the message from leerd mcconnell -- from leader mcconnell at the moment is he has no intention of conducting a fair trial, no intention of acting impartially, no intention of getting the facts. despite our disagreements, i will meet with leader mcconnell soon to discuss the rules, but each senator will influence whether the senate lives up to its constitutional duty to serve as an impartial court of impeachment. in the coming weeks republican senators will face a choice. each republican senator will face a choice. do they want a fair trial or do they want to allow the president free rein. each senator must ask him or herself do you want a fair trial or do you want the president to do whatever he wants regardless of rule of law, regardless of the consequences to this great nation? the nation turns its eyes to the senate. what will it see? the president of the united states has spent the past several months telling congress it has no right to oversight, no right to investigate any of his activities, that he has absolute immunity, that argument cal -- article 2 of the constitution gives him, qu

mcconnell: i consent the senate vote. if confirmed they be considered made and laid upon the table, the senate be notified of the senate's action, no further motions be in order and statements related to the nomination be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question occurs on the nominations en bloc. all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination executive calendar 553. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: commerce of the united states j. blanton of virginia to be director of the capitol. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the senate vote on the nomination with no intervening action or debate, that if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and no further motions be in

mitch mcconnell will not. the american people want folks with pre-existing conditions on their health care to know they are protected. the house took action, mitch mcconnell and the republicans will not. the louismaking sure act which passed the house one hundred 46 days ago gets action in the senate to protect important pensions for all pensioners across the country, nothing being done. , where womenence and children are waiting to have the changes, the reauthorization that needs to happen, house acted, senate will not. finally, 90% of the american people want congress to pass the universal background checks. we are seeing everyday 100 americans killed everyday to gun violence. we have had over 396 mass shootings just this year. the house has passed bipartisan legislation. mitch mcconnell and the republicans will not act. we could save lives today. at this point, they don't seem to care enough to act. it is time for mitch mcconnell to stop stalling, do his job and on a fairus constitutional process going forw

mcconnell: mr. president, for the information of all of our colleagues, earlier this afternoon my friend, the democratic leader, and i had a cordial conversation. we discussed potential paths forward following the house democrats' precedent-breaking impeachment of president trump. our conversation was cordial, but my friend from new york continues to insist on departing -- departing -- from the unanimous bipartisan precedent that 100 senators approved before the beginning of president clinton's trial.

mitch mcconnell says he doesn't plan to do that. listening to mitch mcconnell speak on the floor the last thing the world needs are lectures on fairness and procedure for the man who held up merit garland. mitch mcconnell is trying to pretend he's doing a fair trial and holding up the senate and then goes on talk radio and says he's going to do nothing of the kind. >> the guy you used to work for who is a democrat but very moderate and has oftentimes sided with the president. >> i think he's doing anything thoek not judge the facts or not look at the articles until they come over and figure out what the senate is doing. >> is this not a hot mess? >> both sides are doing what they have to do. nancy pelosi has some leverage, mitch mcconnell has a lot of leverage. i think they're going to do whatever is best for their members and see two heavyweights slug it out. should be a fun christmas and new year's. >> i'm told we're joined by maxine waters and i would like to get her perspective and stand by. chair of the financial services commi

and it's up to mitch mcconnell. now they want mcconnell to do wonderful things for them. he's going to do what he wants to do. >> but the senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell, may be facing some potential dissen dissension. senator lisa murkowski publicly expressed her concerns about mcconnell, saying he is work in, quote, in total coordination with the white house. >> in fairness, when i heard that, i was disturbed. if we are tasked as the full senate to do impartial justice under the constitution and the law, to me it means that we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense. and so i -- i heard what leader mcconnell had said. i happen to think that that has further confused the process. if it means that i am viewed as one who looks openly and critically at every issue in front of me rather than acting as a rubber stamp for my party or my president, i'm totally good with that. >> today, one of murkowski's republican senate colleagues was asked about her concerns. >> the senator is entitled to her opinion and senator mcconnell is entitled to

leader mcconnell claimed the impeachment was motivated i partisan rage. this from the man who said proudly -- i am not impartial and i have no intention to be impartial at all in the trial of president trump. what hypocrisy. leader mcconnell accused the house democrats of an obsession to get rid of president trump and this from the man who proudly declared his number one goal was to make president obama a one term president. leader mcconnell claimed the democrats impeach i the presidet for asserting executive privilege and president trump never formally claimed executive privilege in claimed quote, absolute immunity. the white house counsel wrote a letter since stating simply that the administration would not comply with any subpoenas. leader mcconnell claims the democrats quote, obsession with impeachment has presented or prevented the house from pursuing legislation to help the american people. leader mcconnell knows very, very well that the house democratic majority has passed hundreds, literally hundreds of bills, they gather dust here in the senate c

. >> i will note as mcconnell accused the democrats as pure partisanship there, i want to play mcconnell from 20 years ago on cnn when the question of witnesses in the senate trial of bill clinton came up. he sang a different tune at the time. have a listen. >> every other impeachment has had witnesses. it's not unusual to have witnesses in a trial, and i think we're handling this in exactly the appropriate way under the constitution and it will end soon. >> so there, mcconnell 20 years ago when a democrat faced impeachment, supported witnesses in a senate trial. today he is calling requests like that unacceptable and the request of a political faction in the house. we've seen some flips like that from a number of participants in this. >> we certainly have. lindsey graham, mcconnell, schumer on the other side. manu raju is back with us and kaitlan collins also joins us. guys, what is your read? schumer is going to follow shortly after with his remarks. >> what you heard was essentially firing a massive at nancy pelosi, the questions about these articles of impeachment. he's essentially s

you leader mcconnell? and what is president trump hiding? ready for questions, want a time. >> back in 1999 you did not support hearings from new witnesses in the senate trial. why do you feel differently this time? >> here's what i said in the time these are my exact words. my view is we've heard from most of these witnesses over and over again. we purred the same story. the witnesses and 99 had already been given, had already given grand jury testimony, we knew what they were going to say. the four witnesses we have called have not been heard from. that is the difference, and it's a difference that is totally overwhelming. >> with the four witnesses you've called, some of the republicans say it's not the senate's job to get these witnesses that was supposed be done by the house democrats. should the democrats now have pursued these witnesses? >> look i am not going to second-guess the house. they're virtually no argument, no good arguments. if you are interested in the facts of having the entered these c

mitch mcconnell said no to that. first they'll deal on rules and then assuming they do that, then that's when the votes -- when the trial would take place. then there would be votes on the floor that any senator could move to force a vote and that's when the majority will rule. 51 senators can compel any witness to come forward and testify. that's where four republicans if they were able to break ranks and side with democrats, that could change the calculus. most republicans, those who could flip, are keeping their cards close. they're not saying what they will do. so this will play out in a matter of weeks how they'll ultimately will shape out. but mitch mcconnell at the moment saying no, of course. >> the clinton impeachment, new witnesses were deposed in the senate trial. some sitting senators called for that. supported it at the time, including lindsey graham. let's bring in ni1 nia-malika henderson. cost benefits of a potential delay of moving these articles to the senate from the house. >> i think the cost is t

and in mitch mcconnell's case, that's saying something. mcconnell is in a tough spot. we tend to think of him as this ace legislator who always gets his way and understands power than everybody else around him. but he's caught between three forces right now. nancy pelosi is holding cards. the committee chairs in the senate, his colleagues, they do not want a situation where a precedent is established of the executive not turning over any documents or witnesses. 13 months from now there could be president warren or president biden and these republican chairmen of these committees don't want to get stonewalled by that so they have institutional interests in seeing witnesses and documents. and then you have the vulnerable republican candidates who are up this year. and they are clearly going to want to see some witnesses because they don't to explain to their constituents, their independents that they need to win general elections. you know, why this was a fake trial. they need it to be a real trial. so i think by the time this is over, lawrence, there will be a genuine t

that is why i sent the letter, in part, to leader mcconnell. we also proposed that subpoenas for documents that are directly related to the charges brought by the house come forward. there is always a lot of attention on the question of witnesses, but these documents are also of great importance when it comes to making sure senators have what they need to make a fully informed decision. right now, i think the house has amassed a great deal of evidence, much of it in the form of testimony from the president's own appointees, that the president committed impeachable offenses. but a good number of my republican colleagues have said they believe the charges are serious but there isn't enough evidence yet for them to make a decision. we believe these witnesses and documents will provide the evidence they are looking for without being dilatory or letting the trial drag on for too long. i have not seen a single good argument about why these witnesses should not testify, or these documents produced, unless the president has something to hide and his su

i don't understand how pelosi has any leverage over mitch mcconnell, and mitch mcconnell doesn't have to go to trial, he won't go to trial. and the impeachment ends? . >> and senator collins or gardener, are any of them facing intents who say we want a trial? >> but think about the position that they'd be in. they either are going to have to choose whether to vote to impeach donald trump or not, or if there's a trial. if pelosi holds it back, they can say we want to put him on trial. i would argue it's beneficial for people like collins and gardener. it's a benefit to have pelosi do this, and we know mitch mcconnell. right? we know he doesn't feel external pressure on almost anything he. he didn't have votes on judges during the obama administration. >> i thought it was rich him talking about precedent and completely forgetting about the fact that he refused to have a confirmation hearing for america garland. merrick garland? >> there's not a ton of precedent. we don't have impeachments all the time. it makes it difficult. if pelosi holds the articles for two month, what do you do if

mcconnell is the opposite. but instead of trump moving towards mcconnell, mcconnell has moved towards him so that trump is the defacto majority leader and has probably made it much harder for mcconnell to do what he wanted to do. and murkowski may lead others to follow her as a result. >> danielle, i'm curious to get your thoughts on this. murkowski seems to at least not be afraid to break with the rest of the party. she was the only republican at the time to vote against brett kavanaugh despite a lot of people rumbling about it. she was the only one who did not vote for him. is trump in real danger here or are we reading too much into what she said about this process? >> i try not to have a lot of hope in republicans these days because they always prove me right which is they don't ask for the gift of a spine or conscience or morals for the holidays. that's exactly what they work against. so, while i appreciate murkowski coming out and saying what more republicans should be doing, the idea is we're celebrating

in other words, he was mitch mcconnell back then. so senator lot worked closely with then minority leader tom daschle to negotiate the terms of the trial. senator lot, it's great to have with us. >> great to be with you, dana. i'm sorry i can't be in the studio with you but i hope you are doing well. >> dana: next time. sounds like more reason to have you on the show. if you can take a listen to senator mcconnell and senator schumer both going at each other earlier today. >> he chose to begin by writing an 11 paragraph letter on sunday evening delivered by wave the news media and began a cable television campaign a few hours later. >> listen to the leader's speech, i did not hear a single sentence a single argument as to why the witnesses i suggested should not give testimony. impeachment trials, like most trials, have witnesses. to have none would be an aberration. >> dana: senator, how is this different from how you and the senate minority leader at the time tom daschle work together to organize that trial for impeachment of presid

are you willing if senator mcconnell, you and mcconnell would say we'll do some of your witnesses, but you have to do some of ours, will you willing to-- >> again, i think the trial should be focused on the facts that the house presented not on conspiracy theories that some established liar put forward and then someone says, let's hear if the conspiracy theory is correct which has no relevance to the facts here. we ought to stick to the facts. if there are other witnesses who might have witnessed what happened, who might have strong evidence on the facts that the house presented i want to hear what they are. >> thank you, everybody. >> on the ig report-- >> follow the house impeachment process and the administration's response on c-span. watch live unfiltered coverage and prime time reairs, stream anytime on demand at c-span.org/impeachment and listen from where you are with the free c-span radio app. >> and live this morning here on c-span2, we'll take you to the floor of the u.s. united states about to gavel in. working on the house past 2020 policy and programs bill. later this week

if mcconnell gets his way. however, mcconnell and democratic leader, chuck schumer, still need to meet. they have a sitdown to agree with what the rules of the road will be. what pelosi is doing, saying she will not send over the articles of impeachment until she has an understanding of whether that process will be fair, is giving chuck schumer a little bit of leverage when he speaks with mitch mcconnell. now, keep in mind, mitch mcconnell will speak in a couple of hours, laying out his view of the next steps forward. pay close attention to that. and pay close attention to whether mcconnell and schumer meet. and pay close attention whether the articles of impeachment are sent to the united states senate. guys? >> mil phil mattingly, thanks. >>> democratic lawmakers lining up to support speaker pelosi's vision.phil mattingly, thanks. >>> democratic lawmakers lining up to support speaker pelosi's visiohil mattingly, thanks. >>> democratic lawmakers lining up to support speaker pelosi's vision.phil mattingly, than

what is leader mcconnell afraid of? what is president trump afraid of? the truth? but the american people want the truth. and that's why we have asked for witnesses and documents to get at the whole truth and nothing but. this week the house of representatives will vote on articles of impeachment against the president of the united states. if these argument cals pass the house, the constitution dictates that the senate serve as a court of impeachment. conducting an impeachment trial. mr. president, it's a tremendously weighty and solemn responsibility entrusted to us by its founders. if such a trial is to happen, democrats strongly believe it must be fair and the american people must regard it as fair. a fair trial is one that allows senators -- a fair trial is one that allows senators to get all the relevant facts and add jude indicate the case -- adjudicate the case impartially. i proposed a very reasonable structure for a fair trial. i've sent that same letter to every one of my colleagues, democrat and republican. there's a grand tradition in america. speedy an

and so i -- i heard what leader mcconnell had said. i happen to think that has further confused the process. >> so lisa murkowski is one of a few key republican senators who could break with her party and actually vote with democrats to at the very minimum set rules that could lay the ground work for a legitimate and fair trial. senate democrats would need only four republicans to vote with them nin order to overrule mitc mcconnell and call witnesses that minority leader chuck schumer has proposed among them acting white house chief of staff mulvaney, former national security advisor john bolton just to name a few. as "the new york times" points out, only a handful of defections would force the majority leader, senator mitch mcconnell of kentucky, to switch course on the upcoming impeachment trial. in the first poll released the day after trump was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of congress revealed something incredible. americans support the senate, convicting donald trump and removing him from office by a margin of 9 po

mitch mcconnell even questioning pelosi's leverage. make sense of all of this, how do you sum it up? >> i belief the american people over this period of time that democrats emphasize that what we were doing was our constitutional duty and it was in adherence to our constitution, and what the speaker is doing is adhering to the constitution. i read the oath. that the senators must take. it is an oath or affirmation. it says that i pledge or i affi affirm, or swear, to be an impar sht juror according to the constitution. the constitution set up the impeachment process. the president has been impeached. he was impeached when the vote was taken by the u.s. house of representatives in a baipartisa manner. >> sow you're making it clear that it is not impending the articles being transmitted? >> i believe the vote of impeachment means that the president will always have on his legacy that he was impeached, yes. what we're doing now is the question of transmitting the articles of impeachment to the u.s. senate. the speaker believes that the co

chuck schumer sent mitch mcconnell a letter weeks ago that mitch mcconnell never responded to, they sent him another one this weekend he's now asking him over christmas to think about how they can do this together. nancy pelosi is going to send the articles to the senate, she just wants the rules in place. she said that publicly, harris. the president was with the bill clinton impeachment. >> sean: he said they had a productive meeting. at the end of the day, mcconnell has listened to his concerns, he is the leader. >> marie: he's protecting the them. >> sean: at the end of the day he's sitting down but he is the senate leader and if that's how they handled it at the time, that's great. >> marie: they had witnesses then. >> lisa: nancy pelosi withholding articles of impeachment underscores it was always partisan in nature, it wasn't about the constitution are getting to any sort of truth, this was about trying to append the election and hurt president trump. if she was serious she'd allow the senate to conduct its constitutional duty, which is to conduct a trial. she's withholding it rig

leader mcconnell, i'm asking you. come to this microphone and give an explicit reason why mulvaney or bolton or blair or griffin shouldn't testify. one explicit reason. not what happened 20 years ago. but an explicit reason now. why is the president, why is the republican leader, so afraid to have these witnesses come testify? their members of the president's own staff. they are his people. shouldn't these four aides be able to defend president trump? under oath? in a senate trial? shouldn't the president of the united states if he has a reasonable defense, use the opportunity to present evidence to clear his name? and to have witnesses testify to the president's innocence? what is leader mcconnell afraid of? what is president trump afraid of? the truth? the facts? the american people understand what's happening here. new abc "washington post" poll shows today, seven out of ten americans believe the witnesses should testify. 64% of republicans believe the witnesses should testify. when 64% of republicans believe the w

and it's up to mitch mcconnell. and we have the majority and now they want mcconnell to do wonderful things for them. i mean, he's going to do what he wants to do, he's a smart guy, very good guy, and a very fair guy. but they treated us very unfairly and now they want fairness in the senate. >> so brendan, do you buy the president's sort of public deference here to mitch mcconnell? >> i do, actually. it was in some way relieving to me that someone finally got the message to the president that nancy pelosi has absolutely no cards to play in this. and i imagine what happened is mitch mcconnell finally got to the white house and said i've got this, relax. because nancy pelosi has no leverage. withholding the articles from the senate does nothing for her. all it does is prolong this issue that she doesn't really think is great for her. so mitch mcconnell, if you recall last week, it was during your show, went to the senate floor and basically laughed at nancy pelosi for this idea that she was going to withhold them. he

we say to leader mcconnell, a fair trial with the facts, only the facts. ready for your questions. >> senator mcconnell said he would, or he has not ruled out witnesses, but he wants to wait until congress is back in session. senator schumer: the witnesses and documents are the main argument here. we must decide them and hopefully we can decide them in a bipartisan way before going forward with the trial. leader mcconnell has said let's go forward with the trial and then decided documents. nothing would prevent him from having the arguments made by each counsel where there is nothing new and then dismissing the case. we aren't going to stand for that. we, at the very minimum, will require votes from all the senators on each of the witnesses and about each of these sets of documents. and i don't think my colleagues, democrat or republican, are going to want to vote to withhold evidence in such an important trial. >> senator, two questions, why do you think president trump doesn't want to present witnesses and documents? the other thing, he said today, you'r

professor reich, your case about mitch mcconnell and who is worse? donald trump or mitch mcconnell? >> i think it's a toss up. it's very close. donald trump is worse. and you already indicated donald trump would not be nearly as bad if there were not an enabler, the enabler in chief, someone right there allowing him to do whatever he wants to do, putting up no fuss at all, acting as if there's not a separate branch of government called the congress, and that is mitch mcconnell. and mitch mcconnell, it's not just that mitch mcconnell as nancy pelosi has said today has made a graveyard of bipartisan legislation coming from the house, but also mitch mcconnell has given donald trump everything that donald trump wants. and what donald trump is going to want with regard to this senate trial, well, it's probably going to be a showcase for donald trump. >> and the rules about these trials are established for each trial, which is needless to say unusual. and mitch mcconnell's been there when perfectly reasonable rules have been used indeed for example the clinton impeachment trial. those rul

they're at an impasse according to mcconnell. no movement whatsoever on this issue of witnesses and here is what mitch mcconnell says about democrats, you guy, your party and how you're withholding the articles of impeachment. here he is. >> i admit, i'm not sure what leverage there is in refraining from sending us something we do not want. we'll see whether house democrats ever want to work up the courage to actually take their accusations to trial. >> what do you say to senator mcconnell who says you lack courage? >> what we need is real courage from our senate counterparts to have a fair hearing and for mitch mcconnell not to hide behind anything, to come forward and actually present the parameters associated with the proceedings that will be taking place in the senate. here's the other question that mitch mcconnell somehow is trying to avoid. last week he went on fox news to proclaim that he was not an impartial juror, but here's the thing, when those impeachment proceedings begin in the u.s. senate, every u.s. senator has to

leader mcconnell unfortunately skipped his first step. when he began publicly talking about the rules of the senate trial, telling how he would be taking from the white house and his idea for how to conduct a trial long before the conversation was she still hasn't had with me. melinda was intended as a good faith proposal to kick start the discussions that leader mcconnell has delayed in getting to i still expect that we will sit down and discuss trial parameters despite theis publicy appearances on fox news. let me see this, let's look at that leaders beach and i did not hear a single sentence or argument as to why the witnesses i suggested should not give testimony. impeachment trials like most trials have witnesses to have known it would be an aberration. why is the president so afraid of having these witnesses come testify. what are they afraid the witnesses would see. i would like to hear leader tmcconnell got to the floor and give specific reasonsea why the four witnesses we have asked for should it testify. i don't know what they t

and mcconnell knows them. he was talking about them and how they apply to this very issue of witnesses back in 1999. >> under the rules that we adopted in the 1960s to deal with impeachment trials, it would take 51 votes to call a witness unless 2/3 of the senate agreed to do otherwise. >> fact check: true. if republicans unite around say avoiding any witnesses and mcconnell can hold that line, they can do that. but if at any time four senators in the republican side say hey, maybe we should hear from john bolton or rudy giuliani, they can do that in the middle of the trial. in 1999, check this out. it was senator susan collins championing how more witnesses would serve the search for truth. >> i need witnesses and further evidence to guide me to the right destination to get to the truth. >> do witnesses get to the truth? well, senators will have a chance to answer that on the record. and what you may hear even tonight some observers covering this and talk about it as if these stand offs are going to be resolv

and in mitch mcconnell's case, that's saying something. mcconnell is in a tough spot. we tend to think of him as this ace, you know, legislator who always gets his way and understands power better than everybody else around him. but he's caught between three forces right now. nancy pelosi is holding cards. the committee chairs in the senate, his colleagues, they do not want a situation where a precedent is established of the executive not turning over any documents or witnesses. 13 months from now, there could be a president warren or president biden, and these republican chairmen of these committees don't want to get stonewalled by them. so they have certainly institutional interests in seeing witnesses and documents. then you have the vulnerable republican candidates who are up this year, and they are clearly going to want to see some witnesses because they don't want to explain to their constituents, their independents that they need to win general elections, you know, why this was a fake trial. they need it to be a real trial. so i think by the time this is over, l

for mcconnell. i think it will have an effect on how they move forward. >> they treated us very unfairly. they didn't give us anything. now they want everything. >> we want to welcome our view ners the united states and all around the world. this is "new day." john berman is off. john avalon is here. merry day after christmas. >> happy boxing day. >> it is boxing day. thank you for reminding me of that. how was your christmas? >> fantastic. and jack and tula had an amazing time in south carolina. >> fantastic. >>> meanwhile, we begin with the first possible crack in republican ranks over the senate impeachment trial. lisa murkowski, she is a potential swing vote. she said she was disturbed by mitch mcconnell's statement that he is in total coordination with the white house and the president's defense team. >> in fairness when i heard that, i was disturbed. to me it means that we have to take that step back. from being hand in glove with the defense. and so i heard what leader mcconnell had said. i h

mitch mcconnell realizes that. i think he's okay to make sure that vulnerable republicans protect themselves while the rest project unity. i don't think president trump will want to highlight those individual republicans who have sort of defected from the coalition. >> everyone, stand by. we have so much more to talk about. i'm going to ask you about u.s. cyber commands plans for dealing with russian meddling in 2020. a new report has some very interesting details in it. i'm leah and that's me long before i had moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis. i've always been the ringleader had a zest for life. flash forward, then ra kept me from the important things. and what my doctor said surprised me. she said my joint pain could mean permanent joint damage. and enbrel helps relieve joint pain, and helps stop that joint damage. ask about enbrel so you can get back to being your true self. enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, othe

mcconnell won't do that, but i hope our senators would not. i would ask every one of my republican senators, are you proud to be partial and to be partisan in this august proceeding? i hope not. >> senator schumer, thank you very much for your time tonight, sir. >> nice to talk to you, erin. happy holiday to you and your family.

mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3:00 p.m. monday, december 9. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. further, following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the bumatay nomination. finally, that the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. on monday. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: so, if there is know no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on monday.

but let me tell you nothing is going to change mcconnell, nothing. >> well, mcconnell cares about mcconnell, chris. and when 70% of americans are saying the president should send witnesses, i don't think mitch mcconnell cares about the president at all. i think he cares about holding his majority and being re-elected. and if kentuckians and every day americans want to hear from these individuals about the president's abuse of power, i think that's going to mean something. >> well, here he is, the president's now fund-raising off his impeachment. a trump campaign e-mail to supporters today, today the day after he's been impeached on two articles contains the subject line "make them pay" and refers to democrats who voted against the president last night, calls them traitors. so anybody who votes against the president in an impeachment matter in a due process of congress is a traitor to him. what do you make of that, congressman, he now implicitly refers to him as the public. if you vote against him, you vote against the country. >> and that's exactly why he was also impeached on the second ar

are you, leader mcconnell, and what is president from hiding? ready for questions. one at a time. >> back in 1999, you do not support hearings from you witnesses in the senate trial so i too feel -- >> no, here is what i said at the time. these are exactly my words. my view is we heard from most of these witnesses over and over again and we heard the same story. the witnesses and 99 had already been given or already been given grand jury testimony and we knew what they were to say. the four witnesses we saw have not been heard from and that is the difference and it's a different that is totally overwhelming. >> [inaudible] >> look, i'm not going to second guessed the house. there is no virtually no good argument if they're interested in the facts and not having these witnesses come forward now and remember the standard at a trial is different than the standard when a prosecutor, in this case, the house impeachment authority puts together a case. a trial is a place for witness witnesses. >> do you have now or are you confident you will have the s

mcconnell is seeking here. do you sense there is any chance that mcconnell and schumer could come to a deal here? >> i don't know. i think it's too early to tell. i think mcconnell has to see how this plays. he wants to use the clinton model as how the senate proceeds on this impeachment trial, and what he's saying is in 1999 there was no deal for witnesses when they came to the floor. you have to remember in 1999, then senate majority leader didn't want a trial. he wanted to get rid of it if he could have. in this case schumer and dashell didn't want a trial, tom dashell, the democratic leader, didn't want a trial, either. every trial is a win for democrats the way schumer sees it. as we said before, i'm not sure mcconnell would try and go and say just force it, unless he can commit his swing state republicans that, you know, this is the way to do this. >> and that's the question. we actually have a list here of the possible senators to watch here in the impeachment trial, the people who could actually break r

so what does that make mitch mcconnell? that's next. so what does that mh mcconnell? that's next. thousands of women with metastatic breast cancer, which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of the body, are living in the moment and taking ibrance. ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+/her2- metastatic breast cancer, as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole significantly delayed disease progression versus letrozole, and shrank tumors in over half of patients. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. ibrance may cause severe inflammation of the lungs that can lead to death. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including trouble breathing, shortness of breath, cough, or chest pain. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood

both she and mcconnell are hard ball politicians. so i think we'll see a flash of titans in terms of the politics of this play out. but as far as today, i really think that today overall was a win for the constitution. because what we saw is that in terms of the process that the founding fathers laid out, they laid out a way to deal with a president who abuses the power of his office. and whether or not this goes to the senate, or whether or not the senate, it seems, even if it did, it would be unlikely that the senate would remove him, it is now in the history books that donald trump was impeached. that the congress, the house of representatives, had enough votes to say that his actions were an abuse of his office. and this is a process that has been since the founding of the country. and we really just saw it actually play out today. and i think it is worth pausing and acknowledging how remarkable that is for our democracy. >> yeah. i couldn't agree more. in terms of what pelosi will do, i don't know enough about the procedures and

he's citing schumer's proposal to mcconnell and tribe argues that if mcconnell rejects these reasonable ground rules and insists on a nontrial, the house should consider treating that as a breach of the senate's oath and withholding the articles until the senate reconsiders. explain the strategy behind that because wouldn't it be a welcome thing for mitch mcconnell if democrats say we're going to withhold these articles? >> well, i think tribe's notion here and a few others have put this out there is that if the senate isn't going to take this process seriously, you kind of hold -- you vote for impeachment and then you hold this scarlett letter over trump. he's been impeached as a president and carries that scarlett letter but you don't send the actual articles of impeachment to the senate until you get an indication they're going to treat it seriously. i don't think that's likely to occur. i think that's an ivory tower musing. i don't think it's going to occur. in 1998 we didn't have fact witnesses after the house impeached president clinton but that was because all of the facts were o

mcconnell, after knowing mcconnell for a long time, he is never going to rush. he's not going to give into pressure. he is going to have a strategy. he will speck to it as much as he can. >> i would like an example of mcconnell feeling pressure on the timeline. i do find it fascinating that there are some things not laid out in the constitution but simply in senate rules of how a senate trial could look and could feel. what are you learning? >> well, kate, there are senate rules. they were updated in 1986. of course we have the clinton trial in the 1990s as an example of how this can work. and i will caution any of this can change if you have a majority of senators who want to change the rules. and of course schumer and mcconnell could come to an agreement. generally what mcconnell has warned his conference about is that they will be in session six days a week. there is absolutely no talking for punishment of potential imprisonment. that is one of the oaths that potentially could be taken. the other thing you will see is john rockets, chief justice, presiding ov

this morning as promised by mitch mcconnell. senator mcconnell announced last night he would make a statement about the impeachment trial on the senate floor at 30 a.m. after nancy pelosi's announcement last night she was not ready to transfer the articles of impeachment to the senate because mcconnell was still promising an unfair trial, a rigged trial for donald trump. here's the way mitch mcconnell characterized the speaker's position when he went to the senate floor this morning. >> speaker pelosi suggested that house democrats may be too afraid -- too afraid to even transmit their shoddy work product to the senate. mr. president, looks like the prosecutors are getting cold feet in front of the entire country. and second guessing whether they even want to go to trial. they said impeachment was so urgent that it could not even wait for due process, but now they're content to sit on their hands. this is really comical. >> and less than an hour after that speaker pelosi said this. >> we would hope there would be a fair process

and mitch mcconnell says, fine, don't. the biggest new development, though, is that the president doesn't like it. he wants the trial and he wants it fast. let's bring in joe lockhart. and ali hodi. joe, the last important to me is the most important and explains everything. there's a lot of questions why is nancy pelosi doing this? what does she want to get out of it? it might be that tend game here is to rattle the president into an extent triangulate, create opposition between the president and mitch mcconnell. >> i think it's a -- she is seeking some leverage here, to try to get some witnesses. i think she's also trying to keep this in the news on her terms, over the christmas break. but you're right about the main point, which is, everybody has their own equities here. the democrats are together. they want to get john bolton and mick mulvaney under oath. i don't think they care if it's on camera in a deposition, like 1998 or on the senate particulaparticulafloor. he wants cory gardner not to take a hard vote. he wants

i hope mitch mcconnell, i expect mitch mcconnell, will help us create that. if he doesn't, we'll have to see where to go from there. >> what do you see as the chief justice role in this? >> the chief justice has presided in a very i think rehnquist said, i did nothing and i did it very well, and i suppose, i don't know this, that the chief justice -- look, you would think -- in a regular trial if the prosecution, these would be the house managers, when they are appointed, ask for witnesses, the judge would give them a benefit of the doubt. in this situation he will probably, my guess, send it over to the state and we depend on a number of republicans to vote with us and make it fair. >> what happens if there is no deal? >> let's hope there is. this letter is an attempt to create a fair deal, not simply i'm going to do what white house wants or i'm going to do what i want, which is what mitch mcconnell has been doing up until now. >> and do you think there are still minds to be changed in america. >> yes. >> and in the usa? >> yes. particularly on what a trial