chuck schumer also asks for specific witnesses. those who did not testify in house impeachment inquiry here among them, mick mulvaney, the chief of staff, john bolton, the formal national security advisor. i've been told that we have been given a one minute warning here were chuck schumer, the senate majority leader is going to lay that out and take some questions. we will just wait for him to come in the door for just a second. >> dana: before he comes in, with the numbers that they have in the senate, are they going to be able to get to unanimous consent on anything? >> very unlikely, that's why the 51 number become so important. and this is where nobody really knows what would happen in the senate trial, is a good for the president? the republicans? is it bad for the other side? vice versa? keep in mind that mitch mcconnell is very weary of what a long trial does to his senators including cory gardner from colorado, you also have martha mcsally in arizona, and susan collins in may. and here is senators sooner. spell fox news ale

senator schumer: hello, glad to be part of your live performance. [laughter] senator schumer: ok. good afternoon, everyone. the main purpose today is to follow up on the letter i sent to leader mcconnell about the potential senate impeachment trial and rules for them. but let's not forget that there are many other things the senate should be working on right now. this month, we recognize the seventh anniversary of the sandy hook massacre. in the seven years since that unthinkable tragedy, america has experienced countless incidents of gun violence ranging from horrific mass shootings to the thousands of shootings that devastate communities everyday. the senate has not even debated background check legislation. the senate has not debated legislation to reduce the cost of health care, college education, or prescription drugs. republican leadership has even refused to work with democrats on bipartisan solutions to secure our elections and deter foreign adversaries from interfering in our elections. all of the productive activity in congress is coming out of the house. the senate rema

schumer: i'm hopeful. leader mcconnell has said he's willing to sit down and talk and i'm willing and eager to do that. we want to come up with a fair trial where the facts come out without dilatory actions a and without making this into a circus of unrelated conspiracy theories of either the right or left. last question, back there with the beard. reporter: on that last point, there are republicans, including the president of the united states, who have some ideas for witnesses, are you willing if leader mcconnell were to say we'll do some of your witnesses, you have to do some of ours, would you -- mr. schumer: i think the trial should be focused on the facts that the house presented not conspiracy theories that some established liar puts forward and then someone says let's hear if that 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 very strong evidence on the facts

that was senator schumer in january of 1999. but now the same process that senator schumer thought was good enough for president clinton, he doesn't want to afford president trump. go figure. look, most people understand what the democratic leader is really after. he is simply trying to lock in live witnesses that is a strange request at this juncture for a couple of reasons. for one thing, the 1999 version of senator schumer vocally opposed having witnesses, even when the question was raised after hours of opening arguments from the lawyers, hours of questions from senators, and a failed most to dismiss. he favors live witnesses this time before the senate even has articles in hand. moreover, presumably, it will be the house prosecutor's job to ask for the witnesses they feel they need to make the case. so why does the democratic leader here in the senate want to predetermine the house impeachment manager's witness request for them before the house has even impeached the president? might he just -- might he be coordinating thes

chuck schumer has laid out his request for an impeachment trial, what are they? >> this is important. it's a procession, everyone knows how it's going to move forward, and there are rules in the united states senate too, there are negotiations that are going to take place between mcconnell and schumer to put some detail into the rules of the road, if they can reach an agreement, now we have schumer's opening offer, crucial in that opening offer, schumer is requesting four witnesses for the united states senate to subpoena four witnesses. those four witnesses are people who are asked to testify but never showed up, largely because the administration told them not to, those four witnesses being mick mulvaney. john bolton, robert blair, a senior adviser to the acting chief of staff. also, michael duffy. why schumer wants to hear from these individuals is similar to why house democrats wanted to hear from these individuals. they can help close the loop on the key missing pieces up to this point. what in the why when it came to the suspension of the u.s. and ukraine.

senate democrat chuck schumer says the senate needs to call

but certainly, what leader schumer has asked for is very reasonable. you would think everyone would want to hear from those that have the information about why the president did what he did. >> but what i was asking is, can you have a trial with incomplete evidence? if you do not -- if you're not able to get those witnesses, if mcconnell says no, can you actually have a trial without all the evidence at hand? >> i think it's important to have the evidence at hand. i think that decision should be made with -- with the senator schumer and senator mcconnell. i, personally, believe you need to hear from these witnesses. >> what does a fair and impartial trial look like to you? >> well, what it means is each one of us -- 100 senators are going to take an oath of office. oath of a juror, not oath of office. that we're going to act impartially on the evidence that is submitted. that means, yes, we may have viewed about how serious this issue is. and -- and what the president's conduct. but we are -- must be judged by the evidence that's presented at a trial.

senator cornyn now and chuck schumer in 1999 or chuck schumer today? >> look, all i can tell you is what i believe should happen. the predicate here, obviously, is the investigation conducted by the house. an exhaustive review of the evidence with sworn testimony. it's interesting that the folks who have made the case in a very compelling way, i would argue against the president's point of view have all been under oath. i'm not sure we've had anyone under oath who has made the opposite copclusion. but, look, it's going to be a determination we have to make individually reviewing all the evidence. i think that these witnesses that senator schumer has proposed would supplement and fill in some of the information that we don't have right now. but i think what's already on the record is compelling. look. poppy, let me say it personally. when i read the memorandum of that call, i was offended personally. here's why. because as a public official, you are always supposed to keep a very bright line between the work you do in government and how you do that work

schumer wants four officials to testify. among them mick mulvaney and former national security adviser john bolton. republicans of course have made the case for a short trial without witnesses. schumer's wish list coming after chiropractors slammed mcconnell for admitting he is in, quote, total coordination with the white house despite his role as an impeachment juror. we're going to speak with senator shchumer in the 8:00 hour. let's begin with suzanne malveaux on capitol hill. >> reporter: good morning. there are a lot of moving pieces here on the hill today. you have the new judiciary committee report outlining the reasons for why they are moving forward on the impeachment case. at the same time on the house side, you have preparations for a full house vote potentially as early as wednesday. and also senate leaders engaged in a battle over the scope and female, the context of the senate trail. this morning the house judiciary committee releasing a 658-page report explaining their decision to charge president trump with ab

that was senator schumer in january of 1999. but now the same process that senator schumer thought was good enough for president clinton, he doesn't want to afford president trump. go figure. look, most people understand what the democratic leader is really after. he is simply trying to lock in live witnesses, that is a strange request at this juncture for a couple of reasons. for one thing, the 1999 version of senator schumer vocally opposed having witnesses, even when the question was raised after hours of opening arguments from the lawyers, hours of questions from senators, and a failed motion to dismiss. how can he prejudge that he favors live witnesses so strongly this time before the senate even has articles in hand? moreover, presumably it will be the house prosecutor's job to ask for the witnesses they feel they need to make the case. so what does the democratic leader in the senate want to predetermine the house's impeachment witness's request for them before the house has even impeached the president? might he, just mi

that was senator schumer in january 1999. but now the same process that senator schumer was good enough for president clinton, he doesn't want to afford resident trump. go figure. look. most people understand what the democratic leader is really after. he is simply trying to lock in witnesses. that is a strange request this country for a couple of reasons . but one thing, the 1999 version of senator schumer vocally opposed having witnesses even when the question was raised after hours of opening arguments on lawyers, hours of questions from senators and a failed motion to dismiss. he favors live witnesses so strongly this time before the senate even has articles. moreover, presumably it will be the house prosecutors job to ask for the witnesses they feel they need to make the case. so cwhy does the democratic leader in the senate want to predetermine the house impeachment witness request ? before the house has even impeached the president? might he, just might he be coordinating these questions people outside the senate ? her

schumer asked for four more witnesses, all of them trump insiders. his list includes the white house chief of staff, mick mulvaney, former security adviser john bolton and micharo blair and michael duffey round out the lists. we wait for the two leaders to try to negotiate the trial rules. >> i don't know what they'll say. maybe they'll say something exculpatory about president trump. no one, no one has given a reason why these shouldn't testify. if president trump is so certain that he did nothing wrong, what is he afraid of? what is he hiding when he says mulvaney or bolton or the other two witnesses shouldn't testify? >> schumer today also criticizing leader mcconnell saying it is, quote, totally out of line for the senate leader to promise to coordinate every trial decision with the trump white house. manu raju live for us on capitol hill. manu, republicans will have the vote, we think, responding to this proposal from schumer. >> reporter: there's not been an official reaction from the majority leader's office yet, mcconnell saying they'll have

what's significant to me is schumer is asking, for this reason, minority leader schumer knows if he doesn't lay down a marker now, niece are the witnesses we could call and we could complain about not being able to talk to if the senate trial drags on is a negotiating tactic to republicans essentially, if you start calling nelly, hunter biden and the fisa judge and you want to relitigate the entire mueller report we will ask to hear from these guys. >> one of the questions is whether or not there are any cracks among the republicans. it would only take four republicans about the fair process. we won't vote to convict but vote to get the 51 votes to insist on the witnesses chuck schumer has laid out here. that might be too hopeful for jeffrey's tastes but we did see something like that happen on the cavanaugh confirmation hearing but maybe with susan collins or mitt romney. >>> james comey now acknowledging sloppiness in the fbi's russia investigation. how should the bureau fix the problems? >>> and the safety of the boeing 737 max and the safety after two crashes. female anchor: it's 6:39,

or you just been hearing from chuck schumer there on capitol hill the u.s. is the u.s. senate's top democrat calling for current from the white house aides to testify president donald trump expected impeachment trial in the senate republicans of called for a short trial without any witnesses but chuck schumer saying he wants senior officials including a white house acting chief of any on the former national security adviser john bolton to be summoned. i haven't seen a single good argument about why these witnesses shouldn't testify with these documents be produced unless the president has something to hide and his supporters want that information hidden. the trial structure i outlined in my letter to leader mcconnell will ensure that all the relevant facts come out with dilatory action in india the prime minister narendra modi has called for calm after 5 days of violent protests at universities across the country over the citizenship amendment act modi tweeted that the protests are unfortunate and deeply distressing the protests show no sign of dying down instead they h

this is the opening offer we're hearing from chuck schumer. schumer and mitch mcconnell are expected to sit down to discuss these requests from senate democrats and discuss how to move forward with a trial. but again, unless schumer can somehow get four senate republicans to join him in backing these rules for impeachment trial, mitch mcconnell will be the one who decides how this impeachment trial goes forward. mcconnell has made clear that any decisions he's coordinating with the white house. the white house counsel, pat cipollone in particular. there's no indication that the white house would allow any of the witnesses to actually come forward. dave? christine? >> jeremy diamond, thank you. >>> a freshman democratic lawmaker announcing plans to switch parties and becoming republican. now, six members of jeff van drew's staff have quit. he opposed the impeachment of president trump. internal polling shows he is losing support among democrats in his district. switching parties would allow him to avoid a democratic party challenge. the democra

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 decide 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 mcconnell doesn't want to present witnesses and documents? the other thing, he said today, you're not impartial. senator schumer: the bottom line is, he can do all the name calling he wants. give an answer to why we shouldn't have witnesses and documents. and he hasn't given a good answer, plain and simple. and until he does, he'

mitch mcconnell is now blasting chuck schumer. they're going public with this fight over the fact that schumer went public after mcconnell went public on fox news. so this is a back and forth. we'll get into more of it later in the show. there is a question that mitch mcconnell has answered. it relates to something democrats were already accusing him of. the idea that he wouldn't even pretend to be impartial during the upcoming trial even though he will take an over to be impartial. >> this is a political process. this is not anything judicial about it. i would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the senate. i'm not impartial about this at all. >> he's not impartial and he's predicting partisanship. what is important there is the leg work that mitch mcconnell is doing. obviously if they have this all sewn up, he doesn't to have say much of anything. they can slam-dunk it. but there are signs that mitch mcconnell is still trying to figure out how he gets on 51 for pieces of this or all of it. when he says this wil

we're in charge of the senate, not pelosi or schumer. speaker pelosi's actions which are with holding the articles of impeachment are an affront to the constitution, the senate and denies president trump his day in court. what is your reaction to that? >> so let me say several things. first of all, the constitution does not say how quickly or when it has to be transmitted. it said that we impeach and the senate holds the trial. no time frame, no how the process. and two on the president clinton impeachment trial which was both houses republican at the time, the president -- president clinton was impeached on december 19th and the managers were not appointed until january 6th. so the time frame is no slower than what was during the president clinton impeachment. i think that the speaker, the senate imagineord leader and the minority leader are having discussions and they want to make sure there is a fair trial and let's see what happens when the senate returns. i don't think senator mcconnell will go to kentucky and not do anything about

chuck schumer issuing a new demand for documents after the release of what schumer called explosive emails raising questions about the timing of president trump's freeze of aid to ukraine and his demand for political dirt on joe biden. >>> also today republican leader mitch mcconnell said negotiations about the impeachment trial are at an impasse right now. but he won't rule out the possibility of calling witnesses. congressman dan kildee of michigan, a member of the house democratic leadership is standing by to take our questions and our constituents and analysts have full coverage of the day's top stories. let's begin with congressional reporter lauren fox. lauren, tell us, will democrats get the witnesses and the documents that they want? >> well, brianna, if republicans have anything to say about it, they won't be. majority leader mitch mcconnell making it very clear today that he and chuck schumer, the top democrat in the senate, are at an impasse when it comes to the negotiations over which documents to get and witnesses are part of the trial. they have yet to come to any kind of agr

>> senate majority leader chuck schumer would like to hear testimony from at least four people tied to the ukraine scandal. acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney, robert boyer, former national security john bolton and michael duffy associate director for national security at the office of management budget. but in 1999 during the clinton impeachment trial, schumer argued against having witnesses like monica lewinsky testified before the senate. >> it seems to me no good case has been made for witnesses. >> fox chad pergram asked why the change of heart? the witnesses in '99 had already been given, had already given grand jury testimony. we knew what they were to say. the four witnesses we have called have not been heard from. that is the difference, and it is a difference totally overwhelming. >> tonight schumer also suggesting start dates for the trial and giving ideas how it should be handled. political experts say public now could later lead to democrats accusing republicans of not

schumer. but now the same process that senator schumer thought was good enough for president clinton, he doesn't want to afford president trump. go figure. look, most people understand what the democratic leader is really after. he is simply trying to lock in live witnesses that is a strange request at this juncture for a couple of reasons. for one thing, the 1999 version of senator schumer vocally opposed having witnesses even when the question was raised after hours of opening arguments from the lawyers, hours of questions from senators, and a failed motion to dismiss. he favors live witnesses so strongly this time before the senate even has articles in hand. moreover, presumably it will be the house prosecutor's job to ask for the witnesses they feel they need to make the case. so why does the democratic leader here in the senate want to pre-determine the house's witness request for them before the house has even impeached the president? might he just might he be coordinating these question

schumer. >> yeah, that's correct. he's not going for the schumer proposal, which of course was to hear from four witnesses who had not come forward before the house impeachment inquiry because the white house had blocked their testimony. mick mulvaney, mick mulvaney, robert blair, as well as john bolton, the former national security adviser and a current top official at the office of management and budget, michael duffy. those are people -- some of them got subpoenas but the democrats decided not to go to court in the house to force their testimony because the democrats were concerned that it would just drag on for months and month in court, and it would ultimately be part of an effort in their view to obstruct congress, and they believe they had more than enough evidence to impeach the president on what they already had, so they made the calculation to move forward on impeachment. what the republicans are trying to do is use that now against the democrats in saying because you didn't go that route, we're not going to

we're in charge of the senate, not pelosi or schumer. what do you think that means? >> i have no clue. because they can't do anything about impeachment until it is sent over. they are already holding 275 bills on the desk. i don't know what more they could do to kill legislation. mitch said he is the grim reaper. they couldn't approve more judges. they've approved 150 judges and some are declared not qualified by the a.b.a., just pathetic individuals who they voted for unanimously and there is not much they could do. i could say that i think john mccain and john dingell are looking down on lindsey graham and shaking their heads. >> well, so you say that you think that speaker pelosi will send over the articles in the end. would you, though, support with holding the articles of impeachment indefinitely until you get what you say -- yush asking for in terms of procedure? >> i'll support speaker pelosi in whatever activity and action she takes. i think that the longer it stays open the more likely evidence will come forward that will have more grounds for impeachment po

the to 19 chuck schumer or 1999 chuck schumer. listen here. >> i think you need to go with senator schumer in 1999 for a simple reason. that's when he had an interest in congress working and doing its job and listed issues that voters at the time. absolutely right. why we are at right now these polls reflect that fact that voters don't want impeachment. it's not on their holiday wish list. >> the white house obviously doesn't want president trump to be branded with the scarlet i of impeachment and neither does he. but, when they look at the politics of this, dana, they actually think this is not going to be as bad for them as maybe they initially thought. dana? >> dana: all right. seizing the political moment as it is. john roberts from the white house. thank you. >> thank you. >> dana: up next, head back to the hill in addition to dealing with impeachment. lawmakers right now are trying to avoid a government shutdown, if you can believe that and ahead, former senate majority leader trent lott weighs in on it all. ♪ ♪ compared

>> well first on on the impartial, do you think chuck schumer is impartial? do you think -- griff: no. >> bernie sanders is impartial so let's quit the charade. this is a political exercise. a political exercise. all i'm asking of schumer is that we treat trump the same way we treated clinton. we had a procedure that was approved hundred hundred-0 schumer voted for it, to go through the opening arguments, to have a written question period, and then, based upon that, deciding what witnesses to call. we haven't ruled outwits. we've said let's handle this case just like we did with president clinton. fair is fair. griff: have you spoken recently with him? >> yeah, before we left town. look we're at an impasse. we can't do anything until the speaker sends the papers over so everybody enjoy the holidays. griff: [laughter] >> lisa: and senator we've heard a lot about the democrats running in districts that president trump won but you have republicans you're looking to protect like thom tillis, martha mcsally, and i mean, are they -- >> susan collins. >> lisa: are t

if they don't, schumer should press. if there's going to be a trial there has to be one that schumer gins up on his own. you need two hands to clap. you need a prosecution. the house should wait with appointing managers until mcconnell makes steps to make it a real trial. if the house simply caves in, if schumer, who has made an entirely reasonable set of proposals, every bit as reasonable as we've ever had, if schumer just caves to mcconnell, that's awful. seems to me we have to remember one important thing. after wednesday, if the senate doesn't hold a trial, then not only will trump be only the third president impeached, he will be the first president ever to have been found by the house to have committed high crimes and misdemeanors without an exoneration by the senate. he needs that exoneration. and you can't get an exoneration if you don't have a real trial. that's the dilemma in which the president finds himself. >> so now to this point about a real trial, right? so let's just say it happens and you get witnesses

also to see if there will be a response to chuck schumer's remarks. in the meantime, the house set to vote on articles of impeachment later this week, senate trial looming, who will democrats pick to argue their case, the names in the mix, that is next. and the white house press pool just went into the cabinet room, expected to hear from the president any moment. we will bring you those comments as they arrive. ♪ snce at near record low rates with no income verification, no appraisal and nothing out of pocket. in connemara. right! connemara it is! there's one gift the whole family can share this holiday season, their story. give the gift of discovery, with an ancestrydna kit. and my lack of impulse control,, give the gift of discovery, is about to become your problem. ahh no, come on. i saw you eating poop earlier. hey! my focus is on the road, and that's saving me cash with drivewise. who's the dummy now? whoof! whoof! so get allstate where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. sorry! he's a baby! >> ed: back to fox top story, waiting

but she will meet with chuck schumer. she will meet with her democratic lawmakers and see how they can work this last angle here before they do move it on. >> the power play is fascinating and trying to game out what's next. but pausing for a moment, this is a stain on the legacy of the 45th presidency of the united states. only the third president to be impeached. the banner headline on every newspaper in america this morning. last night at 8:34 p.m. eastern time, at exactly the moment the president was impeached by the house of representatives, he was on a stage in aptly named battle creek, michigan, saying -- there's the split-screen. saying, i don't feel like i'm being impeached. and the country is still remarkably split here, marshall, right? >> yeah. if you listen closely to what he said, it doesn't feel like we're being impeached, does it? >> the royal we. >> the white house is saying what the trump campaign has been saying, ladies and gentlemen, they're going against you, the voters, the people that put me here. a

peter, chuck schumer today announced that he wants to hear from mick mulvaney. he wants to hear from john bolton. he doesn't have the power here so what is he hoping to accomplish by putting out what is considered to be a reasonable ask but putting out to somebody like mitch mcconnell who's already said that this impeachment inquiry and the senate trial is going to go quickly and the president will be impeached? what's the strategy? >> senator schumer is laying down a marker in effect saying if you want to have a fair trial, if you want us to call it a fair trial, here are minimum requirements. now of course, he's not likely to persuade senator mcconnell. the question is whether he persuades some of the more moderate republicans who will probably still vote with president trump but want to at very least make sure that their constituents think that they have given this reasonable consideration, that they did not simply swipe it under the rug, that they had a real process. senator mcconnell of course doesn't want to have witnesses, he doesn't want these witnesses

jeff, let's talk about schumer. he talked about the four witnesses that democrats want to hear from. tell me why, given that the -- the senate majority leader has pretty much said that this is a foregone conclusion that the senate will not vote to remove the president of the united states. why is schumer pushing for these particular people to testify? >> yeah. it's a good question, ali. senator schumer in just the last hour told us, reporters, the reason why he's proposing these four witnesses, he says, is because these four have the best knowledge. the most direct knowledge of why it is that president trump withheld -- withheld aid to ukraine. so you've got michael duffy, a white house budget official. you've got robert blair, senior advisor to mick mulvaney. mick mulvaney himself, remember, who had that moment of candor back in october in the white house briefing room when he said, look, politics always infects foreign policy. and f don't li and if you don't like it, get over it. you've also got john bolton, who t

that's news tonight from senator schumer. but obviously this is live issue that democratic and republican side are both looking ahead to the holiday break, but it's clear these negotiations are hot and open from here on out. that's going to do it for us tonight. see you again tomorrow. now it's time for the "last word" with lawrence o'donnell. >> good evening, rachel. and in everything we've heard in the last 24 hours first nancy pelosi kind of shocking us last night by saying she's not going to immediately send the articles of impeachment to the senate, that opened this whole thing up, and then mitch mcconnell at 9:30 this morning and chuck schumer this morning on the senate floor and nancy pelosi -- the most important thing by far that we've learned in all of this is your interview with chuck schumer and what you just summarized there where he's telling us all of the democrats are with him. that is not an easy thing to achieve. >> right. yes. >> and he's got that, and that's very powerful in dealing with mitch mcconnell. he

schumer says he wants to call for witnesses who refused to speak to the house. they include white house chief of staff mick mulvaney, former national security advisor john bolton, mulvaney senior advisor robert blair, an office of manager and budget office michael duffy. earlier today, schumer explains why he wants to hear from those men. >> the four witnesses we've asked for, the documents we've asked for our directly dispositive on what the actual facts were. the house came up with a whole lot. but some of my republican colleague said these charges are serious but i'm not sure there's enough evidence. that's why these people should come. >> harris: chief congressional correspondent mike emanuel is live on capitol hill. >> you see the negotiation on the senate side of the capital and on the house side of the capital, they are working to round up support ahead of four votes on impeachment. to swing state democrats, swing district democrats say they are a "yes" on impeachment, they are jason crow of colorado and alyssa of michigan, judiciary and intelligence comm

schumer calls for top white house officials to appear as witnesses. twitter tantrum. president trump goes on a social media rampage, venting outrage at his looming impeachment and attacking those he sees as political foes, including house speaker nancy pelosi,

so senator schumer has history on his side in a sense. but on the other side, republicans, because they control the senate, and the senate has the sole power to impeach, this doe have the upper hand procedurally. so they could arguably shoot this case, they could dismiss this case out of hand, as soon as it gets to the senate. even though the chief justice does preside, the chief justice isn't presiding in a court, in the judicial system. ultimately, even though the justice presides, the senate ultimately has the sole power under the constitution to impeach, and that includes the sole power to set its own rules. >> what do you make of so many senators, including senator lindsey graham over the weekend, being so public about the fact that they have already made up their mind with regards to impeachment ahead of the senate trial? i remember back to susan collins, i believe it was, months ago or so, who said she didn't even want to comment on what was happening with regards to the impeachment inquiry because she feasibly be a juror in the se

senator schumer laying out his proposal for this. do we have any sense whether mitch mcconnell will accept that proposal? >> it's highly unlikely that he will. this is going to be the start of negotiation. of course as you mentioned, a momentous week in the house beginning with that wednesday vote, but there will be steps needed to be taken before we reach that historic vote on wednesday in which the president will be the third president in history to get impeached by the house. there are procedural steps that have taken place last night. the house judiciary committee released its report detailing its findings wrapping up everything that occurred during the two-month investigations and why the democrats believe the president should be impeached and removed from office tomorrow the rules committee will meet to discuss the floor debate on wednesday. in the hearing the chairman of the house judiciary committee, jerry nadler, and top republican on that committee, doug collins, expected to field sharp questions from fellow members on that

senator schumer: i am hopeful. leader mcconnell has said he wants to sit down and talk and i am very eager and willing to do that. as i said, we want to come up with a fair trial where the facts come out, without dilatory actions or making this into a circus of unrelated conspiracy theories of either the right or left. last question, back there with the beard. are republicans and perhaps even the president who have ideas for witnesses they might want to call. are you willing, if senator mcconnell were to say we will do your witnesses but you have to do hours -- senator schumer: i think the trial should be focused on the facts the house presented, not somenspiracy theories that established lawyer puts forward and someone says let's hear if the conspiracy theory is correct, it has no relevance to the facts here. we will stick to the facts, and if there are other witnesses who might have witnessed what happened, who might have a strong evidence on the facts the house presented, i certainly want to hear who they are. t

that was senator schumer in january of 1999. but now the same process, the senator schumer that was good orenough for president clinton,e doesn't want to afford president trump. go figure. look, most people understand what the democratic leaderc is really happening. instantly trying tooc login witnesses that is a strange request at this juncture for a couple of reasons. one think, in the 1999 version of senator schumer locally opposed to having witnesses even join the question was raised after hours of opening arguments from the lawyers. hours of questions from senators and a failed motion to dismiss. our county approved the judge said he favors live witnesses before the senate, before they even have articles. moreover, presumably it would be the house prosecutors job to ask for the witnesses they feel may need to make the case. so i does the democratic leader want to predetermined the house join his request to predetermine that. before the houses even impeaching they andt? president. just might he be coordinating these question

how did they respond to senator schumer, or did they? >> reporter: it was a pretty predictable response. the white house press secretary stephanie grisham said it was laughable, this request from chuck schumer for testimony. the white house going on to say this is a sign the democrats don't have a case to convict and remove the president from office. but one thing that the white house did not say is, yes, you can have your witnesses, which is why people like chuck schumer are saying, what does the white house have to hide? i will tell you, anderson, talking to my sources this evening, there is a view inside the white house that what chuck schumer did earlier today was essentially respond to the president and other republicans saying they want to see hunter biden. they want to see the whistle-blower testify as if chuck schumer is saying, listen, if you want to bring in your witnesses, we'll want to bring in our witnesses, which means it will be in the interest of both sides to have a speedier trial. >> and is there any sense that the pres

not a lot of witnesses opinion you see schumer and mcconnell debating that today. okay president trump let us put all your feelings in a diary entry, your burnbook. you sit here and dictate it. get your exclamation points out. burn nancy pelosi as much as you can. that is what was so striking to me about this. he really can't stand being impeached even as he says this is helping me. he hates this. he also can't stand nancy pelosi, talking about her not believing she's actually praying for him, talking about this idea that she's going about this in a solemn way and in here he's like essentially -- perhaps most insulting is your false display and that you hate me, nancy pelosi, he says of how she feels about him and we, of course, what she felt about the word of the used hatred there. >> he says the president is all about demonstrate not able to get over his win in 2016, pelosi said you view democracy as your enemy and then honestly this is almost a letter like kim jong-un wrote. the hyperbole is really strong. then quote you have so little respect for the american p

chuck schumer is saying that's not good enough. that would not constitute a fair trial. and he's also saying to republicans, if you believe what you've been saying these past two or three months that the process has been rushed, that it's not relied enough on first hand witnesses, he's saying to the republicans now is the time to settle the score. now is the time to bring forward the testimony from folks like mick mulvaney and john bolton. who by the way, through his attorney, bolton has said that he has more information to present that is material, that is relevant to this case. so before we can get to a senate trial, the house of course has to finish its work and we are now in the final stretch. so late last night you had the house judiciary committee issuing a report that sflaexpla articles of impeachment and it says president trump has realized the framers' worst nightmare, he has abused his power in soliciting and pressurering a foreign nation by sabotaging a political opponent and endorsing a debunked conspiracy theory promoted by our adversary, russia. here's what

>> i don't know what's going on between mcconnell and schumer. i would hope they would work together in order to, you know, develop the rules. if they don't i guess mcconnell is going to do whatever he wants to do. the articles are going to be transmitted. >> and you are confident if that? you are confident these articles will be transmited? >> absolutely. absolutely. i just think too much is being made of this. the speaker wants to make sure they understand what's going on. we have to identify our managers to what the rules are and who will be the best to represent us. that work has to be done. the business about it being some strategy to leverage and all, that's just kind of like, you know, being made up in order to make it more interesting for some people. i think that we're certainly not, you know, developing some strategy to delay transmittal thinking that we're going to leverage something. >> okay. i think fair to say it's interesting regardless. maxine waters joining us on this historic morning after donald trump has been formally impeache

house democrats laid out their impeachment case against president trump senate minority leader chuck schumer is asking to hear from 4 key witnesses who could offer a firsthand insight into the president's delay in getting military money to ukraine. >>justin jessica schneider brings us up to date. >>conducting an impeachment trial in the senate is an enormously weighty and solemn responsibility. >>the tables are turning as the senate trial looms while republicans will run things democrats today trying to push their proposal for what the trial would look like to engage a trial without the facts coming out that is to engage in a cover-up which minority leader chuck schumer hopes will gain republican support do they want a fair honest trial that examines all the facts. where they do they want a trial that doesn't let the facts come out the trials have witnesses. that's what trials are all about in a letter to majority leader mitch mcconnell schumer called for subpoenas to be issued for 4 witnesses who have direct knowledge of the ukraine affair acting chief of staff mick mulvaney his deputy rob

what chuck schumer is trying to do is the same thing. i don't understand why your side wouldn't want a few witnesses, the first time in history of this republic. there have been two other trials. >> would you be okay with hunter biden and adam schiff -- >> i think that backfires for republicans but i come down on the side of the constitution, yes i would be. because i think that the american people benefit when we have witnesses and -- >> can you make that deal? they give you hunter -- would you agree to the rest? >> it's not up to me but donald trump is unclear if this does proceed to a full and robust trial he thinks bring it on because the american people will see the truth that there is no evidence against him. there is absolutely evidence against hunter biden and joe biden and i don't think democrats -- >> i don't get this. mitch mcconnell has said he is in lockstep with the president and the president wants to call witnesses. there is a huge debate in the republican caucus, you can't get your strategies straight. >> it just hasn't

schumer also raises the need for witnesses to appear in the trial. it's another point of contention this afternoon. speaker nancy pelosi holding onto the articles passed by the house in order to ensure a fair trial. but senate majority leader mitch mcconnell seems like he's trying to call her bluff. >> first things first. are you surprised you haven't been handed the two impeachment articles from the speaker? >> yeah. i mean, believe it or not, it has to be physically brought over to the senate. and we can't go forward until the speaker does that. she's apparently trying to tell us how to run the trial. you know, i'm not anxious to have this trial. so if she wants to hold onto the papers, go right ahead. >> as if to prove the points why democrats are so keen to get documents and witnesses, and perhaps why republicans seem so loathed to provide them, considering what we learned just this weekend. previously secret emails between the white house budget office and the pentagon reveal a request to withhold funds to ukraine came about 90 minutes after pre

chuck schumer, also attacking hillary and bill clinton. but the most appalling comments made by president trump tonight, aimed at debbie dingell of michigan, at the death of her husband, former congressman, john dingell, the longest serving congress member until his death. listen to what president trump said. >> they have this dingell. dingell, from michigan. you ever hear from michigan. debbie dingell. that's a beauty. she calls me up eight months ago. her husband was there a long time. but i didn't give him the "b" treatment. i didn't give him the "c" or the "d." i gave him the a-plus treatment. take down the flags. why are you taking them down? for excongressman dingell. rotunda, everything. i don't want anything for it. i don't need anything for anything. she calls me up. it's the nicest thing that's ever happened. thank you so much. john would be thrilled. he's looking down. i said, that's okay. don't worry about it. maybe he's looking up. i don't know. i don't know. maybe. maybe. >> reporter: the president taking congresswoman dingel

schumer and mcconnell are at an impasse, but they are keeping their options open. and third, if there is no down vote of the senate. right now 53 out of the 150 are republicans, so democrats need four votes to get their way on witnesses and evidence at the trial. >> and another viewer pointing out that we saw an internal email from office of mfgt aof m and budget official michael duffey that showed that the efforts to halt the money to ukraine happened ju90 minutes after the phone call. and they want to know will we ever see other documents that they have withheld. >> i think that we will, but the big question is when. let's remember, house democrats served 71 subpoenas and information requests and got zero. not a single document back, the white house blocked them all. and that is what the second article of impeachment is, for obstruction of congress. and so how then could we see these documents? well, a couple ways. first of all, what we call the foia lawsuit, that is a lawsuit filed by the media or private organizations or citizens to try to get documents from th

in 1999 that chuck schumer was not speaking like a constitutionlist. that's the way they should be speaking now. >> olivia, how much does this hurt democrats and their approach leading into the senate trial? >> it's certainly going to be weaponized by republicans saying, hey, look, you want us -- this to be a fair trial, but look what schumer said. but i think it's also, democrats are going to move past it in this -- there's going to be a new thing being thrown back and forth by the time that the senate and the house are back in session. and hopefully they can decide what -- where to go next. >> i have asked this of other guests, tim, but you of course have the expertise here. i'm wondering comparing the impeachment process so far to that which we saw in the 1990s with president clinton, how do they compare or contrast? >> first, let's keep in mind that it was partisan back then. we do talk about the hyper partisanship of today, it's true, it exists. but let's not be naive. these are always occurring in partisan times. but one big difference this time

critics signing schumer's own words call him a hypocrite tonight. any minute we go back to the origins of it all. fired fbi director james comey finally admits sloppiness and some wrongdoing in the fisa application on trump campaign associate. what more will we learn from the durham come officially a criminal investigation? standby for a preview. fox team coverage, trace gallagher has more on the dramatic town hall across the country, but we began with correspondent mike meredith with brand-new impeachment. hey, mark. >> good evening, she and aunt the house judiciary committee accuses trump of bribery and criminal behavior over foreign aid to ukraine. this report comes days before the house expected to vote on two articles of impeachment, obstruction of congress and abuse of power. >> the house will be in order. house lawmakers to vote on two articles of impeachment later this week, but before the vote is cold, a handful of swing district democrats are picking sides. >> what the president did was wrong. >> i will be voting yes on obstruction. >> hou