the president did commit an impeachable abuse of office. >> so what do you make of that, john? turleyng to muddy the water on something that is a pretty clear thing in all of this which is, you know, bribery. >> yes. law professors arguing about historical bribery versus contemporary bribery will come to very different conclusions on what facts are needed and that's what turley is doing. he's just throwing up some dust in this whole thing. he is one of those who, as you said, wants to slow this process down and there's a real reason the house is rushing and that's the case that chairman schiff made that this is an ongoing offense. we saw it in 2016 when trump solicited the russians and he's now solicited not only the ukrainians, but china. this is something that has to be resolved before the 2020 election and focus the light on it so that trump is reluctant to do it. all of you stay with me, because i didn't play professor carlin in the segment because we'll hear a lot from her in just a moment. she was there quietly and then wow, she came out strong and melania is slamming her after

. >> well, john turley as we all anticipated was i thought a tremendously poised, articulate, and likable, and that is important in a proceeding like this witness, and i think he really did shift the tide of the discussion to the notion that to be an impeachable offense, you have to have a serious offense, and that if you tried to impose a standard, a very loose standard of abuse of power, you would be opening the floodgates, not only to make it difficult for any future president to govern, but all of the societal and governing difficulties that come with an impeachment proceeding, which we have seen really day by day for the last three years as president trump has tried to govern under a cloud of suspicion caused by one investigation or another for the past three years. i really thought it was an impressive performance. >> bill: thank you, andy, sandra. >> sandra: bret baier standing by washington paired on multiple occasions reiterating points from the opening statement. the record does not establish obstruction in this case, and called into question the timing of democrats and their pu

>> i think what john turley will hone in on is if you are going to have a standard like abuse of power, it will be completely impossible to contain that in any future presidency. because at some point or another, all presidents abuse their power. and if the definition for an impeachable offense is going to be as elastic as it sounded in the first round of questioning, then every president is capable of being harassed by his political opposition on grounds that he abuse power. this is why i've always thought and continue to think that we are really bipolar on impeachment. and we are focusing on one part of it now, which is the abstract legal part of it. into the framers, again, the most important part of it was the abuse of power or the crimes had to be so serious that you could move two-thirds of the senate to remove the president. and i expect that when jonathan turley is going to do and his -- when the questions finally come his way is point out that if you don't have some kind of serious metric that raises the level of an impeachable offense to something that is truly egregious and

one box of john turley wasn't fair-minded? >> juan: on the fox poll, 49% impeach and remove. can i finish? it is a fox poll neck that said 60% said he held up military aid in order to get a favor, 70% say what he did was impeachable. and you know it's really crazy? apparently according to "the washington post" not able to produce anything. >> jesse: predicted he was a russian agent. >> juan: you said wait for him him. >> jesse: scheduled the hearing on monday the day they dropped. >> juan: where is your boy? he is over in the ukraine still doing this and you want to close your eyes. >> jesse: just mad, it's a suicide mission because you are now moving from a quid pro quo to what, bribery and abuse of power, what is next? >> juan: obstruction of justice. >> greg: it is going to hit the democrats because they are guilty of abuse of power. >> emily: the most confusing part of it is for the democrats saying they needed all evidence that this is a deliberate process where they care about a thorough fact-finding segment and then an actual analysis, why the rush? moving up the pace

john turley warned the democrats they were moving too quickly. stanford professor pamela karlan revealed how partisan the fight is when she answered the question about the president's power by pulling in his teenaged son. >> so while the president can name his son barren, he can't make him a barron. >> pamela karlan should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering using a child to do it. >> i heard one of the democrats' witnesses used the president and first lady's 13-year-old son to justify their partisan impeachment. democrats should be ashamed. >> nancy pelosi has directed the house to move forward with the impeachment of the 45th president of the united states. she will hold a press conference at 7:45 our time. nbc will carry that live. i'll be updating all the things that are going on on twitter. follow me at scott mcgrew. >> thanks, scott. as you get up this morning, of >> we've seen that on all ouray. we have so much humidity in the air. at least at street level you're not seeing the dense fog. today is the day to

and that's already been refuted by the republicans' own constitutional scholar john turley, it's anythingut perfect. other than that, it's what the president excels at, these vague generalities, you're assaulting democracy. that kind of rhetoric that we know president trump for. knack, he's accomplished something that's very bizarre in which he said a level of behavior that none of us are really surprised by the tone or words in this letter. i am, i am so curious how this letter was drafted. yes, of course, he dictated it but was there a discussion of should this be in all caps or an exclamation point here. this was a group project. >> i think at the very end, he signs it sincerely yours. >> that's the best. >> that's always the debate, what do you put at the end, right? i hate you, comma, the president. >> and let me get your words on what the house -- not defending, defending the president on today's impeachment vote? >> sure. it's been pretty consistent here and they've coalesced over those opinions. i'm sure they read with speaker nancy pelosi and found themselves nodding along. this

who cares what john turley says.this hearing that the democrats are in charge put on was to hear constitutional league legal experts persecutive and why wouldn't they push back on the one republican there? if they are -- >> one republican witness? >> one republican witness, thank you, and trying to achieve the goal swaying public opinion. >> one other point worth pointing out, he was asked, i guess speaking hypothetically, obviously about what george washington would make of all this and everybody trying to get in the minds of the founding fathers and said he would set his powdered hair on fire thinking somebody could be impeach eed on a phone call. even if you don't support impeachment this is not just about a phone call. this is a whole campaign. >> one person who feels it's only about a phone call is the president of the united states. notice every time he talks about his perfect phone call that's the only thick he refers to in this impeachment process. so what professor turley is doing there, repeating a republic

but even the republicans' own constitutional law expert john turley testified before them and said you need a crime. now, the way the articles are written i think are elegant in the sense that they include the elements that you would charge if you were charging the crime. so they're not actually saying there was no crime. but they're also saying, let's just get past that and talk about abuse of power that this is and there is a debate there because then they're putting on trial the constitution itself and how they're going to interpret it. >> the room is filling up. jim jordan is back in the hearing room with some other republicans. before going back into the hearing, what will you be watching? >> i would like to actually see a debate. by that, i think people not just talking but also listening. that's at least the old-fashioned way i think about a debate. myya had a really important point. statutory bribery, the thing we keep talking about was codified in federal law 60 or 70 years after the constitution was ratified so whatever they mean by bribery in the constitution they certainly

something that has been noted by observers on both sides of the aisle, including john turley, the republican witness from yesterday's impeachment hearing. >> fast and narrow is not a good recipe for impeachment. that's the case with johnson, narrow with the case with clinton. they tend not to survive. they tend to collapse in front of the senate. >> democrats say the process needs to move quickly because they argue the white house is not cooperating. the courts won't rule on any cooperation anytime soon, and the president once again tried to cheat in the next election. if they don't act now, he may try to do it again. let's welcome kurt bardella and federal prosecutor doug burns. gentlemen, welcome. curt, the democrats would, if they had the ability, would love to have john bolton and mike pompeo, love to have mick mulvaney, rudy giuliani come and sit before them and potentially give the direct evidence that the president ordered them to tell ukraine to start the investigations because he was withholding or he would withhold aid. but the courts can't rule fast enough, they say. do they have

>> john than turley point if we can deal with substance, he was right on target staying the democratsand regardless interpretation of abuse of power and bribery essentially doesn't leave you with any basis to determine what conduct falls over the line with regard to impeachable conduct and what conduct falls short of that line. he made great pains to tell the congress, you ought to think seriously about what you are doing. if you don't have evidence in connection with the call which is the principle basis of this impeachment. that the president made a demand or pressured or coerced the president of ukraine, you don't have a bribery case. to suggest otherwise which is what went on today with the law professors and the democratic ingift tores is doing a great disservice to the country. >> we are going to the substance of the day. we point out previous presidents have defied subpoenas without being even the suggestion -- >> you cannot have a system in which one branch is struggling with another branch over an assertion of privilege. and as professor turley quite aptly pointed out, the re

. >> even john turley acknowledges it's a political process.n impeachment case, the congress does. david: so if it's a political process, how can it go forward if it's purely partisan? that's what the point that nancy pelosi and jerry nadler were making in the past, that because of the fact that if it's just seen as purely partisan, why do we need elections? why don't we just legislate every elective procedure that we have? >> that's the argument, we almost become a parliamentary system that if the president loses the confidence of the house and the senate, he loses his job like a prime minister would in great britain or israel, for example. but look, democrats believe they have a moral obligation. is there a legal case to be made, yes. is there a legal case to be made that there is no grounds for it, yes. we heard both cases made yesterday. people will believe what they want to believe. david: one case was made by three legal scholars who are very partisan, who admitted so and one of those arguments was made against impeachment by a man who vo

. >> the lone witness invited by the republicans, cbs news contributor john that turley said he did not vote for trump but there wasn't enough money to impeach him. judiciary committee is expected to hold more public hearings before potentially drafting articles of impeachment. >>> 5:08. >> up next, our original series project home. san francisco's seniors say they're not giving up without a fight. coming up, their demands for affordable housing taken right to the mayor. >>> it is a dry start but it is foggy. i'll let you know the locations getting the densest fog this morning coming up. >>> the foggy spots will affect your drive this morning. we're seeing a >>> this morning governor newsome says the trump administration is blocking li fro its own money to fight homelessness and he is not waiting any more. the governor is releasing $650 million in emergency funding to fight homelessness. california cities and counties can now start applying for their share, however, the federal government needs to review data on homelessness in the state before approving it. newsom claims the white hous

. >> the white house is citing noah feldman and not john than turley. >> the leverage pelosi has in january we're going to get more foia releases. the groups that have sued and we've seen these e-mails from duffy more is going to come out soon. >> her ultimate leverage is donald trump is desperate for a trial, he is desperate to be acquitted and he will claim total exoneration and he will go on a national tour in -- in everyone's hometown saying i'm innocent, they got nothing on me. >> so that's the issue? >> that is the leverage. >> it will be an interesting state of the union, that's for sure. >> to be sure. >> thank you all. great to talk to you. thank you. >>> the u.s. economy remains strong as we close out the year. obviously president trump and his supporters believe that this helps him a lot, but what are the real indicators? we're going to dig into the numbers next. breakfast in bed! just add ground coffee for a carafe, or pop in a pod for a freshly brewed cup. exactly how i like my coffee. you've got your carafe. i've got my light roast. we're brewing the love. choose the longest l

professor turley argued when the president or his people, secretary pompeo, john bolton, other peoplereceived subpoenas, the president can tell them to disregard a subpoena and throw it. steve: separation of powers. >> he can't. that's what bill clinton was charged with. that's what richard nixon was charged with and andrew johnson was charged with the failure to respond to a subpoena. you don't have to comply with it. you have to challenge or comply with it. ignoring it is obstruction of congress. and the judiciary has nothing to do with that the congress doesn't need the court's permission to serve a subpoena and it doesn't need the court's help in enforcing the subpoena. the courts have nothing to do with it. congress makes the determination. we gave you the subpoena, you are resisting us. that's impeachable offense. the house has voted that three times. brian: he is judge andrew napolitano, we will find out the next steps. >> i think we will find out something at 9:00 this morning. i'm still a yankee fan. i would love the great competition in the city. brian: it would be great to

if you watched the hearing yesterday, turley was asked the question from john ratcliffe, he said no bribery, no extortion, no abuse of power. that was the answer. i do not understand what they have going forward. they have a timeline but they have no proof so they brought professors in. they selected professors who were donors to the democratic party. we selected a democrat who did not vote for the president. we selected an individual who is probably the one respected the most when it comes to a scholar on constitutionality. because we take this so important and we believe exactly what the speaker said back in march. that this is so divisive, you need something overwhelming. you need something compelling. it doesn't meet the cry tieria. reporter: but complying with the subpoena? mr. mccarthy: if you watched the president or read the president's letter from his attorney from the white house if he had a process the same as bill clinton, your first question should be why didn't the speaker, if she wanted to go through impeachment and is not going to stick to her own criteria, why not create a

if you watched the hearing yesterday, turley was asked the question from john radcliffe, and he agreed no bribery, no extortion, no obstruction of justice, no abuse of power, that was the answer. i do not understand what they have going forward. they have a timeline but they have no proof so they brought professors n they selected professors that were donors to the democratic party. we selected a democrat who did not vote for the president. we selected an individual who's probably the one that is respected the most when it comes to a scholar on constitutional it -- constitutionality. because we take this so important and we believe exactly what the speaker said back in march, that this is so divisive, you need something overwhelming. you need something compelling. it doesn't meet the criteria. reporter: comply with the subpoena. why shouldn't the investigation -- mr. mccarthy: if you watched the president's or read the president's letter from his attorney from the white house, if he had a process the same as bill clinton -- your first question should be, why didn't the speaker, if she

. >> well, the case for waiting that professor turley made today was that maybe after a long court fight you could get john bolton to testify or you could get mike pompeo to testify. and they might add incriminating evidence of -- to the case that then jonathan turley himself would support impeachment. turley was careful not to say he's an absolute proponent of impeachment at this case. he said he doesn't see enough evidence developed yet. what do you make of his argument slow down and fight through the testimony through the courts and john bolton and others? >> well, obviously what he's trying to do is drag this thing out until there's no time left and we have a potentially corrupted 2020 election. that is a prescription for disaster. the idea that we need to let this thing saturate and pickle for a while longer is just crazy. when the president lays down the gauntlet, orders his entire executive branch to stonewall, and then whenever any of the subpoenas ends up in court, now you've got to wait until the courts decide. that's a prescription for not having an impeachment power. and indeed the position tha

if you watched the hearing yesterday turley was asked the question from john ratcliffe and he statedno bribery, no extortion, no obstruction of justice, no abuse of power. that was the answer. i do not understand what they have going forward. they have a timeline but they have no proof so they brought professors in. they selected professors that were donors to the democratic party. we selected a democrat who did not vote for the president. we selected an individual who is probably the one that is respected the most when it comes to a scholar on constitutionality because we take this so important and we believe exactly what the speaker said back in march, that this is so divisive you need something overwhelming. you need something compelling. it doesn't meet the criteria. >> why shouldn't the investigation be -- >> i think if you watched the president or read the president's letter from his attorney from the white house, if he had a process the same as bill clinton. your first question should be why didn't the speaker, if she wanted to go through impeachment and she won't stick to her

should go down the cart path to get some of these witnesses that jonathan turley says are the only fact witnesses that matter. johnolton, mick mulvaney, secretary pompeo. these are weighty issues and we will see how quickly they want to push it through but i think today's going to a long way in terms of determining the timetable. i would mention adam schiff when he walked into the room got a standing ovation from everybody there. that's going to make him feel good. it's a little bit of a battle between nadler and schiff in terms of who can run these things better. because natalie wasn't 1.5 overlooked and passed aside in favor of schiff moving forward. >> dana: could you talk more about speaker nancy pelosi's positioning? she has a caucus saying they want to be deliberative. she has some members thinking i could lose my seat if we don't focus on trying to get something done. maybe the usmca. how did she approach the rest of the month? >> i think the decision she and her caucus have to make is what -- obviously there are major issues in terms of the constitution and not saying that they are not mindful of those. i'

john from memphis on the independent line. caller: i have watched most of the impeachment hearings. really professor turley captured everything when he was saying that hamilton warned anyone whenhouse or there wasn't bipartisanship as far as going ahead with impeachment and whatnot. nancy pelosi said she was not going to push it until it was bipartisan. a lot of people have wondered why the white house is not more involved. that is because you have one side that is politically pushing everything. if there were republicans saying this is not right, it would be different. that is my view as far as why the white house and president trump is not getting involved. and he says, it is a sham, i think america sees that. it is not fair and whatnot. i think professor turley captured everything. if you have one party pushing everything, that is going to be the abuse of power by that party. we are seeing the democratic party abusing their power. how much of this impeachment process have you been watching and did you follow the clinton impeachment as closely? caller: the clinton impeachment, not as closely. this one, i

john thank you. you heard at the end of that hearing chairman nadler referenced jonathan turley, the republican witness, his comments and the clinton -- clinton impeachment in 1998. all throughout the hearing you heard them reference chairman nadler's in 1998 and congressman nadler defending president clinton talking about clinton impeachment. we thought we would play a clip of that. >> there must never be narrowly voted impeachment were impeachment substantially supported by one of the major political parties and largely opposed by the other. such an impeachment would lack the legitimacy, would produce in politics for years to come. >> bret: longer speech in that. let's bring in the panel, fellow at the institution the institution mollie hemingway sr. editor and jonathan swan, national political reporter. mollie, your thoughts on the day come again, eight hours, 25 minutes. >> mollie: i think it is a good reminder what we heard about nancy pelosi not wanting jerry nadler to have too much of a role in impeachment. for some reason handling public hearings they don't go well. and we saw that dramatically

yesterday's hearing, law professor jonathan turley pointed out there are remaining core witnesses, including president trump's former national security adviser john bolton, trump's personal lawyer rudy giuliani and acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney. >> this isn't improvisational zaz. close enough is not good enough. if you are going to accuse a president of bribery you need to make it stick because you are trying to remove a dually elected president of the united states. we have burned two months in this house, two months that you could have been in court speaking a subpoena for these witnesses. it doesn't mean you have to wait forever. but you could have gotten an order by now. >> i'm sorry, go ahead. >> you can. >> joining us now is msnbc news contributor and "new york times" washington correspondent out with a new lateral titled "trump blocked key impeachment witnesses." should congress wait? charlie savage. we're fighting over who gets to talk to you. this is a strange argument that turley made yesterday only insofar as congress has been willing to speak to all of these people, the white house has blocked them, both of these wit

john reynaud is a for federal prosecutor in washington and i spoke with him earlier. thanks for being with we heard three distinguishs legal scholying it is a case for impeaching the president. jonathan turley among others arguing the case isn't proven. >> i think if anyone wil an honest, objective look at the facts and the process here, i thinit is hard to not come away with it by saying it's a tough call. there vidence that looks really bad for the president. hoecver, the evidentiaryd is not complete. there are key issues here we don't know. these are knowable facts but we have not gotn to that yet. there are real questions about hethe evidence and abouter or not that evidence effectively meets the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors which is outlined in the constitution. i think it's fair to say there' a lot yet to be debated here. for those who are automatically right now ready to say this ia slamdunk case, all the evidence is there, this is worse than watergate, this cuts to the heart of our democracy, that' f going way to. it jumps ahead to the point where we may or may not ever get. dura: professor turley made the point thatecauocrats have not called key witnesses who can attewh

testimony of people like mick mulvaney or john bolton or mike pompeo or others, they could nail it down some more. that was basically the point jonathan turley was making, the republican witness. he wasn't really defending trump. he was just saying, well, you need to go more slowly and more testimony to nail it down. well, that's a little bit difficult because the white house is stonewalling. they're ignoring subpoenas. they're not cooperating with congress. that is likely to be another article of impeachment against president trump, but there is an argument to be made because there was recently a court ruling against don mcgahn, the former white house counsel saying, no, he has to actually answer the subpoena and testify, which suggests that perhaps if the democrats wait a little bit longer, maybe a few more months, maybe they could compel some of this testimony and, you know, nail down all the objections that have been made that they haven't spoken to the people who were in the room with trump. but i think on balance, i think the stronger argument is just to move forward because otherwise you're really risking that trump could just run out

turley, i will give you a chance to respond. >> i want to respond to the first question of bribery. counsel for the minority read johns johnson's definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, he did not read the definition of bribery. i have the 1972 version. i don't have the initial one. he defines bribery as the crime of giving or taking rewards for bad practices. if you think it is a bad practice to deny military appropriations to an ally that have been given to him. if you think it is a bad practice not to hold al me meet. that's samuel johnson's definition of bribery. >> if washington were here today, if he were joined by madison hamilton and other framers, what do you believe he would say presented about evidence of president trump's conduct? >> as the exact kind of abuse of office of high crimes and misdemeanors they would worry about and they would want the house of representatives to take appropriate actions to impeach. >> they would find abuse of power? >> if the evidence supported those things in their minds and if congress determines that's what the evidence means then they believe strongly that's what congr

litigation they have going in court or not hearing from john bolton and not getting as many people as they can from around the president. so while turley talking about a longer timetable and the need for that, the political realities are both parties are that the minds are made up and that on impeachment the question of impeachment i think is pretty set. >> and what's interesting i thought about professor turley's argument, remember he was called by republicans, the other three were called by democrats, was not that president trump should not be impeached, he was talking, again, about the process. that you still had more to prove and maybe he should be impeached but we're not there yet is what he said. >> this is about -- we're about where we were during the clinton impeachment. >> yeah. >> and if you take the republicans' argument that democrats have been, you know, moving towards impeachment from the time he got elected, i mean, we're three years in. so -- >> how much time do you need. >> peter baker says this will be a record fast impeachment but it depends how you count it. the clinton it was 72 days after an inquiry. it's been 71

we no longer have a republican party as john boehner has said, we have a trump party, not one of them even granted this was a less than perfect phone call. tu turley, to his credit acknowledged this was a problem, although not grounds for impeachment. and not one single republican in that big cast of characters out there, acknowledged the less than perfect nature. >> do you think attitudes were changed among democrats and republicans? people came with strongly held views. it looks to me like they're leaving with those strongly held views. >> the people on that committee, i think they came in with those strongly held views and left with those strongly held views. this is a process that will take a while. likely go to the senate and more information comes out. to the turley point, turley is essentially arguing for a longer process and more information. that doesn't seem to be what the gop actually wants. >> the question about what that process is, the republicans demanded, and chairman nadler did not answer, they seemed to suggest this morning in the questioning, they were considering an obstruction of justice article of impeachment that would incor

turley laid out today. to drag in mueller, you start to i think cut against the imperative of that it's important to move quickly. >> scott and then john? >> i don't know what they're going to lose. not impeachment vote now, no conviction votes in the senate i don't think. what do you have to lose throwing in everything you wanted to impeach him through. >> maybe 10, 12 hard house seats? >> i disagree. they're already in the bucket here, already down this road. throwing on a few more articles of impeach mament that truly -- also calls from happening in the future why doesn't that apply to the mueller report? don't naught in. that's okay but the ukrainian call's not okay? i never believed they could stop at ukraine because of no prayer to convict the president and b., their meshes think this is just as impeachable as this. >> i would say very wise to keep this narrow. if you're nancy pelosi looking at the politics of your members and their re-elections, you're looking at, yes, great if john bolton comes and a big, earth shattering moment in the senate. in all likelihood, president trump will not be convicted in the senate. come out of t

can he compel john bolton, mick mulvaney and others to talk and would they have any choice not to? >> again the question here and sort of this was the specter of jonathan turley'sre let's play it out in the courts and see what happens there. there are a number of -- at least one lawsuit pending as to the question of whether you can compel individuals. that is sort of the big thing looming over all of this here. the president and his allies have made a point of frankly frustrating congress. there is likely to be an article of impeachment for obstruction of congress in some way by not sending people. so perhaps michael has insight as to the request whether the chief justice can compel. certainly the federal courts can. and this is percolating through the washington, d.c. district court right now. so we'll see where that ends up. >> this is a fascinating possibility. you brought up an idea that i didn't think about. so republicans will want to call the whistleblower, right, they will want to focus attention there, they will want to call joe biden and his son. they see political opportunity there. so possibility where they say let's call those guys but we're still

john dean earlier in the year, before the mueller report. we were hearing about how the mueller report, part two, was impeachable. last week we had four lawyers, three democrats, jonathan turleyut he voted for hillary clinton. how fair is this process? yonow if you hear representative collins, they got thousands of pages of documents yesterday and we're having another hearing. i mean, so -- cheryl: they're talking about maybe two more things against president trump, two more charges against him. >> possibly bringing in the mueller report. cheryl: it's insane. david bruno, thank you so much for being here. tracee: let's take a look at futures right now, look at you how your money is moving. dow futures pointing slightly lower by 17, s&p 500 down by 2, nasdaq yo churs down futures do6 and-a-half. that's after the blow-out jobs report on friday. not holding a grudge, what jeff bezos' comments about big tech could mean for employees speaking out about doings business with the government. plus, an ugly christmas sweater is taken offline but walmart shoppers are demanding to know how it got there in the first place. you're watching "fbn: a.m.." look closely at that. ♪ baby boy, you

turley agrees democrats are projecting onto the president as they always have. anyone that says yes is obviously a democrat. it showed the impeachment vote happen before christmas? johnays yes. john a north carolina, you are on the air. happen.it should everybody is entitled to a speedy trial. trash, stack more it up on the pile. host: good morning. iowa. gary, you are on the line. go ahead. sayer: i was just going to i am registered independent, but i voted democrat most of my life. to see what they are trying to -- i will not vote democrat ever again. -- piece,pinion peach impeachment is backfiring in the midwest. voters in wisconsin and other battleground states believe the details on what happened less important than what is happening in their communities. impeachment efforts are backfiring throughout the midwest. how after poll is revealing president trump is gaining stronger footing for reelection in key swing states. democrats have themselves for blame for increasing the odds of trump's second term. we hear next from michael in portland, oregon. caller: hello. i voted against trump and i think him a man of low character. i think jonathan turley's comments abou

john bolton. do you think it would be wise for the house judiciary committee before proceeding down this road to try to make those people testify and to get more primary evidence? >> no, under jonathan turley's theory we should let the building burn and then call the fire department. this is an ongoing threat. the president's lawyer is over in ukraine right now asking foreign governments to interfere in our elections. and, joy, the evidence that we've put forward, the 300 pages that have 12 different witnesses who testified publicly, that's powerful evidence that the president abused his office to ask a foreign government to cheat in our election. yes, of course, we'd love to have more witnesses but if that means going for months or even a year in the court as the president obstructs and delays, we can't afford to allow an illegitimate election to take place. and just one other point. never has the president or his lawyer said if you take me all the way to the courts and i lose, i will abide by the court decision. so we don't even have an honest broker here when dealing with the white house. >> the inspector general's report is expected to come out this week, and it will show from what we've

jonathan turley, he said this is democrats burned two months they could have subpoenaed and litigated access to bolton, johnate mike pompeo and others. it is difficult to see the devastating aspect of such an incomplete record against trump as it exists today let alone the trump has outnixon-ed nixon, quoting ship schiff. that what has been done has been worse than nixon. jonathan turley is calling balls and strikes. it is not true. nicole: remember how the impeachment inquiry went, started out with felony crimes of the water lgbt burglary. there was alleged kidnapping. that is true criminal acts that set off the nixon impeachment. president trump foreign aid being held up in apportionments which happens all the time. pete: from a sky skipped call on foreign aid and ran on being skeptical of foreign aid. nicole: they said he was trying to investigate his 2020 opponent. the truth he was investigating corruption. he ran on that in 2016. he said drain the swamp within the united states and where the united states puts its foreign aid. if he is investigating corruption that holds true to the original message. p