Some Republicans vouched for Bolton’s credibility even while suggesting they would wait to see how the White House rebuts the new claims during their ongoing trial defense, which continues Monday and possibly Tuesday.

“He was fired from the job,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said when asked about Bolton’s credibility. “People change. It's kind of interesting, when that happened to Jeff Sessions, he didn't change.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said he wouldn’t “bet my house” on Bolton telling the truth.

But their comments cut against Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who both said they consider Bolton credible.

“My guess is John Bolton tells the truth,” Johnson said.

Other senators used the upcoming Iowa caucuses to question the timing of the news and the need for an impeachment trial at all when the presidency would be decided by voters in nine months — a contention sharply disputed by Democrats who say the allegations against Trump suggest he was attempting to corrupt the 2020 election.

“The timing is not coincidence and I still don’t see an impeachable offense committed,” said Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.). “The people of Iowa will be voting for president of the United States a week from today. The people should be deciding this issue, not Congress.”

Jesse Naranjo contributed to this report.

Defense of the president in the impeachment trial and beyond is driving key administration allies to go to the mat for the White House

In President Trump's impeachment trial, the targeted audiences range from one (that would be Trump) to millions. That would be the voters.

USA TODAY Washington correspondent, Christal Hayes answers the internet, "Why can the senators only drink milk or water on the Senate floor?"