captioning sponsored by cbs >> brennan: i'm margaret brennan in washington. this week on face the nation, friends and family say the president is pumped and energized following his impeachment, but publicly he questions whether he really was impeached. as plans for a senate trial get bogged down in politics. congressional democrats push for a speedy impeachment came to a speedy halt just moments after the vote was announced. next stop, the senate, at least according to the constitution. but the founding fathers had no way of knowing just how partisan politics would become by 2019. hear senate republican leader mitch mcconnell. >> a highly unusual step. the speaker of the house continues the hem and haw about

weather and when -- whether and when she intends to take the normal next step and transmit the house's accusations over here to the senate. i'm not sure what leverage there is in refraining from sending us something we do not want. >> brennan: but speaker nancy pelosi wants to know what the senate trial plan is before she acts. >> you run the risk, some republicans have said, of looking like you're playing games with impeachment if you hold on to these articles for too long. >> i said what i was going to say, nancy. we don't know the arena we are in. frankly, i don't care what the republicans say. >> brennan: adding to the confusion, the president's interpretation of the situation. >> they have nothing. there's no crime. there's no nothing. there's no impeachment. what are we doing here? the world is watching. >> brennan: we'll get the latest from two senators, republican roy blunt and democrat chris van hollen. then we'll talk with minnesota

democrat amy klobuchar. she's one of five senators running for president and making plans for a lot of round-trip travel between iowa and washington next month. >> let me be honest, maybe if the impeachment proceeding wasn't there, i would not be doing 20, whatever it is, 23, 27 counties in three days, but such is life. i'm a mom. i can do two things at once. >> brennan: all that and more is just ahead on "face the nation." good morning and welcome to "face the nation." we begin today on that impasse between the house and the senate, and there's also one between republicans and democrats. missouri republican senator roy blunt is here, as is maryland democratic senator chris van hollen. good morning to both of you gentleman. senator blunt, first off to you,

do you agree with the president's declaration that he hasn't actually been impeached? >> well, i've actually heard some constitutional scholars suggest that you're not impeached until the house sends the articles over. i don't know that that's a distinction worth arguing about. the house will send the articles over. we are going to hear this case. i argue that the president's counsel will get a chance the make their case for the first time. they get a chance in january. >> brennan: so there's no question that speaker pelosi will transfer the articles? >> i think this is a mistake for the speaker to continue to dwell on that issue. i don't think it's worked out that well for them politically. i don't think the speaker who has great power in a lot of cases has the power to decide not to send over the determined will of the house of representatives. they have voted. they have voted on two articles. they need to come and defend those two articles. >> brennan: well, you know,

back during the clinton impeachment trial, republican and democratic leaders sat together and planned out in a bipartisan way how the trial would take place. why hasn't that happened this time? >> because of that we have the plan out before us that worked before. it probably wasn't quite as easily achieved last time as it seems like it was, but it seemed to work last time, and my guess is eventually that's the plan we pursue, that we start, that we let the house managers have the time they need to present their case against the president, and the president has... his counsel has the time they need to present the reason they don't think that case adds up. and then we see what happens next. >> brennan: so why can't you commit now then to calling witnesses? what you're suggesting is that there would then be a vote on whether to approve -- >> which is what happened last time. >> brennan: this time democrats are arguing the trial needs to be fair and that includes the certainty of

hearing from witnesses. how can you have a credible trial without that? >> well, every one of the democrats that were in the senate the last time that are here now voted against witnesses the last time. so this is -- this is a political process no matter how you describe it. you can call it a trial, but it's a trial where half of the jurors can decide that the chief justice is wrong, and we're going to go in a different direction. it is a political process. it always has been. it always will be. one of my concerns, margaret, is that in the first 180 years of the history of the country, we went to presidential impeachment exactly one time, and here in the last 46 years we've gone to it three times and never with a result that removed a president because of the impeachment itself. i think it's a mistake to take this lyingly or to act like you can send a half-baked case over to the senate and then it's the senate's job to try to figure out how to do what you didn't

do. there's nobody the senate could call that the house couldn't call. there's no privilege. >> brennan: but there is a republican majority in the senate, and this is where the president has argued he wants to hear his case and get a fair shake. he complained about not getting that. >> and we want the hear his case. >> brennan: but he wants witnesses. have you asked the president not to push for that? >> i don't know that the president is persuaded not to push for that. there may be a time where we decide that witnesses are essential. but the witnesses that the house didn't call would have the same privilege in the senate that they had in the house. i think the house sending over a very vague two charges to the senate and then assuming it's the senate's job to try to make something out of that takes a process we're already taking too lightly, impeachment three times in 46 years, and taking it even more lightly. the world we live in now is more likely than not that a president

will always have a house at some point in their presidency controlled by the other party, a majority of that other party can send articles of impeachment over. i think we need to be sure that we set standard where they have to make sense before they're sent over, not leave it up to the senate to try the make sense out of the case that the house says they clearly made and now they say, well, we clearly made this case with absolute certainty, but now we need to have the senate find more information. >> brennan: your former republican colleague jeff flake put out an op-ed where he wrote this, an open letter to senators like yourself, saying essentially the entire body is on trial, not just the president, and he said, don't be conflicted. "you might also determine that the president's actions do not rise to the constitutional standard required for removal, but what is indefensible is echoing house republicans who say the president has not done anything wrong. he has."

does roy blunt, potential juror, believe that the president's phone call was perfect? >> well, i think the people that listened to it that should know and hear a lot of these calls have generally said there was nothing wrong with the call. >> brennan: but what do you believe? >> here's what i believe from jeff flake's letter or jeff flake's editorial. he also said, would you reach the same conclusion if barack obama had done exactly the same thing, and the answer is yes, i would reach the same conclusion. we were constantly asked for eight years -- >> brennan: if barack obama on a phone call with another world leader suggested an investigation into someone who also happened to be the front-runner from the opposing party, you would be, your party, you would be fine with that? >> well, i will tell you that for eight years we were constantly challenged on my side. the president should be impeached for this. the president should be impeached for withholding records with fast and furious, the president should have

delivered. >> brennan: but on this particular ---let me make my point here. i resisted that. i understand what our democrat friends have heard for three years now on this topic, because we heard it for eight years. one of the articles of impeachment is the president resisted giving information to the congress, which is exactly what president obama did. it's what president clinton did. it's what president bush did. every president has done that. i wouldn't have been for impeaching any of them for asserting their privilege to make you go to court to prove that you really needed the information the president had. that's one half of the case of impeachment right there. >> brennan: nor blunt, thank you very much for your time. >> great to be with you. >> brennan: we now turn to the other side of the table, literally and figuratively, maryland democratic senator chris van hollen. good to have you here. >> it's good to be with you, margaret. >> brennan: you heard senator blunt lay out his position. you were one of the first senators to publicly float at least this idea that the speaker

hold on to those articles and not immediately transfer them. can you explain the strategy? what is this leverage? >> sure, absolutely, and first, just to be clear, the conduct we're talking about for president trump has no parallel in the conduct of anything that president obama or president bush did, and his claim of absolute immunity is unprecedented. no president has ever claimed that. so speaker pelosi is doing exactly the right thing. she is focusing a spotlight on the need to have a fair trial in the united states senate, and it's especially necessary when you have mitch mcconnell, senator mcconnell, who you quoted earlier, saying publicly that he's not going to be an impartial juror, even though that's what the oath will require, that he's going to work if lockstep with the president, who is the defendant in this case, and that he's already said no to calling fact witnesses that have direct knowledge of what's at stake in this impeachment. >> brennan: so you're trying

to divide the republican caucus over these two issues. >> we're trying to engage the republicans in the conversation, because almost every american would agree in order to have a fair trial, you need to have witnesses. what's a trial without each side being able to call their witnesses. and, yes, there are going to be a number of republican senators who are going to have to decide on whether or not to call these witnesses. and after all, as you indicate, president trump says he wantings witnesses. i don't know if he's trash talking or not, but let's have some witnesses. if it was such a perfect phone call, then send on mick mulvaney down to talk about that perfect phone call. send down john bolton. what are they afraid of? >> brennan: do you think democrats will get on board with what senator blunt laid out, which is having debate and then voting on witnesses? >> i think democrats want assurances up front that this will be a fair trial and you will be able to call witnesses. there were witnesses called in all the prior trials, most recently the clinton

impeachment. >> brennan: is speaker in pelosi in lockstep on chuck schumer with that one, that the articles won't be transferred until there is a promise of witnesses? >> i think we have to take this day by day. i think what speaker pelosi is doing is focusing our attention on the need for a fair trial, and fair trial means you get to call your witnesses. every american knows that's what a trial is all about. how can it be a fair trial if you can't put on the rest of your case. there is already... >> brennan: so you haven't decided how you will vote yourself? >> i will wait the hear all the evidence. i think the house has made a very strong case for impeachment, but i will reserve final judgment until all the evidence is in. the president says he wants to put forward his case. i don't know why, you know, others aren't saying, okay mr. president, send down your witnesses. that's what we want. >> brennan: for people at home, though, they see and hear the math on this, that it takes 67 votes to actually remove, eject the president from office. and it is incredibly unlikely that those votes will exist,

right, at this point, looking at the map as it stands. so given all that, what is the purpose of this standoff over how the trial is conducted? if you know the outcome? >> well, the reason that republicans are so deathly afraid of sending down these fact witnesses is because after they testify, under oath, they'll have to raise their right hand, just like all the witnesses in the house did and testify under penalty of perjury, it's going to be much harder for republicans to hide behind this myth that this was a perfect phone call. and it will make it harder for those senators to vote for acquittal, and that is why they're so afraid of having witnesses called. why else? why wouldn't you send your witnesses down to tell the truth under penalty of perjury? >> brennan: i want to ask you about something you were working on that was tucked inside a bill that the president just signed off on, and this includes giving

him more ability to put different kinds of sanctions on north korea. we know u.s. intelligence is watching and preparing for the possibility of an upcoming long-range missile test by north korea. do you believe the president will actually use the sanctions you gave him the authority or is this... you have no way to force the hand here. >> well, we need the tighten the sanctions regime on north korea. the united states has documented the fact it's like swiss cheese. there's a lot of leakage some this legislation will require the president to put in secondary sanction, so if you are a company or a bank in china, you will now face u.s. sanctions if you keep doing business with north korea. he's required to do that in 120 days. now, he can exercise a national security waiver. we have said on a bipartisan basis it would be totally wrong to use those waivers and let north korea off the hook unless you can show us measurable progress toward reaching our

goal of denuclearizing the korean peninsula. the time for photo op summits is over. it's time to be serious and let the new north koreans know we're going to tighten these sanctions. >> brennan: to date diplomacy has not resulted in any of what you just laid out as a premise for suspending or not enacting these sanctions. >> that's right. >> brennan: you think basically it is inevitable that these new sanctions are going on north korea in the next few weeks. >> yes, i do. i think within 120 days these will be imposed on north korea, and -- >> brennan: because the question is, if they carry out long-range missile test, we don't know what the trump administration will do other than go to the united nations. do you think that this time clock on diplomacy is ticking? >> look, the clock is clearly ticking right now. it's been ticking for some time. now you have north korea engaged in their saber-rattling once again, as has been the case from the beginning. we need to engage china. during this period where we've had these summits with north korea, the president has

essentially allowed china to go ahead and allow trade to go back and forth between china and north korea and chinese banks. so this will put an end to that. it will tighten the sanctions, and i think that's necessary in order to really get a serious negotiation at the negotiating table. if i could just really briefly say with respect to -- >> brennan: we have to leave it there. >> with respect to the trial, if it's not fair, there's no way president trump will -- >> brennan: we'll have plenty of debate as to what's fair. we'll be back in one minute with another democrat, senator amy klobuchar from iowa. mom! maria! maria ramirez... mcdonald's is committing 150 million dollars in tuition assistance,

education, and career advising programs... prof: maria ramirez mom and dad: maria ramirez!!! to help more employees achieve their dreams. (gonzo) yeah kermit, (thanks for the portal! mogonzo! you got my gift!z!!! i love it! did you get my gift? (kermit) oh yeah. it's a really great ugly sweater. (gonzo) yeah yeah. wait, what kind of sweater? (kermit) i said it's a really great sweater. (gonzo) no, what'd you say before that? (kermit) uh, really. (gonzo) after that. (kermit) sweater? (gonzo) before that. (kermit)[gulps] great. (gonzo) okay. (kermit) okay. (kermit vo) portal from facebook. >> the senator from minnesota, amy klobuchar. >> girlfriend, tonight my voice will be as solid as my carefully rehearsed midwestern mom jokes.

>> brennan: you know we're coming up on a presidential election here when "saturday night live" starts their show with a primary debate. right now the real senator amy klobuchar joins us from council bluffs, iowa. good morning to you, senator. >> good morning, margaret. i think rachael did a pretty good job of playing me. i enjoy it. >> brennan: well, you came out swinging at this last debate. you got a lot of attention. do you think this is a more aggressive but still moderate amy klobuchar? >> i have been the same since the very beginning when i announced my candidacy in the middle of that blizzard in the mississippi river. i think it's really clear we need someone leading this ticket who is going to bring people with them instead of shutting them out, and the point i made in the debate is that i have been consistent. i have passed over 100 bills in the united states senate during a really difficult time, and i have won in the reddest of red districts and won with suburban

and rural voters and republicans and independents and a fired-up democratic base. i think that's a good case to be made, and i think the other thing i did in this debate was just make the case of how i want to be the one debating donald trump, and i think it is more than just the nitty-gritty of policy, it's also a values statement. so many people want a values check on this president. they want someone who gives them a decency check, a patriotism check. >> brennan: and there is the very real check that you as a senator may have to deliver in this impending senate trial to continue the impeachment process. but you have said your campaign is not going to get in the way of your job as a senator. you can't be in two places at once, though. iowa is really make or break. how is the impeachment trial going to impact your campaign? >> well, look at what i've just done. i finished that l.a. debate. we had a little after party. i got up at 4:00 a.m., did the shows, got to iowa, went on a

bus tour, and we have already done 15 counties in a day and a half, ending last night at midnight. and we had record crowds at every little town that we went to. that's how i'm going to do it. i don't need a lot of sleep. i work really hard, and i also have endorsements of more elected and former elects than anyone in this primary field. we're going to have in the state of iowa, so we're going to have so many people showing up to do me as i do my constitutional duty, which comes first as a u.s. senator. my husband was just in nevada. my daughter i've got the governor and lieutenant governor of minnesota, everyone has volunteered to help out, because they get that we're going the need some help, and i'll have to skype in for town hall meetings. there is modern technology. i think we're going to find a way to do this. >> brennan: skyping in for a campaign, that's an interesting choice, because of what you're juggling here, but is your campaign going to ask the dnc to

reschedule the upcoming debate? it could fall right in the middle of that trial? >> well, my first belief is we have to have the debate, and if for some reason it doesn't work, sometimes there's breaks in the trial and even when you looked at past impeachment trials, there were breaks in the day, so we could get there. if that day doesn't work, there's plenty over days. we know we don't have sundays when we're doing this. there's going to be other days after that. we may have to have the debate closer to the iowa caucuses. >> brennan: is that being discussed right now? >> i don't know. i have made it very clear that there should be no excuses. i'm ready to debate at midnight if that's what we have to do. we have to have a debate before the iowa caucuses. that would be to my advantage if it was at midnight. 'd be happy. >> brennan: well, senator schumer has asked leader mcconnell to allow witnesses at this upcoming trial. and we know the decision on what the outlines of this are going

to look like are still an open question. how do democrats force witnesses to be allowed, people like mick mulvaney and secretary of state pompeo? >> well, some of this is going on right now where speaker pelosi is trying to get some sense from the majority leader of the senate, mitch mcconnell, about what's happening. i know senator schumer had a meeting with him. i'm not sure it went that well. but in the end mr. mcconnell is going to think about it over the holidays. look at what we're dealing. with i couldn't belief the number of people that came up to me about this. first they were focused, of course, on the investigation and the impeachment, but now they're saying, why wouldn't we have witnesses at a trial. you know, they're thinking like "law and order. "first half there is an investigation, and then you have a trial. if the president is so innocent and claims he's innocent, why would he not allow, just like richard nixon did, the people that were closest to him to testify? i think we have --

>> brennan: is that the democratic strategy to, take these two weeks of break to put pressure on the republican caucus to back away and allow witnesses? >> i think it's not a strategy. it is a fact. it is a... you can't have a trial if you don't have the key witnesses. you at east can't have a thorough trial. look at what we just learned on friday from a document request, and that's that this guy named michael duffy who worked for mick mulvaney over at omb, he's the one that sent the e-mail to a bunch of people and said to withhold the aid to ukraine. he sent this e-mail, i have it in my hands, 90 minutes after the president of the united states talked to the president of ukraine. and this is what he says, he says, "given the sensitive nature of the request, i appreciate your keeping the information closely held to those who need to know." what does that mean? what a great question. that's a question i want to have

answered. >> brennan: aid was on hold before that date, though. what do you think that shows you? >> the point is why did he send this e-mail just 90 minutes after the president made this call? why would this e-mail go? if the president is so innocent and shouldn't be impeached, why is he afraid to have these people come forward? that's what people are asking me when i'm at these town hall meetings. >> brennan: all right. senator klobuchar, thank you. we'll be right back with a lot more "face the nation." stay with us. mike bloomberg's never been afraid of tough fights,

the ones that make a true difference in people's lives. and mike's won them, which is important right this minute, because if he could beat america's biggest gun lobby, helping pass background check laws and defeat nra backed politicians across this country, beat big coal, helping shut down hundreds of polluting plants and beat big tobacco, helping pass laws to save the next generation from addiction. all against big odds you can beat him. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. as a principal i can tell you this. when one student gets left behind, we all get left behind. this is a problem that affects each and every one of us. together with ibm, we created a whole new kind of school called p-tech. within six years, students can graduate with a high school diploma, a college degree, and a pathway to a competitive job. you know what's going up today? my poster. today, there are more than a hundred thousand p-tech students around the world. it's a game changer.

most people think as a reliable phone company. but to businesses, we're a reliable partner. we keep companies ready for what's next. (man) we weave security into their business. (second man) virtualize their operations. (woman) and build ai customer experiences. (second woman) we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. like 5g. almost all of the fortune 500 partner with us. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation... verizon keeps business ready. >> the news this year has for the most part revolved around divisions for the two parties. next week we'll take a look at the spirit of bipartisanship and the good that can be accomplished when political foes work together. we'll talk with democratic senator chris coons and republican senator james langford, and then a conversation with adviser to the president ivanka trump. that's next week on "face the nation."

joint replacing, and depression relieving company. from the day you're born we never stop taking care of you. (i love watching the weather. hello, my name is itsy bitsy. rain again? (robin) hahahaha! (statler) that's impossible. i always plan ahead! let's try one more time. (kermit) ha! robin, what do you think of the story so far? (robin) gee, i've always liked arachnids. solid opening. boy, can't wait to see how it ends. (waldorf) what a coincidence! i can't wait for it to end too! (waldorf & statler) oh hahahaha! (statler vo) portal from facebook. that will makeout washington insiders very uncomfortable: term limits. you and i both know we need term limits, that congress shouldn't be a lifetime appointment. but members of congress, and the corporations who've bought our democracy hate term limits. too bad. i'm tom steyer

and i approve this message because the only way we get universal healthcare, address climate change and make our economy more fair is to change business as usual in washington. so why treat your mouth any differently? listerine® completes the job by preventing plaque, early gum disease, and killing up to 99.9% of germs. try listerine®. need stocking stuffers? try listerine® ready! tabs™. . >> brennan: we'll be back with a lot more face the nation, including the look at a scathing rebuke of president trump from the evangelical community. on the economy, a unique leader. mike bloomberg's created over 400,000 jobs. as president, an opportunity economy that works for us. tax fairness -- where the wealthy pay their fair share.

education .. affordable college and high skill vocational training so people can succeed in the new economy. economic security .. lower cost health care and affordable middle-class housing. proven leadership on jobs .. to build an economy where people don't just get by, they get ahead. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. sarah's last tuition payment, sent off. feeling good? oh yeah. now i'm ready to focus on my project. ♪ ♪ this is why we plan. ♪ ♪ you never cease to amaze me, maya. see how investing with a j.p. morgan advisor can help you. visit your local chase branch.

[captioning funded by cbs sports division] tirks captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org james: weather.com 16 in the envelope. happy holidays, everyone. boomer: jackson led his team to 10 straight wins. nate: beckham, you have money when your vehicle hood ornament is yourself. let's look the browns' offense looks as good as his