>> well we had that. >> what a way to end a week, right? >> on this friday, a fox news alert. we are awaiting remarks from president trump after the house judiciary committee this morning approved both articles of impeachment against him on a straight party line vote. this sets up a vote in the fall democrat-lighthouse within days. jerry nadler laid out the committee's charges against the president. >> for the third time in a little over a century and a half, the house judiciary committee has voted articles of

impeachment against the president. for abuse of power, and obstruction of congress. the house will act expeditious expeditiously. >> harris: this is "outnumbered," i'm harris faulkner. here today, melissa francis, host of "kennedy on the fox business network, kennedy herself. fox news contributor marie harf. and also a fox news contributor, ari fleischer. we would say he's outnumbered but we are always glad to see him. a lot going on, we will have full reactions from everybody and just moments of today's historic developments, however, we want to start here, straight to our fox news senior capital producer, the last 40 minutes, the landscape has changed. >> yes, absolutely. what happened this morning in the judiciary committee, i'm going to run you through

historically what has happened with articles of impeachment being approved against the president in committee. not on the house floor but in committee. with andrew johnson in 1868, the committee on reconstruction, just after the civil war approved 11 articles, president richard nixon approved five. in 1998, there were four articles approved, that by the judiciary committee but only to go on the house floor and to call with president trump today in the judiciary committee paid in the past 40 minutes as you say, we have learned a little bit more about the road map. on tuesday they are going to take these articles of impeachment to the house rules committee. they set up how the debate will look, how much time will be allocated, if there will be any amendments to the articles considered. that is how they determine how to play the game each day, that will be a contentious hearing. they did not go to the rules

committee in 1998, they had more of a freewheeling debate that covered two days. we don't know exactly what the debate will look like but usually you have to go to the rules committee one day before you put something on the floor. it team and they will probably debate the articles of impeachment on the house floor on wednesday and thursday and if they actually approve the articles of impeachment on thursday that is december 19th. that's particularly interesting because it was december 19th 1998 when they up approved articles of impeachment against president trump. here's the thing to look for, swing district democrats. house speaker nancy pelosi was very specific, very narrow and only wanting to call articles of impeachment. they lost to carve outs on the floor in 1998. nancy pelosi does not like to lose votes on the house floor. she wanted this to be narrow and specific so she could maximize the number of democrats who

would vote for the articles of impeachment. it doesn't mean there will be defection, they can lose about 17 and still pass the articles of impeachment. there are two call questions we should ask right now. the first one is, who will the house managers be? after they approve articles of impeachment, the house of representatives has to approve a separate resolution, who will be the prosecutors. will it be adam schiff, jerry nadler, we don't know yet. the other thing i have to do, we don't know what the contours of the senate trial will be like. back to you. >> harris: thank you very much, talking about some of the democrats like new jersey congressman van drew who we know has been saying he might not vote for impeachment. what about that? 31 democrats in districts that president trump carried and in 20 of those 31 they were flipped for democrats. they are vulnerable, are they

not? >> potentially. we are in an environment where there is such a massive turnout on both sides. i don't know that this is going to move any needles. it's so hard to move needles in washington anyway, people are locked in. two democrats voted against the inquiry. if the democrats move any more than two, what have they accomplished? they are moving backwards. we already know they lost independence in the battleground states, now they had three, four, five defections. if they move backward, that's a problem for the democrats. >> harris: it's not so much that it wouldn't pass. >> ari: no, it is going to pass. >> harris: what is the meaning of what passes ahead of the senate probably blocking anyway. interesting. we have an opportunity right now, we've seen our republican congress woman on the house judiciary committee and had a lot to say and questions, so on

and so forth, partly center stage and all the talk yesterday, great to have you on the program today. i want to get your take on the tone and tenor of things in the house judiciary after a very long night and articles today. >> you know, it's just really sad day. whether you are a democrat or republican i think we can all agree that this is a sad day for america. i think this process has been a sham from the start and if i was a betting woman i would've bet back in january of this year when the democrats took control of the house that they were going to impeach the president of the united states and sure enough, they did it. they didn't even have a crime, they couldn't even name a crime the president did and that's why they have these two very vague articles of impeachment and it really, really sets the bar low for future articles of impeachment so just about anybody for any reason can be impeached in the future.

it is a sad day. it's a travesty, quite frankly. >> melissa: congresswoman, it's melissa francis. is there a sense that anyone on either side is going to cross party lines? do you hear about democrats that are going to vote no with republicans or have you heard of any republicans who are crossing the other way? >> i don't think there's going to be one single republican votes for impeachment and i do think we are going to get democrats to vote with republicans against impeachment. it's just a matter of how many and we won't know until the vote actually takes place. i feel kind of bad for the democrat members, they were elected in districts that trump won. so nancy pelosi it is really putting these members on the line. they are really risking that they are going to lose the majority and i think they are. i think next to election, the american people are going to speak, they are going to lose seats and i believe republicans will be back in control in the

u.s. house of representatives. >> harris: i'm looking at a list of those democrats who are vulnerable, one of them, van drew from the southern part of new jersey who we know voted on the inquiry to begin with, have you had a discussion with any of those democrats to see where they are? i know the white house has reached out to some of them. >> what's interesting is not of them have told me, i'm going to vote know about what they have said is indications when i go up on the florida vote, i say oh, man, this impeachment stuff is really something and some of them, it's really interesting, they'd go "i wish we'd rather be talking about the budget" are things like that. i don't think that some of these members like this at all. i also served not only on judiciary committee but i served on homeland security committee and i have representative in thd

security committee, she's a pretty reasonable person. >> melissa: i was just going to ask you about that, she said she's been talking to republicans and kind comparing notes and she seemed incredibly earnest about the idea that she was going to sit over the weekend and look at the documents and not watch the media and not listen to pressure from either side. are there a lot of other democrats like her, in your opinion? >> i don't know if there's a lot of them but they should be taking this seriously. if any of those 31 republicans -- sorry, 31 democrats that won in districts that trump won in should be very concerned. this whole process has been raked from the start. as i said, i serve on judiciary committee and back in january i thought they were going to impeach the president of the united states and then we found out that chairman nadler when he was trying to get votes --

>> harris: i don't mean to step in, we only do this for the for the president of the united states. he's about to bring us comments from the oval office. thank you. here is the president. >> i was actually, believe it or not, finishing the final touches on the china deal. that's going to be one of the great deals ever, it's going to ultimately lead to the opening of china which is something that is incredible because that's a whole big untapped market of 1.5 billion people. i was actually doing the finals, i got to see enough of it and certainly i spoke to my people, it's a witch hunt, it's a sham, it's a hoax. nothing was done wrong, zero was done wrong, i think it's a horrible thing to be using the tool of impeachment which is supposed to be used in an emergency and it would seem many, many years apart, to be using this for a perfect phone call with a president of that

country, there was no pressure whatsoever, didn't even know what we were talking about. it was perfect, the relationship is perfect. i've done much more for them than obama did for them. it's a scam, it's something that shouldn't be allowed and it's a very bad thing for our country and you are trivializing impeachment and i tell you what, someday there will be a democrat president and there will be a republican house and i suspect they're going to remember it because when you use impeachment for absolutely nothing other than to try to get political gain -- with that being said it, my poll numbers as you know have gone through the roof, fund-raising for the republican party has gone through the roof, we are setting records. nobody's ever seen anything like it. the people are disgusted. the people are absolutely disgusted. nobody's ever seen anything like this. and i watched yesterday, i got

to see quite a bit of it yesterday and i watched these democrats on the committee make fools of themselves, absolute fools out of themselves and i also saw them quoting all the time incorrectly. they kept saying me, it wasn't about me, it was about us. they kept saying me. can you do us favor? our country, our country. talked about seeing the attorney general of the united states. for these people to is amy, they would say me, you said do me a favor. our country, talking about the past election, talking about corruption. the other thing nobody remembers and nobody likes to talk about and i talk about it all the time is why it is in germany, why isn't france, why aren't the european countries paying? we are paying. for years we've been those

suckers but we are not the suckers anymore. big difference. why hasn't germany paying money? they have a much bigger benefit than we do because ukraine is really a stoppage between russia and parts of europe. why aren't european countries paying, why isn't france paying a lot of money? why is it always the united states? we are 7,000 miles away, why is it always the suckers that pay? leave change that but nobody brings that up. i think the whole impeachment thing, hoax, i guess you could call it because it is a hoax and nancy pelosi knows it -- by the way, they duped her yesterday. she was on an interview and she said "we've been working on this for two and a half years." she was working on it in other words two years before we ever spoke to ukraine, she said we've been working on impeachment for two and a half years. and the reporter was shocked when they got this answer because it showed she's a liar.

so it's very sad thing for our country but it seems to be very good for me political. and those people, i watch some of the dishonest fake median saying well, the poles have remained the same. the balls have not remained the same. the polls have gone through the route because -- especially with independent voters and especially in swing states, i can show you numbers nobody's ever seen before. the impeachment is a hoax, it's a sham, it started a long time ago, probably before i came down the escalator with the future first lady. started long time ago and when you look at the report and you look at these horrible fbi people talking about, we've got to get them out, insurance policies, just in case she los

loses, meaning cricket hillary, was as crooked as a $3 bill. just in case cricket hillary loses, we've got an insurance policy. but we've been going through the insurance policy for three years and it's a disgrace. thank you very much, everybody. i think they will hit $50 billion in agriculture. much more than 50 because it's also manufacturing and other. i think in agriculture they will hit $50 billion. pretty soon, they've already stepped it up. my deal with them was two months ago, i said do me a favor, start buying agriculture and they started. they are buying even before the deal is signed. we are with the people of venezuela 100%, it's so important to us and we are going to be discussing venezuela. >> do you prefer a short process

in the senate? >> i heard lindsey graham was terrific and i heard his statement and i like that. i will do whatever i want. we did nothing wrong. i will do -- long or short, i've heard mitch, i've heard lindsay, i think they are in agreement toward some concept. i wouldn't mind a long process because i'd like to see the whistle-blower, who is a fraud. the whistle-blower wrote a false report and i nearly blew it up when i released the transcript of the call and then adam schiff gets up and he -- i blew him up, too, he went up in front of congress and made a statement about what i said that was totally false and all long time after he made it when he got caught he said oh, that was parity, parody. he's a corrupt politician and a disgrace. because of the fact that he's in

congress he's got immunity so we can't do anything. he went up there and made a totally false statement. the whistle-blower wrote a totally false statement so it's a fraud. then i say where is the informer, the one that informed the whistle-blower? he had an informer. he disappeared because i released the transcript. had i not released that transcript we would have had an informer and another whistle-blower. the second whistle-blower, remember that? not all of this but much of the media is corrupt. these are bad people, sick people and they are corrupt and we are fighting the democrats and we are fighting a lot of the corrupt media. but i asked the corrupt media, where is the second whistle-blower? and i have not had a transcript, i'm lucky we had this transcript which by the way has now been verified by the lieutenant colonel. the lieutenant colonel, okay? he's another beauty.

where is all the stuff that was going to happen? once i released it, and i released it quick, quickly. once i released it all of a sudden the second whistle-blower disappeared. the first whistle-blower who was all set to testify all of a sudden becomes this saint-like figure that they don't need him anymore. the one that everybody wanted to see was the whistle-blower. once i released the text of what happened, the transcript, that was the end. everybody disappeared. there is no informer, no second whistle-blower, everybody is gone and by the way, nobody ever says it. he said very strongly, that i said i want nothing and no quid pro quo, nobody says that. that's what he says this. nobody in congress, nobody ever says that. we are dealing with a lot of

corrupt people, there was nothing done wrong. to use the power of impeachment on this nonsense is an embarrassment to this country. the president just said it, it's an embarrassment to our country. thank you very much, everybody. thank you very much. thank you very much. >> lets go, press, we are leaving. we are leaving. >> harris: sometimes you leave the microphone up because you might hear a shouted question and an answer back from the president. this is bilateral inside the oval office with the president of paraguay and we didn't get to hear that president talk but we heard a whole lot from president trump. i want to go first of all the john roberts who is live on the north along with the very latest of this. the president set a lot with these few words, this has been a wild week. no doubt.

>> we all sort of chuckled at that when the president uttered those words. by the way, harris, the only thing you missed by not leaving the microphones up for a little while was the president said "what, no questions about paraguay? when it comes to bilateral relations with this country, there's a lot of other things going on in this wild week that deserve our attention. the president did say a couple significant things there. he believes that the democrats have trivialized the process of impeachment suggesting that the next time there is a democratic president and a republican-controlled congress, some people said the weaponization of the impeachment process could come back to bite at a democratic president. the other thing was that the president said he would like to see a long process in the senate with a lot of different witnesses. mitch mcconnell and lindsey graham are pushing for a shorter process in the senate. i think having a longer one would give more credibility to whatever is going to come out of the house in the next few days.

they believe it has no credibility what might be coming out of the house based on those articles of impeachment. so they want to short process but the president would like to see a lot of witnesses called, he'd like to call adam schiff, hunter biden, joe biden, he wants to call the whistle-blower as well but he said he would defer to whatever mitch mcconnell wants to do so it looks likely, harris, that we will have a shorter process in the senate. another significant thing that happened today, the president and china have come to a phase one deal. china is going to buy some $50 billion in agricultural products, the united states is going to reduce tariffs on a number of goods being charged 15% right now, that will go down to 7.5% but tariffs will remain at 25%. tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on sunday will no longer go into effect and they will begin negotiations on a phase two deal immediately, though the chinese are saying, the progress with that will be

determined by how this phase one deal is implemented. a lot you have to be seen. the market isn't particularly thrilled, it's down a little bit, harris. >> harris: it was in some really north territory for a while, something was happening with china, that's great. phase one. john roberts, outside the white house, obviously, thank you very much. ari fleischer, the top line of democrats trivialized the process of impeachment is interesting because you've got some talk today that -- as just a watcher of the process, as is going to be the new way things are settled inside the beltway? that's a scary thought of this is how they are going to settle stuff. >> ari: i remember when articles of impeachment were introduced against george w. bush, some democrats wanted to impeach george w. bush. this keeps happening. whether it moves forward or not, this is what is so troubling and

why i said from the start, the president's phone call was inappropriate, it was wrong, but impeachment has never been the right answer and the democrats now have shot a bullet they can't take back and were they going to do if the president does something really bad? are they going to try to do this twice? that's the problem. >> melissa: absolutely they are going to do it twice, they've already said that. >> ari: and that will be another waste of the nation's time, most likely. >> kennedy: people have fatigue for this sort of thing. it cheapens and it lessens what impeachment is supposed to be and what impeachment is supposed to do and i think you summed it up perfectly. something was wrong here but impeachment is not the answer and i think that's why -- i'm curious to see what marie has to say about this, i think it's why you seen democrats float the idea of a censure because that's only happened once before and that seems more appropriate. it's foolish to say it's either

or. you can only impeach the president, either impeachment or nothing. if you feel his behavior was inappropriate the only answer is impeachment and that's a false choice and voters knew it. >> harris: how tricky is it at this point for democrats, as kennedy is pointing out, you're already going to lose some democrats in those trump-carried districts. >> marie: maybe. >> harris: i was just reading come of andrew set it on wednesday that he is really thinking about doing the same thing with the inquiry and saying no to a full impeachment vote and he says there are others like him. >> marie: they were thinking precisely about foreign interference in our political system, they were thinking about france at the time but they were imagining a scenario not unlike this one so the idea that president trump asking a foreign power to give political dirt for personal gain was actually

something the founders absolutely would have been contemplating when they wrote impeachment as a way that house could move against the president. to your political point, harris, actually do. congressman melissa falk, she's very smart, ar she's very thoughtful, her interview on newsroom today showed how she is the kind of democrat taking this process seriously. she's looking at this, spending the weekend with it and there are a lot of democrats doing that. they are not just falling in line with party leadership like the republicans are, they are looking at the evidence and making their own case for it. >> melissa: there been so many times that in negotiations with other countries, all kinds of people ask for other things and we've heard democrats say they are concerned that this could extend to everything everybody does when they are negotiating with other nations. it will be very easy, if you feel that strongly about this case it would be easy to make this exact case against

joe biden, against democrats in congress who have asked for other investigations elsewhere around the world. if this is the bar and you are uncomfortable with us are you worried about how foreign policy is conducted going forward? >> marie: not at all, as someone who has worked in foreign policy for many years and in administration and this was not just president trump asking a foreign power for something. it was asking for something that was purely a political favor to him and if he actually thought there was a national security reason for the united states to look into this issue, you don't have your personal attorney rudy giuliani do it, there's an actual process. >> none of that's a crime. >> marie: crime is not the standard for impeachment. >> ari: clearly. it >> marie: constitutionally it's not and you know that, crime is not the standard. >> kennedy: will robinn that next time around when there's a democrat -- became one of the most popular presidents of the modern era. >> harris: i want to just step

in with the president calling on china to do the same thing. where do you sit with that? >> ari: i don't like it. i think the white house, both white houses need to stay out of matters that are judicial. if an investigation has to happen, let it go to the attorney general, the department of justice down the proper channels. there is a desired outcome. >> harris: if you put that the same category where democrats are putting ukraine? >> ari: i will put it in the same category as when barack obama said off-camera, i'm running for reelection, can you give me some space, help me with my reelection so i can be quieter about missile defense, that is even worse than what donald trump did. >> harris: we have to move on but marie looks like she wants to --

senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has made a big prediction about the impeachment trial. we will get into it next. ♪ look, this isn't my first rodeo... and let me tell you something, i wouldn't be here if i thought reverse mortgages took advantage of any american senior, or worse, that it was some way to take your home. it's just a loan designed for older homeowners, and, it's helped over a million americans.

a reverse mortgage loan isn't some kind of trick to take your home. it's a loan, like any other. big difference is how you pay it back. find out how reverse mortgages really work with aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage guide. eliminate monthly mortgage payments, pay bills, medical costs, and more. call now and get your free info kit. other mortgages are paid each month, but with a reverse mortgage, you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait, and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. discover the option that's best for you. call today and find out more in aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage loan guide. access tax-free cash and stay in the home you love. you've probably been investing in your home for years... making monthly mortgage payments... doing the right thing...

and it's become your family's heart and soul... well, that investment can give you tax-free cash just when you need it. learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse mortgage loan to cover expenses, pay for healthcare, preserve your portfolio, and so much more. look, reverse mortgages aren't for everyone but i think i've been 'round long enough to know what's what. i'm proud to be a part of aag, i trust 'em, i think you can too. trust aag for the best reverse mortgage solutions. so you can... retire better.

we chose eleanor. it was great-grandma's name. so we're in this little town near salerno and everyone has dad's eyebrows. help your family discover their unique story, with a gift from ancestry. billions of problems. morning breath? garlic breath? stinky breath? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath fresh breath oral rinse instantly fights all types of bad breath and works for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy. there's therabreath at walmart.

and now for their service to the community, we present limu emu & doug with this key to the city. [ applause ] it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. and now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ >> melissa: senate majority leader mitch mcconnell last night offering a preview of what the senate impeachment trial could look like. >> everything i do during this, i'm coordinating with white house counsel. there will be no difference between the president's position

and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can. the president's council may or may not decide they want to have witnesses. the case is so darn weak coming over from the house, we all know how it's going to end. there is no chance the president is going to be removed from office. >> melissa: ari, democrats are already arguing that's not right, that's not fair, he's not being impartial. >> ari: stop it, these are not courts of law, these are the house and the senate. there is no way you could have a witness get up from the witness table and take the podium and asked questions which is what the house democrats did. stop pretending that these are judicial bodies, the constitution sets it up for elected officials, politicians to make judgments and vote and you can coordinate, you can talk to whoever you want. >> melissa: what advice would you give to republicans in the senate if they are watching, the rest of the world is watching,

did they put on a trial, do they call witnesses, do they get it over with as soon as possible? from a political point of view, trying to come out on top, what advice do you give? >> ari: i'm a traditionalist, i would hold a serious trial, whatever length of time it needs to take, don't rush it, don't drag it out but don't call extraneous witnesses. they are so weak, they are so flimsy, it would be easy for them to get rid of them and move on and not impeach and not but don't call hunter biden, don't call joe biden. call hearing in every thing will come out, it never works that way. >> melissa: it never works that way, never works that way. >> marie: i agree that they should hold a real trial, absolutely. this is a serious process, they should call witnesses related to the charges. i agree with ari on that. it's interesting to me politically the difference between the house republicans and the senate republicans. the house republicans, they

think there's a some big smoking gun out there that no one has found and they are going to win some big political argument. i think mitch mcconnell is hearing from people like mitt romney and some others who are uncomfortable with the president's behavior, they know those hours of testimony from career professionals, a lot of bad things about president trump came out there. they weren't bright, shining moments for the president and they don't want to go to that again. i think that's what mitch mcconnell is hearing but that's not -- >> melissa: senators and the republican party are looking one way, house republicans feel very burned in the process, they weren't allowed to call witnesses, everybody wasn't allowed to go in and hear the testimony because it so much different when you hear from them first hand so i can understand why house republicans will be calling for a full hearing when they just got treated so horribly by democrats in the house. >> kennedy: everything in the house has been a circus, even the way they did vote on the

articles last night. that in itself was a circus. i understand some of the feelings you might have in the contrast between house republicans and senate republicans but the real contrast is between house democrats and senate republicans and all senate republicans have to do is act like adults and the rest of the country will be relieved. they are so tired of this nonsense and that's why the markets react favorably to things like positive trade talks with china. they are looking for good news. this is utter nonsense. it would be the easiest thing in the world, up 26% on the year, not necessarily a day by day venture but it does tend to react ahead of the new cycle. >> harris: i want to ask you question. a grand total of 20 articles of impeachment have been approved by the house committees for american presidents over the years. i'm going to skip down this, the house approved 11 articles for

president andrew johnson, five articles from the judiciary committee for nixon but only approved three of them, house judiciary approved for articles of impeachment for president clinton but the full house only adopted two articles. when i interviewed stephanie grisham, white house press secretary a couple days ago in d.c. she said we thought there'd be four or five articles of impeachment, there were only two. i said are you relieved? and she said well, i'm paraphrasing what she said but she said it's not relief but it is surprising that they didn't go for more. is there a chance they could walk away and not approve anything? >> ari: the house? absolutely not. i think it means a democrats looked at this and realize the more specific they got the less ground they stood on. they use to talk about bribery, it was focus tested. that fell apart. and look, take obstruction of justice. eric holder in 2011 withheld documents from the house of

representatives, was that obstruction of justice? how come he's allowed to do it and house republicans now can't? >> melissa: more than 30 house democrats being watched next week, how many of them could defect? ♪

>> melissa: as a historic full house vote on impeachment moves next week, more than 30 house democrats representing districts president trump won now in focus. one of them, michigan congresswoman elissa slotkin telling representatives that she remains undecided and she's not worrying about the political consequences of her decision. >> as soon as i came out in support of an inquiry, people were saying that's the end of your political career. maybe it's because i'm a former cia officer, i did three tours in iraq, sometimes you have to

make calls that aren't based on some political consultant and if this is the end of my political career at least i'm doing what i think is right. >> melissa: i watch that interview and to me it's why it's so important to see people speak words as opposed to read transcripts. why you want to see the witnesses, she struck me as sincere, what's interesting is she said she had to put a new phone line in both her michigan office and d.c. office because she was getting hammered with phone calls. she's in one of those districts that's right on the line and she's getting pretty much equal feedback on all sides. it isn't clear politically what would be the best thing to do and as somebody who has done three tours of duty and who is also a former cia agent, she says i'm going to sit down with the documents, forget the media, forget the politics, look at it and make a decision. do you think there are a lot of other folks out there like that? >> kennedy: that i hope there are people that are really wrestling with their consciences and i

hope they are trying to figure out instead of throwing spaghetti at a wall based on polling data, they're trying to figure out what is right, what is wrong, why did i choose to do this job? why am i the one who is representing these people? there is something about me, they think i am confident and i hope they do look at this stuff and i hope there are a bunch of them would say, you know, i can't in good faith operate this way because i don't like what this is doing in my country. that's what nancy pelosi initially said when she was putting back on impeachment, she knows, she has seen one impeachment does to the country. she's seen how it tears our country apart and what i think is there can't be a two-party system if this is the end result. if you have two sides torn apart at the seems and this is the natural place you land when you don't like someone or something that they've done. >> melissa: along those lines, democrats bracing for defection. this is what "the washington post" is reporting this week. lawmakers and senior aides are privately predicting they will

lose more than two democrats who oppose the impeachment inquiry rules package in late september. two senior democratic aides said that the total could be as many as half a dozen while a third said that number could be higher. marie, do you think that counting is correct? 's before the accounting is going on right now, i don't think anyone has a good count because i think there are a couple dozen folks like elissa slotkin who are going to spend this week and going over all the evidence. it's so interesting, melissa, you mentioned she said the call she's getting were pretty equal across the spectrum of how they feel about this issue, not all 14, not all one against. so i think she and others are going to spend this weekend figuring out what they're going to do based on the facts and based on their conscious. i another thing we haven't talked about as much is number of house districts, many who are retiring, that are in districts moving away from trump. we don't talk about those as much because they're not the democrats and trump districts,

they are the republicans in increasingly blue districts. >> melissa: you think those people will cross over? >> marie: i'm looking at those districts to flip those. >> melissa: here's what charlie hurt had to say about what happens if democrats cross. >> clearly i think they will definitely lose four or five but if they lose 17 democrats, if they lose anything close to ten or more i think it's a huge black eye for nancy pelosi and the democrats. >> i'd be shocked if they lose ten or more but even if they lose four or five, with all the hearings and all the experts, they went backwards. that case the democrats made has fallen flat. it's lost with the voters, lost with the public, lost with independence particularly in battleground states and it may lose with a couple more members of congress. what are they accomplish with all these hearings? they haven't accomplished anything. it's just these vague fuzzy

notions, it's no longer collusion, no longer obstruction of justice, it's the fanciest article of impeachment ever. >> harris: your people very early on just waiting for the evidence to see if she would even back impeachment inquiry. she's there now about wanting to see the evidence has been a theme and it isn't always just about having gone backwards. they didn't do what they were elected to do when they flipped the seat. where is their answer to health care right now? or is it? >> melissa: a new report is that president trump is telling his aides that he may skip the general election debate. why he would consider such a move and whether it would be a smart strategy. ♪ .

but this, this is the future. the future of communicating of hearing and connecting with life. and this, is eargo. no appointments no waiting no hassles. and they are practically invisible in your ear. now you see it. now you don't. if you have hearing loss now is the time to do something about it. because denying you have hearing loss, well that's the old way the zip code you're born into can determine your future. your school. your job. your dreams. your problems. (indistinct shouting)

but at the y, we create opportunities for everyone, no matter who you are or where you're from. for a better us, donate to your local y today.

for a better us, [ dramatic music ]ing ] ahhhh! -ahhhh! elliott. you came back!

>> marie: president trump reportedly thinking of skipping the 2011 general election deba debate. he doesn't trust the nonprofit group that puts on the debate and is apprehensive of who it might pick to moderate them. hillary clinton got up all pump after each debate and then candidate trump repeatedly complained that they put them at a disadvantage in various ways. the microphone indeed had a malfunction during that debate. both of us have worked for presidents on campaigns that involved debate prep. showed the president go to this debate? >> ari: he should go to the debate. the bush campaign actually looked at doing this in 2000. we actually deliberated about not going as part of the national commission, and we got hammered. we actually backed off of it because we cared with the press

thought. trump will get hammered and he won't care. the issue is can donald trump assure himself aaron ness at the debate? this is a great way to start to get fairness. to throw this first fastball and say you got to make sure this stays fair. ultimately there has to be a debate. who host sick, i'm agnostic. >> harris: there is a necessity like you're saying, we've just seen bloomberg as an organization say they were going to cover the size of the political campaign differently since michael bloomberg is now n the race and maybe not investigate him from the democrats. but maybe investigate the g.o.p. i do think there is a necessity to take a look at the fairness principle in all of this. when you have a huge media organization willing to do things differently. >> melissa: i think is negotiating the firstborn of negotiation as you start with

the way outside position, i'm not even going to show up. i don't agree that there has to be a debate in the sense we've broken every rule, everything that was is gone. i'm very antiestablishment, anti-the way things were done. maybe there's a different way to do it more fair. >> ari: if i'm president trump i want to have a one-on-one with joe biden, i want to pin joe biden down ron hunter. he thinks he alone can do it. i'm not sure it's in donald trump's interest not to stand on that stage. >> melissa: he gets to spout out everybody every day without push back, he's going to say all the same things that he would to joe biden to his face, he's going to say it on twitter, everywhere else. he commands the camera all the time. >> ari: when you say it to his face it's pretty powerful.

>> melissa: there's the pomp and circumstance, he does like that part of the job. >> kennedy: with its fair to ask, how did we get to this position, why do we have this commission that decides on lords over the presidential debate and it may be, like nato, we should be pulling it apart a little bit and rethinking this unholy alliance and have another paradigm shift. i don't have a problem with that end i think presidential candidates in the future will benefit from it and he will, t too. >> marie: get ready for those debates. we will be right back. do you have concerns about mild memory loss related to aging? prevagen is the number one pharmacist-recommended memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

i feelbusiness cards...new logo...outdoor sign. you always get me. get free next business day shipping or ...1 hour in-store pick up. shopping season solved at office depot officemax ...or officedepot.com. same time next week. yes!

>> kennedy: and thank you so much of the inimitable ari fleischer. did you have a great time today? >> melissa: we were talking in the break of how everyone has lost their minds. doesn't it feel like everyone has lost their mind? >> ari: no question about it. remember that a debate with that

microphone that picked up the sniffling and people think he's on cocaine. people have lost their minds. >> marie: i'm quite calm, actually. i feel great on this friday. >> kennedy: the whole thing has turned into "idiocracy" and i like it. "outnumbered overtime" starts right now. to be when we begin with the fox news alert, you are watching "outnumbered overtime." i'm harris faulkner. a historic showdown is looming. the judiciary committee in the house has advanced impeachment to the full house on a straight party line vote today with no republican support. this follows a an intense 14 hour debate that ended late last night. a full house vote expected next week, democrats charging the president with abuse of power, the president fiercely denouncing the allegations. >> it's a witch hunt, it's a sh