>> what are you doing here? and the question, michael che, is how the hell are you going to put on a show and not have me in the show until now? i should have been in every damn skit from the top. i'm the one that made that eddie murphy a star. >> i'm brianna keilar. erin burnett front starts now. a stand-off, a top democrat will force votes to compel witnesses to testify in the trump impeachment trial. will republicanss blink. plus timing may be everything. new details about the freeze on ukraine aid. is there more you don't know. and a batting over a white house insider raising a me question, could the president be impeached again? let as go "outfront." good evening. i'm kate baldwin in for erin burnett. the senate minority leader

holding a last-minute press conference telling mitch mcconnell he will force senate votes on every witness and every document if the leaders can't strike a deal ahead of the senate trial. a trial stuck in limbo as house speaker nancy pelosi withholds the articles of impeachment while they negotiate the rules. senator schumer predicting today he'll have republicans on his side. >> we at the very minimum will require votes from all of 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. >> senator schumer wants witnessing like mick mulvaney and former national security adviser john bolton to testify. and now detailing that he wants documents that include internal emails and documents from the white house, the state

department, and the budget office related to trump's efforts with ukraine. schumer's warning just hours after senator mcconnell reiterated he's in no rush to hold the trial. making clear he thinks the ball is in speaker pelosi's court. >> seems to be a rather absurd position to say after you've im -- impeached the president you won't send over the articles mandated by the constitution. we are at an impasse. so everybody enjoy the holidays. >> but president trump is contradicting mcconnell tonight saying that he's ready for the trial to begin right away. tweeting this -- quote, what right does crazy pelosi, he said, have to hold the senate trial. none. he adds no more time should be wasted on impeachment. but one democratic lawmaker told me earlier his money is on speaker pelosi on this one. >> i think that people who have

bet against speaker pelosi throughout her career have ended up losing a lot of money. i certainly wouldn't bet against the speaker. >> lauren fox is "outfront" with us tonight. and lauren, this turned a stalemate to a war of words to, i don't know, some combination of both since they've gone on recess. so where does that leave the senate trial tonight? >> reporter: well, we have two weeks of recess before this would likely be resolved. which probably won't get fixed until january when lawmakers get back and could hash out the details of what will the senate trial will look like. now you're seeing lines in the sand being drawn and hearing from schumer that democrats want witnesses and that they might force votes on witnesses. what i will tell you, kate, is that the majority leader mitch mcconnell, a republican, has control of the senate. he is the one who will decide which votes come up and which witnesses get voted on. remember his argument all along is he wants the house managers to lay out their case and the white house to have a defense for the president and then perhaps they would vote on the

articles of impeachment. that doesn't necessarily include any votes for witnesses. so schumer really trying to dig in here, argue this is about fairness, this is about the american people seeing the full story. but it is unclear whether or not he's going to win any points with the majority leader that way. kate. >> great to see you, lauren, thank you so much. let's get more into this. "outfront" with me now steve cohen sitting on the houd judiciary committee. thank you for coming in. >> merry christmas to you. >> thank you so much. do you think senator schumer's warning here could actually work, about holding votes on every witness, holding votes on every set of documents, do you think that gets him think where? >> well, i think the issue needs to be brought to the public's attention that the leader in the senate, mitch mcconnell, said that they wanted to get a quick trial, no witnesses, no documents, and acquit the president. that it would not be an impartial trial and he'll take an oath to say he will be an

impartial juror. there were others like lindsey graham that said the same type of thing showing they won't be impartial. i think things will change. but if they don't, the senate will lose. the united states will lose. trump may get off. trump will get off. but the reputation of the senate and our system of government is at risk and i don't think mitch mcconnell will want to contribute to it but he very well might. >> one of the things that you want is witnesses to testify in the senate. that is very clear. senator mcconnell today -- >> that is true. >> -- seemed to leave the door open in talking about the clinton model of impeachment he would like to mirror this time around. let me play what you said on fox news. >> you listen to the opening arguments, you have a written question period, and at that point, in the clinton trial, we had a decision about which witnesses to call. we haven't ruled out witnesses.

we've said let's handle this case just like we did with president clinton, fair is fair. >> we haven't ruled out witnesses. what do you say to that? >> well, he hadn't ruled them out, but at the same time, he's very clever. and when jeff flake stood up and would have been the vote that would have stopped kavanaugh from getting on the supreme court, mcconnell got him to let the vote out of judiciary committee and go to the floor where flake didn't have the deciding vote and then flake caved and kavanaugh was confirmed. mcconnell engineered that and gave the impression they have a type of fairness and they didn't. so it is hard to take that idea, kind of like give me what i want and then i'll decide later what you want. that is not a very good deal for speaker pelosi. i have great confidence in speaker pelosi and how she's handling this and how she will

handle it. she is a master. i think she's the most phenomenal speaker of the house probably in the history of the united states. >> on speaker pelosi, mcconnell said today was that sooner or later speaker pelosi will have no choice but to send the articles of impeachment over. how is he wrong about that? >> well, he's not wrong, i guess politically because the pressure is there and speaker pelosi does not want this to go on for a long time. and make people not remember how democrats are protecting the protections we have in the aca for tokes with pre-existing conditions, how we're working to lower prescription drug prices and how we are trying to clean up the swamp in washington and all of the other legislative ajendsas we've done, minimum wage and climate control, gun -- sensible gun laws, we want to get to the bills. 275 bipartisan passed bills are on mcconnell's desk and he hasn't brought them to a vote. >> right. but what does that have to do --

speak to this. and speaker pelosi wants the senate trielg -- trial to happen and in the end she'll have to send it over and in the end she'll have to blink and you're saying he's not wrong. >> i think she'll eventually want to get around to that but at the same time she wants to get some assurance there will be a fair trial otherwise it is a slam and a sham trial doesn't really in any way vindicate or acquit the president and it certainly does a disjustice to our system of government and will make patrick leahy in the times wrote about the act to protect the senate integrity. >> senator lindsey graham is speaking out tonight. he's actually kind of putting out there a different kind of threat, if you've got schumer threatening votes, you have lindsey graham tweeting that if spv -- if speaker pelosi refused to sent over the articles, quote, senate republicans should take matters into our own hands. 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 possibly to come. are are more supportive information and that puts more pressure on the republicans. the public is not a fool. when the public sees like today that a document was released that said that the duffey, the omb deputy director or whatever his position is, within an hour, an hour and a half of the phone call with zelensky sent a message to say hold up on the military aid, and then he sent a note and said but keep this on the down low. he didn't use those terms but he said on a need to know basis. we don't want anybody to know. you really can't take what the actions of the president and the administration and see it in any other way than this was something done wrong. if they try to do something write and trying to fight corruption, trump would have tweeted it 20 times -- within an

hour, he kept it on the down low. >> not on the down low any more and if any other documents are revealed or brought to light what they will reveal. congressman, thank you for coming in. appreciate your time. on that note, newly revealed details about the timing of the freeze on ukraine aid. is it a game changer. and plus house democrats are taking action that could pave the way to impeaching president trump again. and president trump promotes a key figure in the ukraine investigation days after he refuses to testify in the impeachment trial. we have the latest. hello mom. amanda's mom's appointment just got rescheduled - for today. amanda needs right at home. our customized care plans provide as much - or as little help - as her mom requires. whether it's a ride to the doctor or help around the house. oh, of course!

tom, i am really sorry. i've gotta go. look, call right at home. get the right care. right at home. up here at the dewar's distillery, all our whiskies are aged, blended and aged again. it's the reason our whisky is so extraordinarily smooth. dewar's. double aged for extra smoothness. [sneezing] ♪ you don't want to cancel your plans. [sneezing] cancel your cold.

the 1-pill power of advil multi-symptom cold & flu knocks out your worst symptoms. cancel your cold, not your plans. advil multi-symptom cold & flu.

tonight 90 minutes, that is

amount of time between president trump's call with the ukrainian president where he asked for an investigation into the bidens and asking the white house budget office to seize $400 and what does this timeline mean. >> it means it took 90 minutes for the news to make its way to a trump political appointee at the office of management and budget that this money couldn't go out of the door and this guys's name is mike duffy, one of the witnesses that chuck schumer wants to testify in the senate trial and sent an email to elect officials at omb and the pentagon saying freeze this money but he also went a step further and acknowledged it was a sensitive request and encourageern on the email chain to keep it closely held, an indication that he knew that this could be problematic or at least raise questions among the other folks in the agencies. >> so sarah, what is the white house saying about this? >> well, the administration has

said it is reckless to tie this email and this decision to freeze the money with this phone call. even though they happened in such a tight time framement t ad an omb official was telling officials july 18th the plan was to freeze the money but it is telling that none of the actual decisions, the actual moves, the official moves to freeze the funds happened until after president trump spoke with president zelensky. >> that seems an important point. good to see you, sarah. joe lockhart, and career flnks and law professor cory breshner. thanks for being here. so you see this timeline, and you say what? >> you say for schumer and pelosi, their christmas came a little early. >> really? >> because the fact that this one document shows that there were people involved like duffey and others who had to tell him

to do this makes the case for why you need witnesses. why you need documents. i think this had begun to move away from the consciousness of the american people and this one document alone said, boy, i want to know more and see the other documents and most importantly i want to see who told duffy to do it. >> that is not clear. in this document. >> that is not clear. a lot was redacted and you need to have duffey come raise his right hand and say here is what happened. >> let me play what chuck schumer said about this today. listen to this. >> this email is explosive. a top administration official, one that we requested, is saying stop the aid, 91 minutes after trump called zelensky and said keep it hush-hush. what more do you need to request a witness? >> so schumer said that but if -- in the in the real sense with the senate trial just

around the corner, does this give democrats more leverage? joe thinks yes. >> well the aim of the game for democrats has been corroboration. they want to bring certain elements of the story to light. we did know before that duffey was involved in the decision and he was the name on the order on july 25th and the other government officials had been told a week earlier and some knew that the state department and military funding had be held up before that. but this puts a real hard document, a real sharp focused light on this episode. which was one of the gasp episodes during that whole march of witnesses through the house intelligence committee impeachment probe. they are missing those moments right now. they need to revive them so having this document coming out gives them a more focus having 91 minutes after the phone call ended creates and heightened the drama and puts it back in the consciousness as the senators and the tug-of-war between nancy pelosi and mitch mcconnell to try to fight this out as they try to argue about whether these

individuals that didn't show up for the house probe should have to show up for the senate probe and this revives all of that and brings that up to the forward. >> puts a spotlight back on it. the names sound familiar but then this is reminding folks of why they are -- why they are important and why they are relevant and folks keep talking about them. quite frankly, cory, lawmakers and all of us, we're seeing this email, we're seeing this document and learning about this because of a freedom of information act request not because the white house was willingly handing anything over. because they were forced to. how do you think this fits into the impeachment case that is already been built. >> i think we had the smoking gun from the beginning in the readout of the phone call and it was clear the president tried to solicit intervention in our election but what this is is going beyond a reasonable doubt. you don't need to show that the president committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt in impeachment. it is a different standard. we're talking about high crimes and misdemeanors. and the stakes are very different than in a criminal

trial. buttine if this was a criminal trial, we have more than enough evidence to convict. and all of this is going is reinforcing what we knew from the beginning that the president tried to make a trade with the president of the ukraine to influence our elections in return for aid, military aid and a meeting. >> so significance is the constitutional expert and i want to highlight one part of the email. he is the guy who oversees national security aid. he wrote this in part in the email on the holdup, quote, given the sensitive thature of the request i appreciate your keeping that information closely held to nose who need to know to execute direction. you've been on the inside. when folks are writing an email like this, i'm just curious as to what are are they saying? >> well -- >> what is it -- does this leave room for interpretation because what you hear from the white house today in response is that it is reckless to make the tie

between the money and the phone call with this 90 minutes. >> the way for the white house to back up the reckless charge would be to show us all of the emails. show us the unredacted emails and show us the whole evidence chain. they are not doing that because it is incredibly incriminating for them. what we're finding out here is we know that the president committed or in my view a high crime and misdemeanor. what we don't know is how deep the conspiracy was, we don't know who else was involved. we don't know who else has to be held accountable for this. this document is signifying what is there and what they are hiding and anyone worth their salt in knowing how to do communications at this point, if there was nothing else there, would put it all out. and they would put it all out tomorrow afternoon on christmas eve and we would all forget about it. they hold their -- they are holding it back not to protect some sort of presidential privilege because there is way

more incriminating evidence in here and that is why they're holding it back. >> i think an important note in this is that this is all happening as congress is away. they are away for -- for two weeks. you can't say this happens in a vacuum because it is happening in reality. though they are not in the capitol. does that change -- does that change how this impacts things going forward because i thought this was very interesting seeing mcconnell speak out this morning and chuck schumer speak out again today. and i am curious as to what this intervening two-week period means when information like this is coming out. if it is not damning, it is interesting and it is new documentation for folks to be able to actually put in their hands. >> right. anything new that you could put on this fire tends to be helpful if you are trying to sway the debate one way or another and the central debate now is how is this trial to go forward. nancy pelosi just has this bit of not having the articles over yet as leverage and eventually

she'll have to do that but in the two-week period in which nothing will concretely happen in the senate any way, each piece of evidence helps her case. she needs to convince the public and more than two republican senators there is something to be looked at here and there are mitt romney and susan collins who couldn't vote to push ahead a trial that looks like it is preordained and wasn't fair. nobody has yet agreed on what the definition is of a pair trial. >> this is very key. >> this is very different for both sides but the president is a potential element here because he tends to tweet. he doesn't agree with his lawyers or with mitch mcconnell about having no witnesses. clearly he wants the hunter biden and not the mick mulvaney or the mike duffeys but they won't go for one side of the column of the witnesses that could potentially be brought forward. and if more of these pieces of corroborating evidence do come up it puts pressure on them to

vote to let certain witnesses come forward. >> let the process happen no matter what the outcome is going to be in the eventual end. this reminds me of one thing that i waned to ask you. lindsey graham, this tweet that he just put out that said if pelosi refuses to send the articles over, we should take -- the senate should -- republicans should take matter news their own hands, does that mean something to you. >> lindsey graham and senate mcconnell have been reckless in saying they are not going to be impartial and be political and i think we have to remember it is really a threat to the whole process what graham and mcconnell are saying. >> can they move ahead? >> they're going to take a oath and reconvene as a new body and justice roberts is there and he'll force them to take the oath and it is an oath of impartiality and if they start to betray that, they might try it but we have to call them out. they're violating the constitution's demand that they engage in an impartial trial and there are questions about where the limits are but they are way beyond them. when they tell you i'm not going

to be impartial, that is how we know. >> there is two weeks until they get back and that is a lifetime in terms of the things that might be happening in the intervening period. thank you, guys. "outfront" next, the battle over a key white house insider testimony. how worried should the president be and a white house insider on the ukraine call got a promotion days after the democrats requested that he testify. this holiday season choose the longest lasting aa battery... (music) energizer ultimate lithium backed by science. matched by no one. when youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one.

for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com 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 hit. you can give help and hope to those in need.

tonight house democrats saying their open to impeaching president trump again. the house council pushing for testimony from don mcgahn in federal court. and in a filing today arguing

his testimony critical as it could lead to new articles of impeachment as the justice department is arguing the court should stay out of the fight as impeachment is already going on. shimon prokupecz is "outfront" with with much more. what is this all about? >> it is about precedent. for congress, this is all about being able to get information that they believe they are entitled to and, in fact, some federal judges and sms why this is now in the appeals process, have sided with congress saying that the president is not immune from the scrutiny that members of congress have put now that he's under because of the investigations in congress. so there are two things going on here. the first thing is that the judiciary committee, which has been looking into the entire russia investigation, also the obstruction of justice and the extension of the mueller investigation, they still want the don mcgahn testimony. 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 don't know if that is going to happen. but certainly the lawyers for

congress are suggesting that that could possibly happen. >> shimon, good to see you. thank you so much. everyone is back with me. cory, i don't know, heads are going to fall off with mort articles of impeachment coming forward. but before that happens, what do you think of this? that the house is saying they need mcgahn's testimony because it could lead to new information that could lead to more articles of impeachment. really? >> look, i think we absolutely need another article of impeachment on obstruction of justice. mr. mueller outlined ten instances of obstruction of justice and why he didn't file criminal charges because there are memos that say, wrongly in my opinion, you can't indict a sitting president but hamilton and others who supported that idea of immunity was a controversial idea even at the founding. people disagreed with it. his point was that the reason for the immunity is that impeachment has to come first. that it is a constitutional obligation to remove a criminal president so that he or she then could be tried after removal

from office and the assumption is of course that would happen. to me mind it is not only that they can do. they're obligated to do it. because given the doj policy, this is the only way to hold the president account for obstruction of justice and ten instances outlined including one involving mcgahn. >> fascinating. when it comes to the -- what is happening in court, there is like two things that are running into each other in conflict right now. the white house saying on one hand that democrats should have taken their case to the courts first. before they move through the impeachment process. but now you also have the administration saying that the courts can't do anything and can't get involved because impeachment is going on -- already going on. this seems to feel a lot like you can't have it both ways. >> well if you want to layer on one more bit of hypocrisy the white house argued this year that the congress wasn't serious because they weren't impeaching the president. now they're arguing that you can't have the material because congress is impeaching the president. i think there is one other element of this that is on nancy

pelosi's mind. mcgahn is a stalking horse for mick mulvaney and don mcgahn has no excuse thought to go in. if he gets enough of his book written, which he's trying to do, he's ready to testify. he wants to promote that book and be a star again in the country. but the mcgahn ruling, i think, would give him that opening and my guess is mick mulvaney, who know nows he'll be fired, the same. so again the -- i don't think we're going to see a second impeachment on obstruction, whether we should or shouldn't legally. but i think this is a stalking horse to get at other witnesses. >> so go ahead. >> i was going to say more bolton because he's not currently in the administration. this is an open question even during the course of the impeachment inquiry. would the rulings come in time to open the flood gates for the other people like bolton and charles kupperman but if we're talking about what cory's point

is that half of the house democrats are making that we should be doing obstruction of justice and this is a debate and they made a decision not to because they thought they didn't have a absolute silver bullet legal argument to make that case and they stuck with abuse of power and obstruction of congress and punched on impeachment if they go back to that and they're kind of bringing in a way a potentially stronger and i want to put that in quotes because i want to take a side, but the gop is saying abuse of power and obstruction and you couldn't bring those in courts. they didn't feel like they could go there on round and they wanted to keep it tight on ukraine. if they go there they've taken the punch out of the punch in making it the second thing they do that much closer to november. >> and i think -- but the end game for the democrats are bolton and mulvaney to get them on the record under oath. >> and you heard again and again today that mitch mcconnell wants to -- he said it many times before, but i heard it again today that mitch mcconnell wants

the process to play out with -- ala the clinton impeachment model. he also, in saying that, he seemed to be leaving the door open to allowing witnesses. listen to this. >> we haven't ruled out witnesses. we've said let's handle this case just like we did with president clinton. fair is fair. >> fair is fair. do you think he's really open to -- >> i think having mitch mcconnell talk about fairness, if he does that on the floor, he's going to hear two words over and over again, america garland. he's broken through many senate norms but he's grossly miss characterizing the comparison between the clinton trial and the potential trump trooil. first and most importantly everyone who needed to testify, testified under oath including the president and including the president who gave a blood sample. there was no new information to gather. we still haven't scratched the

surface here of the firsthand knowledge. secondly, when he says oh, well we'll talk about what is -- there was an agreement in advance and this is how they got to 100-0 to open the trial and do this in two phases but the agreement was not will we have witnesses, the agreement was we'll vote on which witnesses. and that he voted on and agreed on three witnesses and who testified on camera, on the record, didn't come to the floor, mcconnell is not making that commitment. in fact, mcconnell is telling other senators they'll be no witnesses. >> but the question is do they agree with him? do the other senators -- >> yeah. >> and that is where i don't know if you call it leverage and that is where chuck schumer gets them to take the votes. every senator does still have a vote. especially when it comes to this. thanks so much. "outfront" next, are there democrats who will side with president trump in a senate impeachment trial? a real question tonight.

listen. >> what i really want to see, though, is the full in the gaps. there are gaps. >> there are gaps. i'll ask one of the jurors what he thinks. and biden and buttigieg going after the same voters. who will they choose? >> what does a guy do? i don't know. i'm really kind of torn a little bit. this is the epson ecotank color printer. no more buying cartridges. big ink tanks. lots of ink. print about... this many pages. the epson ecotank. just fill and chill. you suryes.out this? [ suspensful music playing ] no! we need to keep moving. the whole things coming down. come on! i can't see.

i can't see! you need to trust me. jump! apps except work.rywhere... why is that? is it because people love filling out forms? maybe they like checking with their supervisor to see how much vacation time they have. or sending corporate their expense reports. i'll let you in on a little secret. they don't. by empowering employees to manage their own tasks, paycom frees you to focus on the business of business. ♪ music

♪ ♪ well i'm standing here, looking at you, what do i see? ♪ there's a booking for every resolution . book yours at booking.com

breaking news. the white house official, the democrats want to question in president's senate impeachment trial just got a promotion. robert blair, deputy to acting chief of staff mick mulvaney, he will lead now the administration's global telecommunications policy. the timing of it getting a lot of attention tonight. let's go front now with bob case cy of pennsylvania. thank you for coming in. >> great to be you with, kate, thank you. >> i appreciate it. so president trump giving robert blair a promotion and this is days after senate democrats, according to schumer, put out this request for him to be a witness in the senate trial. what do you make of it? >> well, kate, i think what year seeing here is that the president's refusal to acknowledge what has just happened. he's been impeached by the house of representatives and facing a trial in the senate and that trial is going to be an

opportunity to hear a range of evidence not only what i'm holding here which is one of the reports from the house, the house intelligence report, but also the report by the house judiciary committee as well as other evidence. i think we should have both witnesses that senators can hear from as well as relevant documents. but it seems that president doesn't quite understand where we are. i would hope -- i would hope that his attitude going into the senate would be one of openness and a willingness to put all of the evidence on the table. no other words, if the phone call with the ukrainian president was perfect, if there was nothing wrong there, then why don't we have every piece of evidence on the table for the senate to make a determination and a trial about guilt or innocence. >> so when it comes to the evidence to be presented at trial, one of your colleagues was asked about the case for impeachment just yesterday and he appeared to leave the door

open to joining republicans in voting to acquit president trump. listen and let me play doug jones, what he said yesterday. >> i'm trying to see if the dots get connected, to if that is the case, then i think it is a serious matter and i think it is an impeachable matter but if those dots aren't connected and other explanations consistent with innocence i'll go that way too. but what i really want to see is to fill in the gaps. there are gaps. >> do you think senator jones is leaving the door open there to acquitting the president? >> well, kate, all i can say is the way i'm approaching this trial. every senator has to make a determination about how you prepare and how you approach it. what i'm doing right now is going through this report that i just held up, the house intelligence committee report, this is about 200 pages of text and about 1400 footnotes. not that you would read every single foot note but the text is

long. the judiciary committee report is even longer. so number one, i'm going to do that preparation. also do preparation by way of reading about the standard of proof. reading about the determinations we have to make in an impeachment trial. reading the history. but then considering just the broad scope of this. the reporting that we've already seen from public sources when the witnesses were testifying all under oath by the way, it seems like everyone testifying against the interest of the president have been under oath, all of those claiming he did nothing wrong have not been under oath. that is interesting. but i thought it was a textbook case of aabuse of power. as soon as i read the transcript or the memorandum, the summary of the phone call, that frames it for me. but we still -- as jurors -- have to be impartial so that means you've got to review all of the evidence. i think the evidence would be greatly supplemented by or

amplified by further testimonial evidence by witnesses and also by evidence in the form of documents and that is what senate minority leader chuck schumer is proposing and i think it is a reasonable request. i hope that leader mcconnell will embrace it. >> and there is time left since everyone is away on holiday to see that happen. so let's wait and see on that. while i have, i do want to ask you about north korea. more specifically about what trump's former national security adviser john bolton is saying, telling axios the following, that the idea that we are somehow exerting maximum pressure on north korea is just unfortunately thought true. that is what he said in an interview with axos. when you hear that coming from john bolton, what do you say about u.s. policy toward north korea tonight? >> well, john bolton was in the middle of this security policy.

so he speaks from firsthand information. i would add that he's one of the people we should hear from in the impeachment trial because he also is firsthand information about the security matters there. but with regard to north korea, i think the problem here is the president doesn't seem to have a strategy. a strategy that's calculated to lead to ultimately denuclearization of the entire korean peninsula. that is a big goal. to get to that goal you have to outline a strategy for your administration and for the american people, and empower diplomats to do the hard work of negotiation, but we've got to make sure that there is a strategy and the president should make that clear to the president -- make that clear to the people of the united states as well as the world. >> well john bolton does not think the president is meaning what he says when it comes to north korea policy now. senator, thank you for coming in. >> thank you. up front next, tough choice, are democratic voters torn now

between experience and youth? >> a terrific decision facing me. and it won't be made lightly. >> and what is it with president trump and windmills? >> i never understood wind -- and i know windmills very much. i'm studied it better than anybody. i know it is very expensive. (air pump motors) (lamp crashes) ♪music it's the final days of the wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment.

up here at the dewar's distillery, all our whiskies are aged, blended and aged again.

it's the reason our whisky is so extraordinarily smooth. dewar's. double aged for extra smoothness. are critical skills for scientists at 3m. one of the products i helped develop was a softer, more secure diaper closure. as a mom, i knew it had to work. there were babies involved... and they weren't saying much. i envisioned what it's like for babies to have diapers around them. that's what we do at 3m, we listen to people, even those who don't have a voice.

at the end of the day, we are people helping people. 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 hit. you can give help and hope to those in need. south bend mayor pete

buttigieg campaigning in iowa today as he and joe biden find themselves in a fight for the very same voters. jeff zeleny is "out front." >> reporter: when pete buttigieg came, sherry was sitting there in the front row. as he left she gave am high five. >> i want to high five you again. >> thank you, pete. >> reporter: and smiled with satisfaction. so do you walk away from here committed or do you want to go see some of the others first? >> well, joe biden is also if town tonight. i'm financial to see what he has to say. >> reporter: two hours later she and her sister were there for and up-close look at joe biden. she admires and values biden's experience. >> he's been there. so i feel good about that i'm really happy about that. i like him. >> reporter: but you loved mayor pete? >> i loved mayor pete. what does a guy do? i don't know. i'm really kind of torn a little bit. i got to think about it and sleep on it.

i don't know yet. >> reporter: just before christmas, democrats are still shopping for presidential hopefuls in iowa. biden and buttigieg are going after the same voters, literally, which brought both of them sunday to the town of perry about 45 minutes outside des moines. for democrats searching for a more moderate candidate, the choice is stark. the 37-year-old mayor of south bend, indiana, delivering an optimistic message. >> even in this dark and strange time, i have never been filled with more hope. >> reporter: or a former vice president who offers the dark warning of the consequences of president trump winning a second term. >> if we give him another four years, i believe he will permanently alter the character of the country at least for several generations. >> reporter: pat mcpherson is torngs applauding pete bute greg's intellect. >> i think he might be the one. >> reporter: later impressed by biden's grasp on the world. >> reporter: a few hours ago you told me you were going to sign on the dotted line for buttigieg. now you want to think longer.

>> i probably will go for mayor pete. there's just so much to be said for being able to hit the ground running on day one and it's going to be a terrible task. >> reporter: while he's trailing buttigieg in repeat poll, biden is showing skills from a lifetime in politics also come in handy. to people of all ages. >> can i go ahead? >> got it. oka okay. >> that may be the most intelligent thing you hear all night. >> reporter: he lacks the charisma of buttigieg. in this moment, seeing him up close, she changed her mind. >> i made that comment he's a little old. i'm in good shape. he looks like he's in dynamic shape. >> reporter: so you have a decision facing you. >> i have a terrific decision facing me. and it won't be made lightly. >> reporter: for these voters, at least, looking for a moderate candidate, they're legitimately torn over buttigieg's excitement

and biden's experience. the central question is electability. they have six weeks to decide that. kate. >> jeff, thank you so much. they may not decide until that day. "out front" is up next. why wind turbines have trumps head spinning? >> you want to see a bird graveyard, you go, take a look. a bird graveyard, go under a wind mill some day. we made usaa insurance for members like kate. a former army medic, made of the flexibility to handle whatever monday has in store and tackle four things at once.

so when her car got hit, she didn't worry. she simply filed a claim on her usaa app and said... i got this. usaa insurance is made the way kate needs it - easy. she can even pick her payment plan so it's easy on her budget and her life. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa (kickstart my heart by motley crue)) (truck honks) (wheels screeching) (clapping) (sound of can hitting bag and bowl) (clapping) always there in crunch time.

what's on the president's mind these days? wirnd t wind turbines. >> we have an economy based on wind. i never understood wind. i know wind mills very much. i've studied it very much. it's very expensive. you want to see a bird graveyard, go take a look. go under a windmill some day, will you see more birds than you've ever seen ever in your life. >> ever. an issue he can't seem to shake. here's jeanie moos. >> reporter: when it comes to wind mill, president trump loves to imstate them. >> rrr. i never heard a windmill before. but i'm pretty sure it doesn't sound like a cat in a dryer. rrrr. >> reporter: president trump insists on tilting at windmills donald coyote someone called him, without the depend e benefit of scientific facts.

>> they say the noise causes cancer. you tell me that one. >> reporter: this is a president that claims. >> i know wind interest mills very much. i've studied it more than everybody. nobody knows more about technology than me. i'm a professional technologist. >> a professional who prefers sharpee on his printed pages, a desk that has a no computer and a guy that struggles to get the speaker phone to speak. >> enrique, you can hook them up. a lot of people waiting. hello. you want to put that on this phone, please? hello. >> reporter: you know you'd think the president would be a fan of wind power. it's one of those tried and true technologies rooted int past. like some of his other favorites. >> they say it's medieval, a wall. so is a wheel. wheels work, walls work. there are some things you can't beat. >> reporter: and yet he keeps beating up on windmills. >> i seen the most beautiful

fields, farms, most gorgeous things you've ever seen and have you these ugly things going up. >> reporter: maybe the president has just had wit wind. jeanie moos, cnn, rrrr, new york. >> thank you so much. joining us, ac 360 starts now. 'tis the night before the night before and there is still plenty stirring. the president's personal lawyer for one. rudy guiliani's latest revelations have people talking especially his comments about a prominent jewish american, a holocaust survivor and there is also the house minority leader kevin mccarthy and what he is saying. debunked spying on the president's campaign. speaking of the president. he is talking, too. and hills words are really hitting the fan. >> i never understood wind. you know i know windmills very much. i've studied it better than anybody. it's very expensive. you know whay