if don mcgahn were to say something that you feel incriminates the president, would you expect there could be more articles of impeachment in the house? >> certainly. i think it is important to understand the process we just went through. the house is responsible for doing the investigation and the oversight and impeachment isn't recommending removal from office, impeachment is bringing the charges. so we thought there was enough evidence to bring article one which is abuse of power and enough evidence there was article two which is obstruction of congress and debate about a potential article of obstruction of justice. i think that is what is taking place right now. we're still doing the investigation into that potential obstruction of justice and that is where don mcgahn comes in. >> the mcgahn case heads back to federal appeals court next friday. initially democrats wanted to move things along quickly. but would you now support a delay on the senate trial until you know whether you would hear from don mcgahn? >> possibly. again, we do have some concerns that mitch mcconnell, who ki

mcgahn or asking the courts to weigh in on don mcgahn's testimony, they could then be injecting themselves into the impeachment process and are saying therefore shea no not be allowed to make a decision about don mcgahn. there any legal truth to that? saying the third and coequal branch of government is not allowed to interfere in a congressional legal proceedings? >> of course not. of course the judiciary has to be able to weigh in on this. what you have here is a white house that has obstructed this congressional investigation, said we're not going to comply with any of these subpoenas. so the next logical step is to bring to it the judicial branch. so this is well within their power, and they really have no choice but to step in if there is an unsettled legal issue where here we have the issue of how far does this executive privilege, how far does this absolute immunity actually extend. >> mara, thinking of new evidence, there have been these emails leased over the weekend. they kind of show the timeline, 90 minutes after that phone call with zelensky, president zelensky and president t

>> we could still hear from don mcgahn. it would have to be separate from the current ukraine and obstruction of congress impeachment. congress still has a right to say we'd like to investigate. we want to follow up on mueller. if they win in court and i do think democrats ultimately will prevail. they won in the district court. the judge issued a strong ruling. i think they are going to win. the courts are going to say you get to hear from mcgahn. it may be separate and apart from any impeachment process. >> imagine that. a don mcgahn public testimony and hearing some time in the middle of the summer around the time of the presidential conventions. it could be explosive. elie honig, thank you. >>> president trump's personal attorney rudy giuliani just gave a bizarre and rambling interview to "new york" magazine. he talks about conspiracy theories and his trips to ukraine. he also says he'd like to cross-examine some of the impeachment inquiry witnesses so he can attack their credibility. listen to what giuliani said. he sa

>> reality was he kept saying he wanted one but he couldn't go against don mcgahn because don mcgahn new he was keeping the support behind them to get into the court so i don't know. and things tend to leak in washington and since the kavanaugh hearing there hasn't been much leakage that reinforced with christine blasey ford said. since there hasn't been investigation either. i suppose -- spent most of my time figuring out who brett kavanaugh was and what to understand about his biography that could help us understand what kind of justice he was and how he was chosen and one of the most interesting aspects about the whole selection process was anxiety that social conservatives have about judge kavanaugh and whether he would be conservative enough. and what happened behind the scenes as his confirmation preceded and the allegations came forward. i did try and others have tried to do more reporting but i would say an fbi badge might be a little bit more persuasive. next time. anybody else? hi owen. >> thank you very much for your book. in his introduction threat said it's a tough and f

mcgahn or asking the courts to weigh in on don mcgahn's testimony, they could then be injecting themselves into the impeachment process and are saying therefore shea no not be allowed to make a decision about don mcgahn. there any legal truth to that? saying the third and coequal branch of government is not allowed to interfere in a congressional legal proceedings? >> of course not. of course the judiciary has to be able to weigh in on this. what you have here is a white house that has obstructed this congressional investigation, said we're not going to comply with any of these subpoenas. so the next logical step is to bring to it the judicial branch. so this is well within their power, and they really have no choice but to step in if there is an unsettled legal issue where here we have the issue of how far does this executive privilege, how far does this absolute immunity actually extend. >> mara, thinking of new evidence, there have been these emails leased over the weekend. they kind of show the timeline, 90 minutes after that phone call with zelensky, president zelensky and president t

why not make a point of don mcgahn? they've got a ruling in their favor. >> because don mcgahn isn't actually adverse, necessarily, to house democrats. it's a strange situation because mcgahn is nominally represented by the government, the executive branch. >> right. >> but their interests aren't perfectly aligned. don mcgahn -- >> all the more reason to lean on him, danny, all the more reason. we're talking about precedent here. high doesn't congress lean on this guy and set a precedent? >> they could. and they might decide strategically that's the right thing to do. but they also risk turning don mcgahn who may be a favorable witness for democrats into an adversarial hostile witness. but they certainly can exercise that power and try to do that immediately if they want to. >> all right. >> i just got to say, mika, for the precedent it would be worth it. even if don mcgahn became a hostile -- because these subpoenas have been ignored for years. >> exactly. >> by democratic administrations and republican administrations

it's beyond don mcgahn, right? we're talking about other people like john bolton who the president says he is protected by absolute immunity. so i think there's a big, big question here that the appeals court and perhaps even the supreme court will eventually get to hear about these important witnesses and whether they get to just say, forget about congress. we don't have to respond to their subpoenas. >> so much riding on that as we wait and watch. evan perez, appreciate it. thank you. >>> oregon democrat earl plumen nower says the house should take its time for sending the two articles of impeachment. he joins me now from portland. congressman, good to have you with us tonight. >> thank you. >> give us a sense. the notion here that the house, as i was talking about with evan, based on these filings, could recommend new articles of impeachment. how real a possibility is that? >> well, we are, as we keep saying, in uncharted waters with this president, his reckless behavior, his denial of the norms that everybody e

by the way, i have a high regard for don mcgahn. i've worked with him over the years but he was clearly a critical figure during the mueller investigation that created the saturday night massacre. i think it would be useful to hear from don mcgahn as well as other folks, particularly, john bolton and mick mulvaney and others who knew about the ukraine situation. i think it would be helpful to actually hear from the first hand accounts. >> we're going to leave it there. charlie dent, ross garber we appreciate that. >>> coming up, president trump has been impeached and the ad wars are receipting up. there's unprecedented spending from two billionaire candidates. we'll tell you all about that, ahead. t-mobile 5g goes miles... beyond the big cities to the small towns... to the people. now, millions of americans can have access to 5g on t-mobile. and this is just the beginning. t-mobile, the first and only nationwide 5g network. male anchor: ...an update on the cat who captured our hearts. female anchor: how often should you clean your f

they still want don mcgahn to come in and testify. obviously for don mcgahn he doesn't want to do that. he's waiting to hear how the courts ultimately decide. but what makes him so important is that he is one of the most prominent witnesses in the entire mueller investigation, certainly as it related to the obstruction issue. he spent 30 hours with mueller. so there is a lot of information that they think that he could provide. and they want this information because they say that it could help them in their process, certainly the impeachment because they say this shows that the president past and previous interactions certainly when it comes to influence from foreign countries and also the obstruction issue and so they're saying they need this information. this is all now obviously in the appeals court. we'll see. they do say, kate, as you point out, that, listen, if there is information they could get regarding mcgahn, that they could use that could potentially lead to more articles of impeachment, they would do that, politically i d

on the issue of don mcgahn, i think the likelihood of him playing is a long shot. it is something that we can ponder and think about in the next couple weeks. and the president's impeachment inquiry in terms of how long this will take and such and we really don't know. the house gets back, the senate gets back, and it is in limbaugh right now and we can only just speculate right now. >> i would like your political analysis on this, did the democrats mishandle this impeachment process by not going to the courts to try to impeachment. john bolten, how would you rate the articles of impeachment, and at the same time saying now that they want to get these witnesses to testify. >> they face a real dilemma. they could gate blanket denial of preventing them from showing up. they were going forward without some of these things. and so they try to go through without them and in the case of mcgahn they testify. and i don't think you can rule out the possibility that they will say it is a bad idea to create incentive for the president of the united states to block witnesses a

don mcgahn, the dem kraocrats h favorable ruling subpoenaing don mcgahn to testify. that was in the appeals court process. when the articles were passed, the court asked for guidance. they said do we even need to talk about this anymore? john bolton wasn't even subpoenaed. i'd love to hear from him. i'd love to hear from mick mulvaney. but i don't think we're going to. as a result, we're going to have an impeachment process that is incomplete, probably fails in the senate. and then we're going to go back for another bite at the apple? i doubt it. >> joe, we're literally out of time and my papers are blowing everywhere. air conditioning, go away. i got to let you respond to that, though, for a second. >> look. i trust nancy pelosi's political judgment here. that's the person who i'm listening to here. i don't think democrats are going to shotgun another impeachment proceeding. i think that there is all pro-forma stuff you have to put out just to kind of cover your bases. i think the bottom line here is the president's facing a trial in the senate and schumer has done

mcgahn was worried the president was going to tell him to yank the kavanaugh whom nation, he didn't want to hear it from him. he didn't want to take a call from the most powerful man in the america. he told his deputy i don't talk to quitters. it is a story of how the fbi and senators, republican and democrat, refused to pursue leads that might have jeopardized the kavanaugh nomination, and it is the story of what the implications are of this no, ma'am haitian for our country, because long after we are done with impeachment and long after the 2020 election, donald trump's legacy is going to be -- the judges he put on the federal courts and on the supreme court and it is going to be the triumph of conservatives which explains why they have stuck with him for so long. >> dickerson: and that's a 30 to 40 year, depend tong lifespan of the judges, 30 to 40 year impact on american life, not four to eight a years of a presidency. >> no, it is a long time and donald trump has been going around in and boasting about how his judges are younger than obama judging, they are going to be around f

the case that holds the keys to whether don mcgahn can or should or would come and testify before the house got a boost at the federal judge level today. what do you think the chances are that we will see don mcgahn raise his right hand and get sworn in and/or is this a game of beat the clock still and it's going to run out of time? >> i think there will be an attempt to run out the clock as much as possible on that sense. so i wouldn't count on seeing don mcgahn or any other former white house official anytime soon while that makes its way to the supreme court. but what this does do is add even more pressure from some democrats in the house to what bob was talking about, this idea that, hey, there is more information to be gathered. some democrats want all the facts. they want to make more of an effort to press these officials to come forward and testify, and they're saying that there is time for them to do that. but, again, speaker pelosi is moving forward, but this is just one of many factors that could be causing some division among democrats about how exactly to proceed and what

why not make don mcgahn available if you want to talk about accommodation and meet the democrats halfway? >> there is a very important principle involved called executive privilege. while it is limited, it's still a real thing that must be honored by both sides and this is where the courts typically would get involved to limit the scope of mr. mcgahn's testimony and decide where to draw the line. this is the most -- key advisors like the white house counsel which is what mcgahn was for president trump should be afforded the most executive privilege because of the sensitivities of discussions, but this is where the courts have to play and this is where these witnesses which we heard did not appear in the house, they all should have been resolved by the courts if the white house was saying we are not going to honor your subpoena in the house trying to enforce the subpoena. >> lindsey graham tried to weigh in the short time ago and basically say on twitter what's really happening here is the house democrats want an open bar tab and senator graham basically said they want to leave it open so

remember, don mcgahn and his important testimony here. it matters for the articles themselves where they say there is a continuing course of conduct. so harkening back to trump's telling mcgahn to fire mueller and then telling yhim to lie about it. they came forward in court monday, or yesterday, and said, hey, we could still have another article of impeachment. that's really more of a technical, legal argument, alison. they're saying this is a live dispute, it's still in play. they're telling the court who asked them, could it matter still. and the answer is, of course it could, both in the articles and in the future. there's nothing that's different about the mcgahn testimony than it was before. it's less of saber-rattling as it's played in the press, of "yes, we're going to impeach again," and more of a legal argument, to say to the court, decide this case, it still matters. >> natasha, harry brings up don mcgahn. why are democrats still interested in talking to him? he's the president's former white house counsel, of course. >> he cou

don mcgahn could eventually lead to more articles of impeachment. a lot going on this morning. let's begin with kristen holmes live in west palm beach, what are we hearing from the president this morning? >> good morning, we are hearing quite a bit. i do want to know president trump did stay on message with the troops are up into the q&a session there. it is hard for the force when it comes to president trump. he was asked about impeachment. that's when he went off. he lit into democrats, he says nancy pelosi hated all republicans but anyone who voted for president trump. he said no one ever treated unfairly as he had been treated. when he was asked about the impasse between democrats and republicans on what exactly his impeachment trial lookins like,e says it all rests in the hands of mitch mcconnell. >> that decision is going to be made by mitch mcconnell. he has the right to do whatever he wants. people remember they treated ugs us unfairly. now they come to the senate, they want everything. >> reporter: these are arguments we heard from him before. it was about that threat

and even going up against the courts who have already weighed in on this matter and said, yes, don mcgahn should have to testify and the people who the -- who work for the president have their freedom, freedom of speech and can testify. the president can't direct them. he's not a king. he can't tell people what they have to do even after they leave his service. so it's clear that bill barr is going to try to push the envelope and really try to protect president trump and try to shut down any of these investigations. he's been at the forefront of this. i'm not sure they're putting their full weight behind trying to keep people who president trump doesn't want to testify out. >> toluse, errol, margaret, thank you, all, very much. >>> a tsa whistle-blower is sounding the alarm over what he says are major security issues at u.s. airports. >> my biggest fear is having something happen that costs american lives and i didn't step up and put a stop to it or at least try. because it's going to. it's not a question of if. it's a question of when. >> that's next. female anchor: it's 6:39, time for '

he tried to draw parallel to don mcgahn waiting eight months. we know they could probably speed that up in an impeachment inquiry but he said if we wait several more months for these witnesses, these documents, essentially the argument amounts to why deent yon't you let him in one more election. >> let's bring in our legal team. terry moran mentioned it, we saw the speaker go straight to the constitution. the democrats want to explain to the american people now this is what the founders envisioned when they were talking about impeachable offenses. >> she was the proponent of originalism. the framers said there would be a president at some point in history whose ambitions would go beyond what the oath of office required and there had to be a congressional remedy to check that and that 'remedy was impeachment. this is not a witch hunt, this is their solemn duty. >> dan abrams, this is a dist l distilled case, down to two articles of impeachment. i think there were three articles against richard nixon, four for bill clinton. >> i think they're tryi

if the appeals court rules in favor of don mcgahn, it means the white house can continue to stonewall this process. and of course, if it rules against him, it means that the house could open it up to dee d demanding that more white house officials come to testify. and as you said, that ruling is set to happen on january 3rd. in dc district court. and what is interesting about that date, it is a big date there for that court because that is also when they will also be ruling on whether they will order the release of mueller grand jury testimony as well. >> interesting. we've had a lot of conversations surrounding the fact of whether or not this impeachment inquiry will bleed into the first primaries of the 2020 election, ahead, and it seems as if that is exactly where it shedding and we will be talking about 2020 alongside the impeachment inquiry for quite some time. meredith mcgraw, thank you so much. appreciate you being here. >> thank you. >>> new questions are being raised about president trump's no quid pro quo phone call with ambassador sondland. the "washington post" is digging

a court filing from a house judiciary committee, seeking testimony from white house counsel don mcgahn. the former white house counsel. mcgahn shed light on alleged obstruction of justice in the mueller investigation. that was not included in the articles impeachments passed last week. >> earlier monday, the justice department argued in its own filing, the house impeachment ends and an urgency to tie up the mcgahn case. and they should have gotten to court to hear the issues. the mcgahn case is expected to be heard january 3rd. >>> rudy giuliani michael eye-opening comments, digging up dirt, defending rivals in ukraine. the president's personal attorney talked about his associates. the two served as giuliani's conduit to ukraine. they have pleaded not guilty to charges they illegally funneled foreign money into political campaigns. they asked why giuliani trusted the pair. they look like miami people. i know a lot of miami people that look like that that are legitimate and act like them. neither one have been convicted of a crime. neither one -- and generally, that's my cutoff point. i

the one case that democrats are hoping to hear from don mcgahn and republicans have been saying why aren't democrats going through the court system, that the department of justice as of last night is trying to kabosh. >> a word that comes to mind that's hypocrisy. the reason i bring that up, the argument that you're hearing from republicans now throughout this process is why are you rushing this? go to the courts. right. go to the courts. they are the third branch that can figure this out and we can move forward, knowing this could go well into the election, except for when the courts rule against them or not in their favor you hear a different argument. once again the democrats have an argument to say okay you tell us to go to the courts look what happened to don mcgahn and the same could be what we could expect if we go to court and see if we can hear from other fact witnesses in particular the president's chief of staff. >> and this has been part of a delay strategy. if they were to lose this filings that they made, which really does make out a completely contradictory case, what's the

. >>> there is a new argument filed overnight in the justice case of don mcgahn. a federal appeals court is figuring out whether don mcgahn will have to testify or whether the white house's assertion of actual immunity is a thing. we have evan perez. evan, take us through the argument here. >> reporter: this is an argument the administration has been making all along, which is the courts should stay out of this fight which is between congress and the white house. the president says he can grant absolute immunity to some of his closest aides, and don mcgahn who was a former white house counsel, he was an important witness in the mueller investigation, especially on the issue of obstruction of justice. the question is should the courts continue to look at this case, to hear these arguments at a time when the house has already impeached the president and the senate is considering whether or not there will be a trial. just as you and lauren were just talking about, that's kind of being held in abeyance right now. for now the appeals court is scheduled to hear some arg

certainly on the don mcgahn front. he was one of the most important witnesses in the entire mueller investigation and members of congress want to hear from him. >> if they do hear from don mcgahn, the former white house counsel, in impeachment hearings on the house side, is it possible there could be more articles. >> it is certainly possible and that is a possibility. politically no one feels that is going to happen but of course the members of congress, they want to keep their legal options open here. in fact, in the court filing, this is how they explain it, what they say is that if mcgahn's testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that president trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the articles approved by the house, the committee would proceed accordingly. so it is possible. and then they go on to say that including if necessary by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment. and i guess in many ways the whole point is they need to keep the argument going.

they're hearing don mcgahn's testimony in the heat of the campaign and their problems may not be done here. >> one goes back to the mueller probe, the other goes to ukraine, but they both go to the question of obstruction. the kind of circular reasoning here has been the white house saying on the impeachment case -- well, actually, on the mueller case, too -- if you don't like our stance, take it to court. and this proves why that probably wouldn't have worked if democrats had pursued that route, because guess what, you take it to court and the white house says the court shouldn't be considering this, or if the courts are going to consider it, consider it later, don't consider it during impeachment, that's not fair. it's important for the public to know whether you're a supporter of president trump's or you're not or somewhere in the middle or you're just sick of the whole thing. almost nothing in the video clips you played this morning are factually accurate. it is one thing to understand the facts of this impeachment probe and to say, i don't think the president should be impeached

. >> and now coming into play is the fight over this man, former white house counsel don mcgahn. the justice department says the court should slow roll their work on deciding if he has to testify. house democrats want to hear from him right now. they say that mcgahn's testimony could even lead to additional articles of impeachment. let's bring in cnn congressional reporter lauren fox. lauren, tell us how this is playing out. >> essentially democrats are arguing in these new court documents that they need to hear from don mcgahn and they need to hear from him soon. they argue, yes, this could have an impact on whether or not they want to introduce additional articles of impeachment. but i think that's probably just a semantics argument. what they actually want, they argue, is to get him before the judiciary committee before the senate trial. now, that, of course, the more pressing issue right now. we know there is this impasse between majority leader mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer over the idea of whether or not there should be witnesses as part of the senate trial. you heard l

we begin with the judiciary committee, pushing up for don mcgahn's testimony revealing in a court filing that they could actually pursue new articles of impeachment. based on evidence that he may provide, may, i should emphasize. for democrat say that the house has investigative work that is not over. speak of the house of representatives continues to control the two articles, has not yet submitted then, speaker pelosi is trying to figure out what the rules of the game are going to be. but this does not stop at the house judiciary committee and other committees can do going forward. >> julie: senate judiciary chair lindsey graham tweeting this "best evidence yet that democrats don't believe they can beat president trump at the ballot box. meanwhile, the president saying democrats are pushing for fairness in the senate that they denied republicans in the house. listen. >> pf the majority, and now they want mcconnell to do wonderful things for them. i mean, he is going to do what he wants to do. he is a smart guy, very good guy. and a very fair guy. but they treated us very unfairly, and n

it has taken us eight months to ruling thatcourt don mcgahn has no absolute right to defy congress. eight months. for one court decision. if it takes us another eight months to get a second court or maybe a supreme court decision, people need to understand, that is not the end of the process. it comes back to us and we ask questions because he no longer has absolute immunity, and then he claimed something else, that his answers are privileged and we have to go back to court for another eight or 16 months. the argument, why don't you just wait, amounts to this. why don't you just let him cheat and one more election. why not let him cheat one more time. why not let him have foreign help just one more time. that is what that argument amounts to. misconduct goes to the heart of whether we can conduct a free and fair election in 2020. it is bad enough for a candidate to invite foreign interference, but it is far more corrosive for our president to do so and to abuse his power to make it so. despite everything we having covered, the president's misconduct continues to this day, unapologet

mcgahn will testify, john bolton, will they add color to impeachment? absolutely, the truth of the matter we can wait for the testimonies, longer process when i think the facts seem to be play n. >> why not? first of all, because you appointed or nominated a judge doesn't mean they will be a lap dog and rule in your favor on every single issue or controversy, and if this is not about policy and this is about getting to the truth and defending the constitution. howie: there's a political calendar. >> i understand that, that contradicts what she says. he's out there saying it every day it's good for the country and what richard said it's a -- gillian: impeachment will not be decided in the courts no matter which way you put it. howie: it's jot, i want to get john bolton, crypted tweeted this week, former fox news contributor, our country's commitment is under attack from within, now is this, again, a journalistic only bolton would testify and if he would turn against trump, this would be the nail for the white house? gillian: it's fantasy that anything jo

that's a case about immunity meaning that's saying don mcgahn has to show up. it doesn't tell us what he has to testify about. then you say the same thing about bolton and mulvaney. even if they have to show up, the immunity argument isn't valid. there's still going to be fights about what they should have to testify to about or not. >> thanks very much, dan. >>> joining me now is val demings, democratic congresswoman. she serves on the house intelligence and judiciary committee overseeing the impeachment hearings. congresswoman we know the intelligence committee will send its report to the judiciary. do you expect firm recommendations and whether the evidence be included? >> good morning. i do believe that all evidence will be included in that report. the judiciary committee can make the necessary decisions that they need to. as you know, this week we will begin the critical process of hearing from constitutional experts to really lay out the ground for impeachment of the president. as we turn over that report to judiciary, we still have a lot of work to do. >

a court filing from a house judiciary committee, seeking testimony from white house counsel don mcgahn. the former white house counsel. mcgahn shed light on alleged obstruction of justice in the mueller investigation. that was not included in the articles impeachments passed last week. >> the house impeachment ends and an urgency to tie up the mcgahn case. and they should have gotten to court to hear the issues. >>> rudy giuliani making some eye-opening comments, depending his work, digging up dirt on donald trump's colleagues. they pleaded not guilty to charges they illegally funneled foreign money into campaigns. >> the magazine asked why giuliani ever trusted the pair. he said, they look like miami people. i know a lot of miami people that are legitimate and act like them. neither one have ever been convicted of a crime. neither one. generally, that's my cut off point. if you do it based o ed on allegations and claims, you can't trust anybody. >> marie yovanovitch. juligiuliani said, don't tell mm anti-semitic if i oppose him. soros is hardly a jew. i'm more of a jew than soros is.

. >> reporter: while senate democrats fight for witnesses, the house is also battling for don mcgahn to testify before the judiciary committee. the house's counsel leaving open the possibility of impeaching president trump again. if new evidence emerges that he tried to obstruct justice. the attorney for the house judiciary committee is also requesting mcgahn's testimony to the grand jury in the mueller investigation. they say that this could be used as evidence in this upcoming senate trial. they also note that just because they held that impeachment vote doesn't mean the investigation is over. >> thank you very much for all of that reporting. so could president trump be impeached all over again? we'll look at what the latest letter from the house judiciary committee means. yet some say it isn't real milk. i guess those cows must actually be big dogs. sit! i said sit! male anchor: ...an update on the cat who captured our hearts. female anchor: how often should you clean your fridge? stay tuned to find out. male anchor: beats the odds at the box office to become a rare non-franchise

this is the president who asked don mcgahn why do you take notes, right? he doesn't want any record of his activities. he flew by the seat of his pants as a businessman, engaged in all sorts of questionable kinds of conducts. he believes that he has supreme power under article ii. we now know that there are professionals like colonel vindman, like ambassador yovanovitch who will stand up who won't toll late that behavior. that must've been a shock to trump who was used to getting his way. and so as he engaged in this course of conduct he tried to take steps that would make it unavailable to the people around him. ultimately if we tried to hold him to the same standard that he wanted to hold hillary clinton to, we would have to lock him up. [ laughter ] because between the two of them he is the much greater risk of national security. >> i want to ask you what the russians are doing. i wonder if they are bummed at all the money they spent in the '80s and '90s trying to come up with better spying tools when now they have trump. >> disinformation is an asymmet

the one live case right now is don mcgahn. that case went in favor of congress in the district court. it's actually going up later this week for an argument in the d.c. court of appeals, so everyone should watch that case because as that case goes, and it could end up at the supreme court, that should dictate what happens with some of these other witnesses if they push all the way to court. >> don mcgahn, the former white house counsel, a very important case to watch. elie honig, thanks for your incredible species and happy new year, my friend. >> thanks alex. >>> as we look ahead to 2020, the race for the democratic presidential nomination is heating up. we've got mayor pete buttigieg taking a dig at the front runner, former vice president joe biden. is that the right strategic move? that's coming up. what'd we decide on the flyers again? uh, "fifteen minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance." i think we're gonna swap over to "over seventy-five years of savings and service." what, we're just gonna swap over? yep. p

the court possibly considering whether don mcgahn should have to testify or not. the white house pushing back against that. what is that all about and suspect there any likelihood that we're going to see some movement there? >> headline, almost certainly not. so let's put a huge grain of salt caveat on that. this is all very unlikely. but here's the backstory to what you're talking about. we're talk bing about this ongog court filing. there's this legal battle between don mcgahn and the house judiciary committee related to mcgahn's testimony. they want to hear more from him on the issue of obstruction of justice potentially when it comes to the russia investigation, right? so there's this back and forth there are court battle's been dragging out. you've got this new court filing. mcgahn's attorneys, the administration basically said, hey, now that the president has been impeached, this whole argument is mute, essentially. the judiciary committee is coming back and saying if they were to produce additional evidence, we could maybe consider new articles of impeachme

what do you make of that argument that suggests somehow that don mcgahn's testimony should be off grounds for right now, that the house dems should not have gone to court somehow to compel witnesses? doesn't that smack in the face of what they've been saying all along, that he had to go through the court, they haven't done so, this whole thing is a mockery? >> exactly. they've been saying, oh, well, you have to work out your judicial remedies. but then once they try them, they try to shut them down. but it's worse than that. it's scarier than that. it suggests that everything he's done and will do is now off the table once these impeachment articles have been brought. it's wrong also because the mcgahn testimony -- recall from mueller, mcgahn is told by trump to fire mueller and then told by trump to lie about it. there's a pattern there, and the articles invoke that. and of course as doug leder says, it's a little bit of saber rattling. but if they find more stuff -- this happened with andrew johnson -- that's more counts of impeachment. nothing is changed in that respect. so there's no

don mcgahn was the white house counsel. kupperman is a national security official. kupperman, you know, filed the lawsuit seeking guidance. kupperman wasn't asking the court to tell him not come testify, to the contrary kupperman was seeking the court's guidance to facilitate his cooperation and ultimately the committee withdrew the subpoena. which raises questions about whether the committee is really interested in getting to the bottom of some of these issues. >> right. instead the committee has chosen, the intelligence committee has chosen to rely on ambassador sondland and his testimony. i think they relied 600 times in their report. >> on this point -- yesterday i opened the democrat report. and i did a control f. sondland's name shows up 611 times. in fairness, it's going to be double counted because, you know, if it's in a sentence and then a footnote that's two but in relative comparison to the other witnesses, sondland is relied on big time. >> yes. and i think dr. hill testified that she at some point confronted him about his actions and -- >> the record i

nobody thought they would have don mcgahn as part of an impeachment hearing. but they did make the argument that they had a timeline, we need this right way, and now that impeachment is done in the house, the white house is trying to drag this out. >> and they need to get information from the mueller probe which they argue is necessary for the impeachment inquiry, but now we're in the new phase. that will be the question going forward. also the question going forward is about some of the new information that's come out over the course of this over the weekend. there was news over the weekend of an email that was released through a separate lawsuit of an outside group that was pursuing information in that request, and they got information from michael duffey who essentially put the hold on the ukraine aid from going forward. what was interesting about this email is showed the interaction he had about 90 minutes after that phone call between president trump and president zelensky of ukraine in which the president urged ukraine to open an investigation against th

mcgahn. the house says the fact that they already have impeached the president doesn't reduce their need or lessen their need for mcgahn's testimony because if mcgahn's testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that president trump competed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the articles approved by the house, the committee will proceed accordingly including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment. that's quite remarkable. can you parse that argument that's unfolding here for us. >> sure. you know, this is a longtime civil appellate lawyer who's gone over and is serving as counsel in the house. and he's making the point here that this is not a game. there's not some kind of an artificial deadline cutoff. just because you decide you have enough evidence to move forward with one proceeding doesn't mean that there might be other as a prosecutor crimes as in the case of impeachment, other articles of impeachment you can add to an ex

there could become a ruling in the don mcgahn case in early january that could rely set the stage for t. some other information including bolton. coming forward, so i think that'sot in their best interest either. i think that here is there is a factual consolation here the decision to be made is whether the senate believes that amount you high crimes and misdemeanors. the facts a pretty much and disputed by bo sides have at coe the new year. >>we've heard intimations from the president that he's more eager to work the sate in terms of the senate trial cooperating with that phase of this whole process do you think there's chance that he or maybe those directly beneathim will actually testify in the senate because they for a few so far in the house. >>oh no it's in they don't wat to testify they want to cooperate when they want to do is make it into a complete sigh showing service they want to me it in a crazy, you know three-ring circus ole. david copperfield when or you want to call it show where everything is slight of hand distraction in this rectn and they do not want themselves to

this is a legal argument and they want don mcgahn because they think they get don mcgahn th they then get john bolton and mick mulvaney. first the white house said you can't have witnesses because it isn't serious. then the white house said you can't have witnesses because you are impeaching. what the democratic lawyers had to come back and say we may impeach again. this is like a schoolyard 5-year-old fight between lawyers. >> shouldn't they subpoena john bolton if they want john bolton. >> they don't need to. they see the mcgahn case as a stalking horse. they win there and then they think they can -- >> which is why the justice department is intervening now and saying stay out of this. >> i didn't mean to take attention away from the bloody mary's, but i'm sorry. >> a comparison between a constitutional crisis involving the department of justice with a 5-year-old sand lot fight, that does just enough. >> thank you, all. >> great to talk to you. >>> joe bidenen and pete buttigieg both making a play for the moderate vote. the battle to win over iowa's democratic voters. that's next. l

mcgahn could testify before house lawmakers. the house judiciary committee said it needed mcgahn's testimony as part of its impeachment inquiry related to president trump and obstruction of justice. but doj attorneys argue that since the impeachment vote last week, mcgahn's testimony is no longer necessary. a three-judge panel in washington is set to hear the case on january 3rd. let's discuss the legal ramifications with former federal prosecutor gene rossi. thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> this came in a late night filing and let me read what the white house said. quote, if this court now were to resolve the merits, the questions in this case, it would appear to be weighing in on a contested issue in any impeachment trial that would be part -- that would be a questionable proprietary whether or not such a judicial resolution preceded or post-dated any impeachment trial. do they have a point? >> they have a small, tiny sliver of a point. when i worked at the department of justice for 30 years, by the way

mcgahn. why are they so interested in mcgahn's testimony? >> mcgahn was a key witness to obstruction of justice. he was present when the president talked about firing bob mueller in an effort to end the investigation into the trump campaign and russia. the president actually asked mcgahn to go ahead and fabricate a document that they could put into the files that would deny the fact that the president had ever tried to fire mueller. so in the mueller report there's this well-thought-out sequence of events with documentation. but congress has a little problem that prevented them from specifically charging this in the articles of impeachment, and that's the fact that mcgahn declined to testify. so the democrats are now in court seeking his testimony. we don't know when or if that will become available. but in the articles of impeachment there is a mention of the mueller report. you have to read it carefully, but they bring forward the notion that the president has engaged in a course of obstruc