mick: i would not agree. we would not be having any of these conversations of donald trump is not president. -- if donald trump was not present. it was always going to be harder. at some point in time, we would've had to have these discussions. many of us wish they would be 20 years ago. you are going to have to have the discussions. it was always going to be hard. i've ever sitting down with some folks in the white house -- i remember sitting down with some folks in the white house, talking about how excited we were about the deregulatory successes we had and less excited about the regulatory process. there are some things easier than others. the regulation is easy because it's just us. -- deregulation is easy because it's just us. legislation, it's harder because we have to convince congress. even when run by our own party, that was hard. hardestals are the because you have to get another country to change its practices. that can be really difficult to do and we have seen that. at the root of all of this, w

we will try to get back to speedo mick ina we will try to get back to speedo mick in a moment.nce george, charmed the crowds at sandringham as they attended their first festive church service with the royal family. it was a tale of two christmases for the queen, according to the daily mail. the paper says she was "buoyed" after her great—grandchildren attended the church service, but the absence of a poorly prince philip and the duke of york cast a shadow. the i paper says it could be a green christmas as people spend less in the boxing day sales due to environmental concerns. and the guardian leads online with what it calls a "national scandal" after revealing thousands of children in care are being placed in unsafe homes. radio presenter hattie pearson is here to tell us what's caught her eye. good morning to you. happy boxing day. and to you! love the glitz. this is fonua taking a look at. the royal family this is fonua taking a look at. the royalfamily at this is fonua taking a look at. the royal family at christmas at sandringham. a double spread in the mail. it is all abo

mick mulvaney has been described as deeply involved in holding up the aid. the "times" reporting shows the white house budget office was seeking legal clearance for withholding the money. bolton, you'll recall, reportedly referred to it all as a drug deal, according to testimony. he's central to the "times" report along with three others, all four of whom happen to be the very officials the white house does not want to testify. they are now at the center over the battle of what the senate impeachment trial might look like. i want to go to kaitlan collins near mar-a-lago tonight. are the president and his team working on a plan for the senate trial while he's down there in florida? >>. >> reporter: yeah, anderson. they still have a lot of big decisions to make sources are saying and essentially are making those decisions while they are here. there are people around the president like mick mulvaney but others have been back in washington working on this strategy as they're trying to nail down who exactly will be defending the president when and if they do have

so please welcome mick. [applause] there is a bit of news. [laughter] let's maybe start with the news. then we can get into the agenda for the white house. not just for this next 12 months, for a possible second term. so the congress is very busy drawing up articles of impeachment. they designed two of them, one of them has to do with ukraine and the president putting pressure i'm ukraine to investigate this political rival. president trump has said that he would like to see you and secretary pompeo testified in the senate. will you and partly. mr. mulvaney: part of me really wants to. i remember join i testified, join i was running the cf bd to the house and the senate. the most fun i ever had join i when i was on the hill. we will do what the president wants us to do. that is what it comes down to. if you wants us to direct us to do things we will and if he doesn't we won't. especially the white house even more so for me and the agency outside of the white house, there is a little bit of distance but you are inside the white house, you do w

mick mulvaney, john bolton, robert blaire, michael duffy. republicans are resisting lt call. house speaker pelosi has still yet to send articles of impeachment across. a federal judge dismissed a challenge by charles cupferman to a house subpoena. there's no expectation, they will refile the subpoena. the lawsuit is unnecessary. john bolton, as you'll recall, declined to go before the house until that lawsuit was ruled on. let's get some perspective from house judiciary committee member. jamie raskin. these new details from "the times" how much do they change or do they change the calculus for the democrats here? >> well, they fill in a lot of the details that were kind of abundantly directed to by ambassador sondland who said everyone was in the loop. "the new york times" report suggests everyone was in the loop. everyone understood it. "the times" report says they tried to cover their tracks and tried to displace their own responsibility onto the department of defense and other actors. but ultimately the report demonstrates that one person and one person only was at the hea

that can be true of hunter biden and mick mulvaney.think it's interesting senator schumer is focused on the aid piece of this, the holding up of the aid, it's narrow and focused and knows democrats and republicans agreed on the importance of aid flowing to ukraine for defensive purposes. it's a way to go in an area more bipartisan. but i still think there's going to be the inclination on the part of republicans to do less rather than more. >> i thought it was really interesting to hear him identify a political pressure point here, susan. up until the last few weeks everyone has been talking about oh, there are moderate democrats in the house who feel pressure to vote yes on impeachment. schumer flippeds the script and identified a sore spot for three, maybe four republicans in the senate, mitt romney, susan collins, lisa murkowski, if you don't want to hear from john bolton, a fact witness who may have firsthand knowledge or mick mulvaney, you have to explain why. >> yeah. i think he's smart to be zeroing in on one of the issues with t

they want mike pompeo, mick mulvaney, they want john bolton. the question though, is you have a republican-controlled senate and this is a different set of math and system that we're going to see where adam schiff can shut anything they wanted down. do you think we'll see any of these people as witnesses? >> i doubt it. i think with respect to the republicans, most republicans in the senate i think understand that those republican house witnesses, if you will, biden and biden and schiff are really irrelevant and in no ordinary trial would witnesses of such little or no relevance ever be allowed to testify and for the democrats in the senate, i think like the democrats in the house, they're comfortable with the fact that if witnesses like pompeo, mulvaney and bolton are not going to testify, they're perfectly okay with taking an adverse inference from their absence assuming that if they had anything exculpatory to offer with respect to the president that they would be there at the president's insistence, and if they're not there that means they

>> i would love to to have mick go up, frankly, i think he would do great. i would love to have almost every person go up. >> well, mcconnell knows that trump right there is not telling the truth because, well, to say it again, trump blocked mick and bolton, and all those others from testifying already, so mcconnell knows that trump right there is not being honest, but he's backing him anyway. manu raju is out front on capitol hill. obviously schumer and mcconnell, there are some who hoped would have a meeting, it would be, you know, collegial and private and they would come out with an agreement. that is not what we have seen so far. >> no, but we do expect them to talk in the coming days ahead, mitch mcconnell said he'll have more to discuss about this topic tomorrow, but when you're talking to republican senators tonight they're making very clear they are siding with mcconnell and the notion that there should be no witnesses that should come forward. richard burr told me he does not want to hear from mick mulvaney or john bolton. saying i don't see any be

mick has been listening to the newspaper review. you have raised more than £a0,000.e trying to talk to because the sound has been and out, what is the plan today? the plan today is... glasgow... we have been getting loads of support. i am over somebody‘s house now. a total stranger. i got in about nine o'clock last night and they gave me a big roast dinner, putting on a bed to sleep in. a lot of love going on in scotland. you know what, it sounds fantastic. they know you have done the walk the certain way to avoid the weather, because if you are finishing in scotland at this time of year it would have been very chilly. yes, it would have been. it would have been. they chose to... tell me, one question answered, i know you are an everton fan, but why speedos? inaudible. still can't believe it. when you swim the english channel there is a role in the rules saying you have to wear one had, one pair of goggles, and one garment which is above basically, a pair of speedos. so a had to learn to wear a pair, running in and out of swimming pools, being embarrassed. but now...

white house officials testify in the subsequent senate trial, including the acting chief of staff, mick mulvaney and john bolton. senator chuck schumer making the request in writing to majority leader mitch mcconnell, and separately, blasting mcconnell for coordinating with the white house on the president's defense, calling that, i am quoting now, totally out of line. we'll talk about that and more with congresswoman debbie mccarsell. our analysts are standing by. let's get the latest on the march toward impeachment. justice correspondent jessica snyder is with us. with impeachment a foregone conclusion, attention is on the senate trial. >> democrats are attempting to draw the line, laying out what they want when impeachment moves to the senate for a likely trial in january. top democrat chuck schumer saying he wants to hear from four key witnesses that could offer firsthand insight into the delay getting military aid to ukraine. of course, in the end, it comes down to the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and what the majority of republican senators want. tonight, top senate demo

did president trump ask mick mulvaney and duffey to put a hold on this again skprefrm what he wanted to hear on that phone call? those are the types of questions that come out of this email disclosure, and that's why i think we need more documents, especially from the office of management and budget and mick mulvaney. that's why we need witnesses. >> mick mulvaney was a member of congress who i would imagine took the congressional budget and impoundment control act of 1984 very seriously. even if you don't know about that act, you know about article i of the constitution. when congress appropriates money, it is not legal for the executive to do something else with that money. >> correct. >> kind of interesting that the office of management and budget and mick mulvaney are in the middle of something that mulvaney would never have stood for as a member of congress. the idea that the president, the executive branch, can get involved in holding back money approved by congress notwithstanding this was approved military aid for a country in a hot war with russia. >> you might have mentione

[applause] mick: how you doing?k 'n roll hall of fame 25th anniversary concert. tom hanks: tonight, this garden of sound will host a gathering of performers in a historic, one-time-only celebration. rolling stones: ♪ war, children it's just a shot away it's just a shot away ♪ announcer: you also get this 36-page "rolling stone" souvenir booklet that tells you the stories behind these historic concerts. simon and garfunkel: ♪ lie la lie lie la lie lie lie la lie lie la lie ♪ [applause] the police: ♪ roxanne you don't have to put on the red light ♪ announcer: that's a total of 12 dvd's, 179 historic performances, including dozens that have never been available before, for the greatest rock dvd collection ever. >> ♪ if i were to say to you girl, we couldn't get much higher come on baby, light my fire ♪ announcer: and that's not all. we'll ship it to you for free. santana: ♪ got a black magic woman got a black magic woman ♪ announcer: your satisfaction is guaranteed. if it's not the best dvd collection you have ever own

including acting chief of staff mick mulvaney and john bolton. the president's republican allies admit they're not impartial. saying once again they don't want a long trial or any witnesses. we're going to discuss all of this. senator schumer will be here in the next hour. >> joining us now, david gregory, rachael bade, and jennifer rodgers. david gregory, let's put those four faces back on the screen that the senate majority leader chuck schumer says he wants to see in a senate impeachment trial. this is the opening salvo from senator schumer in the negotiations with mitch mcconnell which will begin soon. and to me what this looks like is schumer trying to put pressure on republicans now. saying if you don't want to hear from these fact witnesses, from these four people who have first hand knowledge of what transpired, it's on you to explain why. >> it's clear they seem to want more witnesses. they want more of a spectacle for this trial. it's a sign that democrats are trying to keep the investigation going. let's get closer to the truth with th

after mick mulvaney's epic fail that day in the briefing room. >> let's be clear. you just described a quid pro quo. >> we do that all the time with foreign policy. and i have news for everybody. get over it. there's going to be political influence in foreign policy. >>> and good day, everyone, i'm andrea mitchell in washington. competing for the chance to run against an impeached president, the seven top democrats fighting for the nomination went at each other in a fiery debate last night. after a rapid rise in the iowa polls, pete buttigieg took most of the heat from his competitors, especially during this exchange with elizabeth warren over campaign fundraisers, including his recent one in a california wine cave. >> billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the united states. >> this is the problem with issuing purity tests you cannot yourself pass. if i pledged never to be in the company of a progressive democratic donor, i couldn't be up here. senator, your net worth is 100 times mine. >> i do not sell access to my time. i don't do call

to remember about mick mulvaney. in his heart he is a deficit hall. that might not have been in practice during his time in the trump administration. but he likes the idea of ending foreign aid that he thinks is counterproductive. he likes cutting funding. so in theory he liked thisic itt congre but his conduct, and it' true, we haven't seen him, he's not a witness, he doesn't have any intention to appear before congress. but he was careful. he was watching out for someone's legal equities. he left -- "this time's report. mick mulvaney has said by associates to have stepped out of the room whenever trump would talk to mr. giuliani to preserve mr. trump's attorney/client privilege leaving him with limited knowledge about their efforts regarding. and in what capacity was rudy acting as his private lawyer? >> right. you don't step out of the room if you don't think there's something you don't want to hear. and if he's cognisant of the attorney/client privilege, he certainly had at least some awareness of what was going

donald trump's impeachment trial senate minority leader chuck schumer wants acting chief of staff mick mulvaney and former national security adviser john bolton testified the house of representatives of expected to vote in the next few days to impeach the president which would set up a trial in the senate but he has reaction to the democrats' request from washington d.c. . well the senate majority leader to whom this letter is addressed has said he will consult with the democratic leadership about the format of any trial in the senate however he's also made clear that currently he's taking his cues from the white house he's coordinating very carefully with the white house on how a trial would would would unfold and that's what a lot of democrats words are now we have this letter from the senate democratic leadership because they want to get their voice out that notably and saying we do want witnesses we want witnesses for witnesses but most notably john bolton a former national security advisor known not to have been a fan of trump's actions in ukraine with the ukrainian government and

mick mulvaney, former national security advisor john bolton and two others. the white house is dismissing schumer's request tonight with a familiar attack on democrats on what it calls "the impeachment sham." i will get reaction from chris murphy. analysts are also standing by. first to our senior international correspondent, alex. we're getting a piece of the dynamic moving from the house to the senate. >> what it looks like is still very much in the air when the ball is in mitch mcconnell's court. and chuck schumer is trying to get four senior trump officials on ukraine to testify. >> conducting an impeachment trial in the senate is enormously weighty and solemn responsibility. >> the tables are turning. while republicans for now control the senate trial, democrats today pushing their plan they hope will gain republican support. >> do they want a fair honest trial that examines all the facts or do they want a trial that doesn't let the facts come out. trials have witnesses! >> reporter: in a letter to majority leader mitch mcconnell, schumer called for subp

in one email reported by "the times," a warehouse aide warned acting chief of staff mick mulvaney, that, of course, the chief of staff to the president, that congress would become unhinged by the hold in aid. of course, laws required when congress appropriates funds that those funds are spent. in a meeting, the president ignored a direct appeal to release the funding from three of his own senior appointees. then national security adviser john bolton, defense secretary mark esper, secretary of state, mike pompeo. joining me now, one of "the new york times'" reporter on that story, eric lipton. eric, good to have you on this morning. thanks very much. >> thank you, yes. >> as you know, the central defense from republicans in the larger impeachment question is or insufficient proof that this from the president. you have three of the president's senior advisers going to the president trying to be released and being refused. and you have his chief of staff here seemingly carrying out this order. what does this do to that defense? >> there's no ambiguity at all that this was an order from the

what stood out was the fact we knew that mick mulvaney is carrying the president's water on this but there were key meetings he was left out of. what was the reason. to give himself plausible deniability or for the president and rudy giuliani to have attorney/client privilege and that isn that democrats have moving forward, might have questions for mick mulvaney. but the reality is republicans in the senate pretty much had their minds made up and they know exactly what they're going to do moving forward and i don't think anything out of this article that will change their minds. >> and jane, mick mulvaney in the emails that the "new york times" uncovered, a month before the call talking about with holding the aid. >> i agree i don't think this will change minds for republicans because i think republicans are answering to a larger and more to them more important master which is trump who holds control of the popularity with voters and we see so many times with this administration there has been a kind of a standard deviation difference between donald trump and the trump administration

mick mulvaney obously has a int of rmation. he had that distrous press conference in which he essentially admitted that this like this all the time, foreign aid is is sometimes conditioned upon other things, get over it, basically. he could be a possible witness that would have a lot to say. i think chuck schumer has a lots ofrs to give in that i 1999 in the clinton impeachmentn he did notany witnesses. there is not that many precedents. on two por presidents ha gone to trial for impeachment. we don't have a lot to work with. laura: meanwhile, the chief justice of the supreme court, john roberts, would preside over the trial. is he going to wanted to be politi-substantive rather -- political--substantive rath r than polital? caroline: i think his role is more ceremonial than anything else. it is the jurors, the senators, that have the final say. t es a simple minority, but the simple minority can set the processes and procedures. there's a famous quote by justice rehnquist when he was presiding in 1999 over the clinton impeachm

mick mulvaney is one of them, pat cipollone is one of them. the lawyerly part of that is if this thing goes all the way and they never release the aid, it gets to september 30 and sorry ukraine you're out of luck, you didn't do what we asked you to do, they were going to say this wasn't illegal not withstanding the fact there's a law that says congress has the power of the purse. you have to spend it. the president doesn't get to put that in his pocket as he used to up until the nixon administration. they were going to say forget it, not withstanding the reform when it coms to national security, the president still has the final say. congress does not have the power of the purse. it's the inverse of what we saw with the wall spending where the president takes things not appropriated by congress and says he's going to spend it on things he wants, a wall, and he's not going to spend it. two sides of the same coin. >> were it not for the whistleblower complaint, who knows what would have happened with that aid. this "new york times" piece bolster

mulvaney and format -- chief of staff mick mulvaney and former national security advisor john bolton>> to cover up his efforts >> the white house discourage both from cooperate with the house inquiry even though both could shed light on trump's motivation for withholding military aid from ukraine, the basis for the impeachment investigation. >> these people know better than anyone else the facts. there is no reason on gods green earth why they should not be called and testify unless you are afraid of what they might say. >> trump repeatedly claimed no wrongdoing when he asked ukraine's president to do him a favor. and investigate the son of his political rival, joe biden, on allegations of corruption. trump's personal attorney, rudolph to the body, -- rudolph giuliani, freshman trip to ukraine, has threatened to expose corruption and bribery on the part of the white house under president bark obama. obama - asked -- bark barack obama. >> he does this out of love. he sees what goes on. >> it is an attempt to discredit the proceedings while offering no evidence to dispute the case sign

pence, secretary of state mike pompeo, former energy secretary rick perry, and acting chief of staff mick mulvaney were active participants in the trump campaign, the white house dismissing the impeachment report's finding and, again, attacking the process, and trump's allies agree. >> they're having one big problem, a tnds big problem is the president did nothing wrong, and they can't prove it. >> meanwhile house judiciary democrats calling on the republican colleagues to take this morning's session

he was a close adviser to mick mulvaney.came over to the white house and he was present in these discussions about holding up money. the last person on this list is michael duffey, someone else who has refused to testify in the house proceedings. he's a current omb official, and he was in an odd position because he was a political appointee who helped hold back this money for ukraine. normally that's a job reserved for career staffers, again, someone we have not heard from. none of these folks are going to show up willingly. they're all hiding behind this white house demand that they not show up and testify, so we'll see if it's any different when it gets to the senate, dana. >> hard to believe it will be. thanks so much for laying that out. joining me from capitol hill is democratic senator holland from maryland. thanks for joining me. i want to get to the quote you said last week. you said what the president did is, quote, an attack on our democracy, and you also said, quote, that you have to hold the president accountable

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

this would include testimony from folks like mick mulvaney and john bolton.m -- to get republicans to go along with that since they are in the majority, would you be willing to negotiate on witnesses that republicans would like to call during the trial as well? >> i suppose it depends on who those witnesses are, but sure. we've got -- it's amazing, these are witnesses that the white house should have supplied as a matter of course because the congress asked to hear them. the president is hiding behind this inventedturn o eut that ev the way he says it is. he's trying to downplay this, telling his supporters there's nothing to see here, but i think we're going to find out that it's a pretty serious thing when the president of the united states tries to extort a foreign leader and get them to interfere in our elections. i don't think that's going to wear well. >> you pose an important question. you also lay out how important you think it is to get the likes of mulvaney and bolton and others to testify. if it is so important, what about hunter biden? would you t

a "new york times" story describ described mick mulvaney's deep involvement in the discussions of $391 million in aid and pushback on the president. quote, in late august defense secretary mark esper joined mike pompeo and john bolton, the national security adviser at the time, for a previously undisclosed oval office meeting with the president where they tried but failed to convince him that releasing the aid was in the interest of the united states. adding to the intrigue surrounding ukraine, an announcement from the state department this morning that secretary pompeo will travel to kiev on friday and meet with president zelensky. the first in-person high level meeting between a u.s. official and zelensky since president trump's bilateral discussion back in september. joining me now, aaron lipton a reporter and one of the authors of today's front page story. msnbc contributor and former republican congressman david jolly. and analyst phil rucker and from "the washington post" and also in studio john gans, former speech writer to ash carter. and welcome as we dive right into this. and

mick mulvaney still runs it. he's the acting chief of staff.d goes. that's early april. after mueller's finding went to the doj, early april, but before the full report came out. but the question is raised, were they hustling to create a distraction from the mueller report? ukraine is behind this election interference, forget the russia report. then less than two weeks later on april 23rd and april 24th, eat series of calls between giuliani, parnas, and white house officials. so, one thing's for sure, this parnas is not just some guy on the outside who doesn't know anything. he's in there. now we know rudy took credit for getting the u.s. ambassador removed. but the day she was ordered home, he talked to the white house eight times, all right? the next day, joe biden announced he's running for the white house. we now know for sure what the president wanted. the question for the democrats is can you show that's why aid was withheld. now, that takes us to august 8th. mark sandy at omb, the agency that controlled the aid, remember, he testified. h

. >> is witnesses include mick mullaney, john bolton, robert blair and michael duffy, suggesting starts for mitch mcconnell who indicated he does not envision a long and drawn out trial, he will meet with schumer to discuss the contours of a trial. we could hear more from mcconnell today but as you mentioned we are off to the races. it will be a historic week as soon as tomorrow. shannon: a jampacked week, we appreciate it. much more coming up but last-minute negotiations are scheduled at loyola university just days before the next democratic debate. food workers on strike demanding higher hourly wages. the 7 candidates who qualify for thursday's debate are threatening to boycott in solidarity. the debate was moved to loyola in november because of a separate labor dispute at ucla which was the original debate sites. bernie sanders is speaking out against officials in georgia and wisconsin for purging voter rolls. >> to those republican governors and officials i say to those cowards get out of politics and get another job. shannon: 300,000 voter registrations one day after 200,000 voter

. >> let's say he's willing to let some of these witnesses testify, whether it be mick mulvaney or john bolton. would you be willing to sign off on republican witnesses to -- whether that be, perhaps, hunter biden or the whistle-blower? >> look, i am going to use as the standard do these folks have knowledge of the facts presented by the house some these witnesses do. i'm not going to get into a negotiation here in public, but witnesses that are conspiraextrn other side shouldn't be in the trial. i don't know a single person does hunter biden know anything about the specific facts that were presented here, not once. so what is he doing at this trial? >> you know, one of the reasons that you've been so successful in the senate and the senate leadership is you can count. so right now, according to your count, you lose, right? >> well, we don't know. i mean, that's why we're doing this. there are republicans who are worried about what's happening in the country. there are republicans who say these facts are troubling but maybe we need to see more. and so my hope is that they will go along

alleging top members of the trump administration including mike pence, mike pompeo, rick perry, and mick mulvaney were knowledgeable of or active participants in trump's treasure campaign. the white house dismissing the impeachment report's finding and again attacking the process. and trump's allies agree. >> they're having one big problem. the problem is the president did nothing wrong and they can't prove it. >> reporter: meanwhile, house judiciary democrats calling on their republican colleagues to

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

and one clear question is whether it could be mick mulvaney, the acting white house chief of staff, whohe omb director. >> right. you could imagine a very sort of like -- a sort of finely parsed answer that says no one in omb spoke to rudy giuliani, but mick mulvaney, because he wears two hats maybe did. >> right. so we posed that question to various white house officials and to rudy, and while rudy acknowledged speaking with mick and said they're friends and that they've spoken a number of times, the white house -- a white house official told us that they reviewed mick's cell phone records and that they don't match up with the records in the call log. >> so as of now, the official line from the white house is that there was just a mystery person on the other line, or maybe no one for the 13 and 14-minute calls respectively with the president's personal attorney. >> that's right. it's remarkable given how many officials we've now seen linked to rudy in one way or another that whoever this person is, is still not coming out, and i guess saying that it was them. >> it does strike me that

. >> part of his proposal is calling for white house officials, the chief of staff mick mulvaney, former national security adviser john bolton, the white house blocked their testimony. it is the first step in negotiations with majority leader mitch mcconnell on what this trial will actually look like, but don't expect these talks go smoothly. mcconnell has made it clear he wants a quick trial and said he is working in his words, in total coordination with the white house. remember, senators in an impeachment trial, they do take an oath, it's laid out in the constitution to be impartial jurors. we'll see if that plays out. let's get started with manu raju on capitol hill. senator schumer laying out his proposal for this. do we have any sense whether mitch mcconnell will accept that proposal? >> it's highly unlikely that he will. this is going to be the start of negotiation. of course as you mentioned, a momentous week in the house beginning with that wednesday vote, but there will be steps needed to be taken before we reach that historic vote on wednesday in which the president will be th

and second, after that, mick mulvaney.d into this, nothing these witnesses did did anything but corroborate what the president said as you said, back to the whistleblower's complaint. to mick mulvaney and the consist testimony of the cream of our diplomatic core, all leads to the same conclusion. the president, we know they withheld this aid. it wasn't released until after there was public congressional pressure it was public. ukrainians were aware of this. they talk so much. and you and i have talked about latin phrases. a quid pro quo. the other one you and i referenced, it speaks for itself. in this case, the law that the president violated, the harm he did, speaks for itself. i just caution reading too much into -- >> -- there's concern that if you go back to mueller -- i guess you could dovetail an obstruction, an article of impeachment obstruction then and now, but lose votes. are you worried if you reach back to mueller, as we're hearing from moderate democrats, you lose votes? >> i don't know how listing more tr cr

that senate minority leader chuck schumer has called for john bolton an acting white chieve of staff mickulvaney as witnesses in the senate impeachment trial. schumer sent a letter to mcconnell yesterday proposing that the senate subpoena with bolton and mulvaney along with two other people close to the president who may know about the delay of military aid to ukraine. in a letter, he writes, senate democrats, believe strongly, and i trust senate republicans agree, that this trial must be one that is fair, that considers all of the relevant facts and that exercises the senate's sole power of impeachment under the constitution with integrity and dig ny. president trump has repeatedly lashed out against impeachment and has told confidantes that even if he is acquitted in the senate as expected it will be a stain on his legacy but the a. p. is noting that he believes impeachment could be a political winner, setting re-election campaign data, that shows his campaign rally attendance and battleground poll numbers have increased since the inquiry began. and senator schumer joins us later this m

mick mulvaney is one of them, pat cipollone is one of them.nd the lawyerly part of that is if this thing goes all the way and they never release the aid, it gets to september 30 and sorry ukraine you're out of luck, you didn't do what we asked you to do, they were going to say this wasn't illegal not withstanding the fact there's a law that says congress has the power of the purse. you have to spend it. the president doesn't get to put that in his pocket as he used to up until the nixon administration. they were going to say forget it, not withstanding the reform when it coms to national security, the president still has the final say. congress does not have the power of the purse. it's the inverse of what we saw with the wall spending where the president takes things not appropriated by congress and says he's going to spend it on things he wants, a wall, and he's not going to spend it. two sides of the same coin. >> were it not for the whistleblower complaint, who knows what would have happened with that aid. this "new york times" piece bolst

you've got robert blair, senior advisor to mick mulvaney. mick mulvaney himself, remember, who had that moment of candor back in october in the white house briefing room when he said, look, politics always infects foreign policy. and f don't li and if you don't like it, get over it. you've also got john bolton, who through his attorney, said that he has knowledge of additional meetings and conversations that could be beneficial to the case. that is the substantive reason why the senator has sort of limited this -- his proposal to these four witnesses. politically, though, i suspect he limited it to these people and not the entire universe of witnesses that he could have pulled from because he was trying to suggest that this proposal is entirely reasonable. and that matters because he's trying to get enough republican support to, effectively, force mitch mcconnell to have no choice but to call for the kind of trial that schumer, himself, is envisioning. so when this entire process reaches the senate, there are a couple of numbers you're going

mick mulvaney, the acting chief of staff is also the head of omb.uite know how those numbers have been coded, why it's been coded omb. so one mystery is is that actually mick mulvaney, the president's chief of staff? also very interesting for him to be talking to him but maybe not necessarily directly about budgetary issues. on the other hand, could it be an omb staffer or that rudy giuliani was talking about this issue of military aid all the way back in april? at this moment we just don't know. >> what about negative 1? who could that be? >> negative 1, the widespread thought is that it is likely the president. there's sort of a striking pattern of calls in which rudy giuliani calls the white house switch board and then very soon thereafter receives a phone call back from this negative 1 number. so it would stand to reason that that perhaps is a phone associated with the president. but of course we just don't really entirely know for sure. >> we will be waiting to find out. rod lyndh, thank you so much. michael, thank you as well. >>> coming up, t

your thoughts on whether mick mulvaney might not be the acting chief of staff. guest: i would not bet the farm on it, but i would bet several acres. it would be easy for the president to move mick mulvaney back to the position he actually holds which is director of the office of management and budget. he is acting chief of staff and the president has said, he likes acting.' if that were the case, it would be easy for him to move mr. mulvaney back to his full-time job and mr. meadows over to the job. he makes little secret of savoring chief of staff. given the close relationship between the north carolinian and the president, he will not be acting anything. relationship the between mick mulvaney and the president from what you can tell? guest: it is more like a vice president of a major company with the ceo. administers a lot of things, but the president make the final decision. not be a strong chief of staff in the sense james baker was toes ronald reagan, the gold standard for chief of staff. on the other hand, the president does not have a lot of people who te

but steve, mick mulvaney and i were friends. jim jordan and i were friends. i don't recognize these people anymore. i really don't. know what donald trump did is wrong. they know donald trump acts like he is above the law. they know donald trump acts like a dictator. fearedow our founders foreign influence in our elections, yet mick mulvaney and it is son, it's like, disappointing. it's like all of my former colleagues, and this is a strong thing to say, but it is like they have sold their souls. i just don't understand that. they know what, they know donald trump doesn't give a darn about the debt but they don't say that. it is like they have sold their soul to be accepted by this president. i find that so discouraging. steve: you said you were a little too hard at times towards president obama. cite one example where you had to apologize. on the radio, i called barack obama a muslim. something for which i have profoundly apologized. and announcedout about three months ago that i am running for president and when i it, i in essence also help bringing us dona

asking for officials like the former national security adviser john bolton, acting chief of staff mick mulvaney to testify. the white house saying this is a sign that the democrats don't have a case to convict and remove the president from office. one thing that the white house did not say is, yes, you can have your witnesses, which is why people like chuck schumer is saying what does the white house have to hide? talking to my source this is evening, there is a view inside the white house that what chuck schumer did earlier today was essentially respond to the president and other republicans saying they want to see hunter biden, the whistle-blower testify as if chuck shoomer is saying if you want to bring in your witnesses we'll want to bring in our witnesses, which means it will be in the interest of both sides to have a speedier trial. >> any sense that the president wants a longer, more drawn-out trial or a shorter one? we've heard conflicting things. >> yeah. anderson, i think he pines for one. i think he would like to see one. i think he is starting to listen to advisers who are

but steve, like mick mulvaney and i were friends. jim jordan and i were friends. i don't recognize these i really don't. i mean, they know what donald trump did is wrong. they know that donald trump acts like he's above the law. they know that donald trump ask like a dictator. they know that our founders feared foreign influence in our rselections read it yet mick mulvaney and jim jordan, it's like it's so disappointing. it's like all of my former colleagues , and this is a strong thing to say. but it's like they sold their soul. and i just don't understand that. they know what donald trump, they know he doesn't give a darn about the debt but they don't say that. it's like they sold their soul to the be accepted by this president. i find that so discouraging. >> you said earlier you were a little too hard attimes towards president barack obama. cite one example where you had to apologize area . >> on the radio, i called barackobama a muslim . something for which i profoundly apologize. look steve, i came out and announced three months ago i'm running for president

impeachment trial chuck schumer says he wants senior officials including white house acting chief of staff mick mulvaney and former national security adviser john bolton to be summoned he's due to give a news conference this hour of course we'll have that few live when it starts a vote in the democratic led house to impeach president donald trump is expected on wednesday if that pass' he'll then be tried in the republican controlled senate but republicans have called for a short trial about any witnesses why did your castro joins us live now from capitol hill what are you hearing but there about the prospect of mulvaney and bolton being summoned as witnesses. it mariyam so that's looking forward into the new year when after this wednesday's expected vote on the house floor that is expected to impeach president trump making him only the 3rd us president in history to be impeached by congress that's when this kicks over to the senate and before those senators are even going to hear any of the evidence against trump they must 1st establish the trial rules this is because the u.s. constitution offe

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

mick mulvaney still runs it. he's the acting chief of staff.hey're in control of when the aid goes. that's early april. after the mueller final went to the d.o.j. but before the final report came out. were they hustling to create a distraction from the mueller report? ukraine is behind this election int interferen interference, forget the russia report. and on april 23rd and april 24th, another series of calls between giuliani, parnas and white house officials. this parnas is not just a guy on the outside who doesn't know anything. now we know -- the next day joe biden officially announced he was running for the white house. that's all before you get to the president's self-proclaimed perfect phone call with his ukrainian counterpart. we now know for sure what the president wanted. the question for the democrats is can you show that's why aid was withheld? now, that takes us to august 8th. mark sandy at omb, the agency that controlled the aid, remember, he testified. he says at about that time trump's political appointee at omb took control of

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