mr. mcconnell: i consent the senate vote. if confirmed they be considered made and laid upon the table, the senate be notified of the senate's action, no further motions be in order and statements related to the nomination be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question occurs on the nominations en bloc. all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination executive calendar 553. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: commerce of the united states j. blanton of virginia to be director of the capitol. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the senate vote on the nomination with no intervening action or debate, that if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and no further motions be in

mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3:00 p.m. monday, december 9. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. further, following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the bumatay nomination. finally, that the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. on monday. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: so, if there is know no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on monday.

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i understand the senate has received a message from the house to accompany h.r. 1865. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. mcconnell: i ask the chair lay before the senate the message to accompany h.r. 1865. the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate the following message from the house. the clerk: resolve the house agree to the amendment of the senate to the bill h.r. 1865 entitled an act to require the secretary of the treasury to mint a coin in commemoration of the opening of the national law enforcement museum in the district of columbia and for other purposes with the following amendment to the senate amendment. mr. mcconnell: i move to concur on the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 1865. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell moves to concur on the house amendment to the senate amendment. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk on the motion to concur. the pre

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask the chair lay before the senate a conference report accompanying s. 1790. the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate the conference report. the clerk: the committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the amendment to the house to the bill s. 1790 to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for military activities of the department of defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the department of energy to prescribe military personnel strength for fiscal year and other -- that the senate receive from the disagreement the amendment of the house and agree to the same with an amendment as -- with an amendment and the house agree to the same, signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both houses. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do her

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask this further proceedings dunders the quorum calls be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session and proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes eached to speak up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i have five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the a approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i understand there is a bill at the desk and ask for its first reading. ifer officer the clerk will read the title. the clerk: a bill to provide for a period of continuing appropriations in the event of a lapse in appropriations under the normal appropriations process and so forth. mr. mcconnell: i now ask for its second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the pr

mr. mcconnell: never had that problem. never really.here was nothing i saw or experienced in the campaign or fed anyuse ever, ever cynical side to me. i think it starved to death when i was in the white house, my cynical side. most of the people you run into in politics, it doesn't matter if you agree with them or not, you will find you are very similar to them. working on campaigns. i mean, sarah and i have had these conversations, and terry and i have been at these events. there is so much commonality, and then again, the government, if you have that privilege to work for a president, and people are there with very good intentions and want to do the right thing, and that is really what you spend most of your time trying to do. campaigns are rough and divisive and everything else, but even then, you are trying to appeal to a broad enough segment of the country to take power. and really, it brings out the best in people in positions we had, it seems to me. ms. hurwitz: yeah, i would echo that but also say there are moments when you get

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: are we're in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: well, mr. president, all eyes today are on the house of representatives. the country is waiting to see whether these house democrats will give in to the temptation that every other house in modern history has managed to resist and misuse the solemn process of impeachment to blow off partisan steam. i'll have more to say on this subject if house democrats do in fact proceed. but yesterday i came to the floor to discuss one initial aspect of this that concerns our senate process. over the weekend, my colleague, the democratic leader, began asking the senate to break from precedent, break with the unanimous template from 1999 and begin choreographing the middle of a potential trial before we've even heard opening arguments. back in 1999, all 1 100 senators agre

mr. mcconnell: all signs seem to suggest that later t sen. mcconnell: later this week, house democrats will finally do what many of them have been foreshadowing for three years now and impeach president trump. it appears the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history is about to wind down after just 12 weeks and that its slapdash work product will be dumped on us over here in the senate. say to our colleagues and to the american people if and when the house does move ahead. but as we speak today, house democrats still have the opportunity to do the right thing for the country and avoid setting this toxic new precedent. the house can turn back from a cliff and not deploy this constitutional remedy of last resort to deliver a predetermined partisan outcome. this morning, madam president, i just want to speak to one very specific part of this. over the weekend, the democratic leader decided to short circuit the customary and collegial process for laying basic groundwork in advance of a potential impeachment

mr. mcconnell news lengthy atresponse to a fair impeachment trial in the senate. you mcconnell was apparently upset that i sent him goleta a city sunday praising the first up was for the two leaders to meet and then discuss resolution. well, if we we're allowed to show a video of republicans last seweek. over this solid b of his argument. leader mcconnell unfortunately skipped his first step. when he began publicly talking about the rules of the senate trial, telling how he would be taking from the white house and his idea for how to conduct a trial long before the conversation was she still hasn't had with me. melinda was intended as a good faith proposal to kick start the discussions that leader mcconnell has delayed in getting to i still expect that we will sit down and discuss trial parameters despite theis publicy appearances on fox news. let me see this, let's look at that leaders beach and i did not hear a single sentence or argument as to why the witnesses i suggested should not give testimony. impeachment trials like most trials have witnesses to have kno

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: last night the house democrats finally did what they had decided to do a long time ago. they voted to impeach president trump. over the last 12 weeks, house democrats have conducted the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history. now their slapdash process has concluded in the first purely partisan presidential impeachment since the wake of the civil war. the opposition to impeachment was bipartisan. only one part of one faction wanted this outcome. the house's conduct risks a deeply damaging the institutions of american government. this particular house of representatives has let its partisan rage at this particular president create a toxic new precedent that will echo well into the future. that's what i want to discuss right now. the historic degree to which house democrats have failed to do their duty and what it will mean for the senate to do ours. so let's start at the beginning. let's start with the fact that washington democrats

mr. mcconnell: mr. president, for the information of all of our colleagues, earlier this afternoon my friend, the democratic leader, and i had a cordial conversation. we discussed potential paths forward following the house democrats' precedent-breaking impeachment of president trump. our conversation was cordial, but my friend from new york continues to insist on departing -- departing -- from the unanimous bipartisan precedent that 100 senators approved before the beginning of president clinton's trial.

mr. mcconnell should put mrs.losi on public notice that she has a certain period of time, perhaps until the end of the year, to name house managers. if she still refuses, he should declare that the senate will appoint managers to make the house impeachment case for the democrats. these are the most powerful, disciplined people in a staredown. >> i have a question for you that covers congress a lot more. looking at this through the lens of 2020, there seems to be an uncomfortable timeline in that iowa is going to start voting february 23rd. there are leading candidates running for the presidency who need to be at that senate trial. the longer this delays, is that not putting them in a strange -- is she unaware of that or does she care at this point? she's certainly aware. >> there are different schools of thought that if they go through these two weeks of no school into january, there will be that cloud hanging over them, and the other side of the coin is it's not a terrible thing for the gop if this takes a long t

mr. mcconnell said. each of these senators takes an oath. they raise their hand and swear that they will do impartial justice in accordance with the tu constitution. and mr. mcconnell has said instead of that he'll do a coverup in accordance with trump. and in view of that, the house as the sole authority for impeachment has every right to take its time in forwarding these articles to the senate in an effort to try to ensure that precedent is followed, that witnesses are called and that there is an impartial justice that is done there. >> one of the reasons we pleaded with you to come on the show, you also were a judge. you were a judge in a texas supreme court. of koushs it plcourse it's a po proce process, not a judicial process. there are two salvos being used again yours side in the legitimacy of fairness. one is from senator schumer from back with the last iteration of impeachments with clinton. it's making the rounds. >> the republicans said proudly, quote, i'm not an impartial juror. independent not i'm not impartial about this at all

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that following disposition of h.r. 2333, the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the van dyke nomination, further the postcloture time expire at 4:15 today and the senate vote on confirmation of the nomination. further, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. further, following disposition of the lawrence vandyke nomination, and notwithstanding the rules of -- rule 22 the senate vote on cloture on sullivan, hahn and skipwith nominations, and if cloture is invoked, the confirmation votes occur at that time to be -- at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the democratic leader on thursday, december 12. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so madam president, it's no secret that washington democrats have been itching to im -- to impeach president trump since the moment he t

mr. mcconnell has a thin margin they write. if democrats stick together and four republicans defect, mr. mcconnell could lose control of the proceedings. viewed another way he can lose only two votes if he wants to push through a resolution with only republican support. shan, do democrats have more power than they're getting credit for? >> i think they do and, again, i think in order to have any shot i think they need to make their case very strongly on the ukraine issues, but i think it would be helpful to remind everybody all the other terrible stuff that is going on. now, they can make a lot of those points by kind of sticking to their two articles but i think, again, the more that they bring to the table about the misconduct, the blanket obstruction of congress, all those things really going to the heart of these constitutional offenses because that's what they are. i mean rather than all these analogies that the republicans want to make this is not a crime trying to read into the offense technical elms of a crime they need

mr. mcconnell has a thin margin. if democrats stick together and four republicans defect, mr. mcconnell could lose control of the proceedings, he can lose only two votes if you wants to push through a resolution with only republican support. we have heard, you know, senator mitt romney talk about being open-minded in this process. is this a real concern? >> well, i mean that is true, and what that isn't is saying there is anywhere near the 67 senators needed to actually convict president trump. but what it does do is hem senator mcdmonl a bit in terms of how he's going to conduct this. that is the reason he has been telling the president and other republican senators have been privately telling the white house and counsel that they are not going to have the majority that they need to push through some of the more edgy elements of this trial that the president has seemed to want, things like calling hunter biden as a witness, dragging out the process for a very long time. don't forget that mitch mcconnell has to worry about his vulnerable republican senators who it's going to be

mr. mcconnell: last night the house democrats finally did what they had decided to do a long time ago. they voted to impeach president trump. over the last 12 weeks, house democrats have conducted the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history. now their slapdash process has concluded in the first purely partisan presidential impeachment since the wake of the civil war. the opposition to impeachment was bipartisan. only one part of one faction wanted this outcome. the house's conduct risks a deeply damaging the institutions of american government. this particular house of representatives has let its partisan rage at this particular president create a toxic new precedent that will echo well into the future. that's what i want to discuss right now. the historic degree to which house democrats have failed to do their duty and what it will mean for the senate to do ours. so let's start at the beginning. let's start with the fact that washington democrats made up their minds to impeach president trump since before he was even inaugurated. here's a rep

mr. mcconnell: all signs seem to suggest that later t sen. mcconnell: later this week, house democrats will finally do what many of them have been foreshadowing for three years now and impeach president trump. it appears the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history is about to wind down after just 12 weeks and that its slapdash work product will be dumped on us over here in the senate. say to our colleagues and to the american people if and when the house does move ahead. but as we speak today, house democrats still have the opportunity to do the right thing for the country and avoid setting this toxic new precedent. the house can turn back from a cliff and not deploy this constitutional remedy of last resort to deliver a predetermined partisan outcome. this morning, madam president, i just want to speak to one very specific part of this. over the weekend, the democratic leader decided to short circuit the customary and collegial process for laying basic groundwork in advance of a potential impeachment

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: all signs seem to suggest that later this week, house democrats are finally going to do what many of them have been foreshadowing for three years now and impeach president trump. it appears that the most rushed, least thorough and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history is about to wind down after just 12 weeks and then its slap-dash work product will be dumped on us over here in the senate. i'll have much more to say to our colleagues and to the american people if and when the house does move ahead. but as we speak today, house democrats still have the opportunity to do the right thing for the country and avoid setting this toxic new precedent. the house can turn back from a cliff and not deploy this constitutional remedy of last resort to deliver a predetermined partisan outcome. this morning, madam president, i just w

mr. mcconnell: madam president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: well, for weeks now, republicans have been asking democrats to take off their impeachment blinders and let congress legislate for the american people. we've argued that american families deserve better than this partisan paralysis where democrats literally obsess over impeachment and obstruct everything else. this very morning, for example, the speaker gave a speech on national television to push forward her rushed and partisan impeachment. not one word, not one word on the outstanding legislation the american people actually need, nothing on usmca or the ndaa or funding for our armed forces. it's all impeachment all the time. only in this town, madam president, only in washington does anybody think it's okay for our armed forces to go unfunded and a major trade deal to go unpassed, because democrats are too busy hostin

mr. mcconnell's desk in what we now dubbed the legislative graveyard. the american people are united on the need to reduce the outrageous cost of prescription drugs. the house took action. mitch mcconnell will not. the american people want folks with pre-existing conditions on their health care to know they are protected. the house took action, mitch mcconnell and the republicans will not. the louismaking sure act which passed the house one hundred 46 days ago gets action in the senate to protect important pensions for all pensioners across the country, nothing being done. , where womenence and children are waiting to have the changes, the reauthorization that needs to happen, house acted, senate will not. finally, 90% of the american people want congress to pass the universal background checks. we are seeing everyday 100 americans killed everyday to gun violence. we have had over 396 mass shootings just this year. the house has passed bipartisan legislation. mitch mcconnell and the republicans will not act. we could save lives today. at this point, they

mr. mcconnell said. each of these senators takes an oath.y raise their hand and swear that they will do impartial justice in accordance with the constitution. and mr. mcconnell has said instead of that, he'll do a cover-up in accordance with trump. and in view of that, the house, as the sole authority for impeachment, has every right to take its time in forwarding these articles to the senate in an effort to try to ensure that precedent is followed, that witnesses are called, and that there is an impartial justice that is done there. >> so one of the reasons we pleaded with you to come on the show is some people won't know, but it's an easy google search away. you're also a judge. you were a judge, texas state supreme court. it's interesting to get your idea of fairness in this process. of course it's political. it's not a judicial process, but still. there are two salvos being used against your side in terms of the legitimacy of your desire for fairness. one of them is from senator schumer from back during the last iteration of impeachment

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: as we enter the final weeks of 2019, two things seem to be true here in congress. number one, our democratic colleagues, particularly over in the house, seem eager to pour the vast majority of their time and their energy into their three-year long journey to impeach the president the american people elected. and as a consequence, number two, congress has yet to fulfill a number of its core governing responsibilities for this year. at this late date several crucial must-pass bills remain undone. for months, madam president, my republican fellows and i have been expressing the need for bipartisan cooperation on these pressing subjects, funding for the federal government, defense appropriations, the money for our troops, the national defense authorization act. but for months our always calls for -- our calls for democrats to join us in serious negotiations went largely unanswered as democratic leadership opted for a different political playbook, obsess over impeachment and obst

mr. mcconnell says there will be no when this is at all. sen. schumer: we have not heard a single argument from leader mcconnelwias to why the essewe have requested should not come forward. christian: so democrats know that donald trump will be acquitted. they are determined to do as much political damage as they can in the meantime.the impeache over in a few weeks' time. the consequences will be felt all the way through 2020 to election day in november. the bbc's anthony zurcher has be t following all thests of impeachment throughout and we can talk to him now. do you think there is any chance -- we have been having this discussion in the studio about whether if there had been more roevidence, if thess had gone on for longer, if the house democrats had ited for longer, then perhaps more people in the senate might have changed their minds. do you think in this republican- controlled senate, there was ever any chance they would vot to impeach donald trump anm remove him fffice? anthony: it is hard to imagine in of republican switching over. while

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i've spoken at length about the serious impact that democrats' impeachment obsession has had on months worth of important legislative priorities. for months republicans have been calling for bipartisan solutions to the ndaa, to the appropriations process, and more. but only in the last couple of days here in mid-december, have our democratic colleagues gotten sufficiently serious about these must-pass bills. in the meantime, while we've waited on house democrats to act, the senate has made good use of our floor time to complete the american people's business with respect to nominations. last week alone the senate confirmed two executive branch nominations and put eight impressive justerrists on federal district courts. this week we considered yet another splait of president's well-qualified nominees. today the senate will consider john -- to serve as ambassador to the russian federation, stephen hahn to serve as commissioner of the food and drug administration, and aurelia s

mr. mcconnell and mr. graham, senator mcconnell and senator graham and they should recuse themselves because they have already picked a dog in this particular fight. i think we say things to people around here that the american people listen to that turned out to be flawed. again, i think everybody on this committee has great respect for mr. raskin. he's not just a value member of the judiciary committee. he's a more valuable member of our rules committee. but because i didn't -- when i found out i wouldn't have a chance to talk to mr. nadler, i went and brushed up on raskin's policy. i think they misquoted you, to be fair, mr. raskin. but salon did an interview you with you before the president was elected. their headline is "at least one democratic congressman is already preparing to impeach donald trump." the article is donald trump won't be sworn in another 48 hours. one democratic congressman has seen enough. you go on to talk about the emoluments clause. i think your legitimate questions about those i

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 th

having said that, mr mcconnell is a fan of nato, afan of that, mr mcconnell is a fan of nato, a fan ofes, its defence spending has been rising... —— president macron is a fan of nato. he really wa nts macron is a fan of nato. he really wants europe to be a very strong component of nato, having said that, he also wants europe to be strong without the us protective umbrella. he would like the eu to have more responsibility, more capability for its own defence, particularly in areas close to europe. i think that is why some of his partners are perhaps concerned that if there is a rift between europe and america, mr macron's position is slightly adding to it. lucy, thank you very much. let us get the german perspective. damian, one gets the impression that the german chancellor gets a bit fed up with president macron being so provocative. i think there is one quite a tribute to her that she said he smashes the china and she has to put it together again. that is right, that is one newspaper report. i'm not sure if we had confirmation if she said that not. what she has said that she did not

mr. mcconnell said there should not be a long, drawn-out trial. the president has been spotted on the golf course. >> sara westwood, we appreciate the report. the impeachment report is at a standstill, but first, the speaker hasn't handed over the articles of impeachment to the senate. why? she's saying that tshe wants to have ground rules for the trial that both leaders can agree with. senator lisa murkowski, who is pivotal in shaping the trial, said she is disturbed over president trump's attitude toward the white house. how significant is lisa murkowski saying this to the bigger picture? >> it's something. i don't mean to be glib, but when you talk to republicans in the house, you never saw any cracks at all. when you talk to republicans in the senate, they believe mitch mcconnell is paired up with the president. when you talk to someone like lisa murkowski, they brought the party of. the big question now, brianna, is about the democrats that were actually in play. when i say in play, this isn't about whether they'll have the votes to remove th

mr. mcconnell has discussed so far. that type of proceeding may well affect who she would have as our managers. clearly, adam schiff, who has done such a remarkable job that president trump is always attacking him, jerry nadler also is a clear choice from the judicial committee. but there's so much talent out there. again, you might adjust, depending on the type of proceeding we're about to have. i think it's also noteworthy with senator murkowski and the other senators that unlike the normal proceedings in the senate, where senator mcconnell can block consideration of gun safety or equality or voter protection legislation that we passed in the house, here every senator is equal and so each senator will have to decide, do they want a fair proceeding where witnesses are called, or do they only want to rubber stamp the white house? and i think each of those senators will be held accountable, depending what they decide about that. i think the only thing more outrageous these days in washington than president trump and his

mr. mcconnell have in terms of what that trial looks like? complete, near total, some? >> very substantial, but it's going to take 51 votes to establish any particular rule. and so the starting point is the rules that applied in the most recent impeachment in the 1990s, and there's going to be suggestions for changes. some people suggest that it should be not a real trial, but i suppose you could call it a fake trial, a trial with no witnesses whereby no real evidence. but i don't think that mcconnell will have 51 votes for that. i don't think he'll have 51 votes to bring in the whistle-blower. i don't think he'll have 51 votes for any number of things. but i also don't think the democrats are going to center 51 votes for a lot of what they want. so this is going to be a very tough negotiation, laying down the ground rules of the trial, and i think it remains to be seen what the trial will look like. but there'll be a high price to pay if the republicans insist on having really no real trial at all, no witnesses. that will be the strongest confession of guilt possible.

. >> mcconnell also needs to keep republican skeptics of mr. trump on board. >> i'm going to be talking to colleagues, listening to the leadership, and giving it a great deal of thought. >> and up for re-election himself in a trump friendly state, mcconnell needs to please the president. >> i just left president trump. he's mad as hell that they would do this to him. >> and joining me now is vice president's chief of staff and the president's former legislative source martin short. let me start with a simple question. how does the west wing want to see a senate trial? what kind of trial does the west wing want to see? >> oh, chuck, i think that right now the west wing of the white house is understanding that the reason this president's being impeached is because he's winning in so many ways. he won on taxes. the economy is booming. there's record low unemployment. the military is getting refunded. we're striking new trade deals. it goes back to what congressman al green said. he said we have to impeach this president or else he could get reelect

mr. mcconnell to bring forth the documents and witnesses we have a right to hear. >> the speaker will eventually choose impeachment managers and the house republicans will do the same, to send over to the senate, to present the case in the senate. who should she pick, and if obviously you may not name someone specifically, what qualities should they have? should this be a veteran lawmaker, freshman, one that only has participated in these investigations and hearings? what do you think? >> miss pelosi is an extraordinary judge of talent. she takes her time when she makes appointments, especially to select committees. she keeps those decisions close to the vest. she has, in my opinion, an embarrassment of riches. di think what you've seen during this investigation and impeachment process is a number of lawmakers qualified and skilled to do this. i don't think they have to be members of those two committees. i don't think they have to be experienced veterans. i think we saw some freshmen step up. whomever she chooses i think will do a good job. i think there's a lot of talent out there with the cap

mr. mcconnell, the witnesses that have primary information, evidence, direct evidence that would deal with the president should be brought before the senate and testify at trial. >> yeah, absolutely. and i think sarah's right. there is the prospect of a handful of these republicans, and that's all that's required, and some of them are in tough re-election races, so i think you could see that. and i think the republicans -- mcconnell and lindsey graham made a huge mistake by saying up front that they're not impartial jurors. >> they said it and repeated it. and don't you have to be sworn in as impartial. >> they will have to take the oath. and it's going to be interesting to see. are they going to lie under oath? >> it would be interesting to see ask that they be recused because of their statement and play the videotape of what they said. if they need it, i have those tapes. we'll have more with david and sarah later in the show. >>> coming up, i was front and center at this week's debate in the los angeles area where the candidates came out swinging. still ahead, who won the night and who

mr. mcconnell i hope bring up for a vote if he doesn't have the articles of impeachment yet. stuebe, from sarasota area, a lot of sunshine i can imagine. happy new year. merry christmas to you. >> you too. blake: coming up on evening edit. rare moment of bipartisanship on capitol hill with backing from the white house. the smoking age, it is set to get a bump up to 21. coming up why critics are raising questions over enforcement. later in the show, homelessness in california. the new numbers and the new law that is hoping to reverse a trend. ♪. (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. you may have gingivitis. when you brush, and the clock could be ticking towards bad breath, receding gums, and possibly... tooth loss. help turn back the clock on gingivitis with parodontax. leave bleeding

mr. mcconnell will try to bury the impeachment deal, and does not want to see the truth. aump will keep calling biden crook and vice versa until the election. biden needs to call trump out, and to deal and come to the c-span stage, and get hooked up to the polygraph and find out if biden is lying or trump's. [laughter] we the people will know the truth. , do yoution for you is askinghat the president a foreign government to investigate a political opponent is wrong? democrats, call your senators and put your protests in. have a good day. personal view of that opposition research today sometimes mean going throughout the world in talking to other people about political candidates. we have become such a global through the easiness of communicating, through the computer, twitter, facebook, etc., it is not difficult to and does nothers require one leader to the other asking for things. when someonehand, engages in international lobbying, they enter another world. i know members of congress who specifically after leaving office will not become registered foreign agents, becaus

mr. mcconnell but he makes a valid point, you don't gain much leverage and threatening to withhold something that the senate does not want. and as andy pointed out, you have a lot of members and district won by donald trump who will vote for impeachment but frankly, walk through the legislative digestive system as fast as possible because if you are one of those candidates on the campaign trail, heck, if you are one of the 2020 democrats voting for president, this has now become all-consuming. the election would be a referendum on impeachment and right now, an election who the president would overwhelmingly win in the electoral college. >> gregg: by a fairly large margin, congressman biggs against removing the president via impeachment. and you just heard the clip we played from cbs reporter garrett, major garrett who said, any president in terms of minority votes would vote and be happy to have this record plaguing. and so when you factor independence, the minority vote, and the president's rise in polling numbers plus his tremendous increase in fund-raising, i know it's early, but is he lo

mr. mcconnell is the boss, he's the leader, which essentially makes him foreman of the jury. he's key to the rules. he's decided already before hearing a shred of evidence in the senate that the will not be convicted. is that the way to do this or is this where we live? >> it is not a jury trial. it is a political trial, and chuck schumer has also made up his mind how he's going to vote. that is the reality that we're in right now. mitch mcconnell told his republican caucus the other day in a private luncheon, a long trial is mutually assured destruction, the way he described it. because if they want to call hunter biden, then he told them, we're going to have to call mike pence. for every biden, you get a pence. then you're going to get the other two people sitting on the couch, mulvaney and pompeo, because there just aren't enough votes to hold a completely partisan trial right now. so he just wants this to be clean and simple. >> a little more mitch mcconnell here. the reason you make that point is mitch mcconnell right here. he is calm at the moment. we company in texpect

mr. mcconnell sticks to his guns and she has no influence in the senate. they should keep it that way. and we'll just continue to put more judges on benches throughout this country and working on what is a really good economy. >> they really do try to have it both ways, even though nancy pelosi does, even though the constitution does say the sole power. she tends to ignore that. congressman zelden, i want to go with you. because nancy pelosi i believe earlier today tweeted this -- let me read it for you. the facts are clear. and every witness told the same story. despite the president's attempts to cover it up, president trump abused his power for his own personal gain, #defendourdemocracy. i know you tweeted on this earlier, but what's your reaction when you hear the speaker of the house tweet that? >> their entire case is contested. so pelosi, schiff, nadler, they keep saying the facts are uncontested. the very first interview was a transcribed interview with former special envoy with ukraine, volcker. he talked about there was no quid pro quo. the president didn't know until august

mr. mcconnell said. >> democrats hoping at least four republican senators will break ranks to compel witnessny. >> we're in a very good position. ultimately that decision is going to be made by mitch mcconnell. >> this is the concern for mitch mcconnell. i think it probably will have an effect on how mcconnell and the leadership moves forward. >> they treated us very unfairly. they didn't give us anything. now they want everything. >> this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to your "new day. "thursday, december 26th. john berman is still off, sleeping off his massive meals, i'm sure, this week. john avlon is here with me. >> happy boxing day. great to be with you. >> all right. christmas did not change. the stalemate over the impeachment trial. but for the first time, we are seeing a republican break ranks in the senate. senate lisa murkowski says she is, quote, disturbed by the coordination between senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and the white house in the lead-up to the president's impeachment trial. mur cowkey is one of a handful o

mr. mcconnell's turn to do the same in the senate. >> luis, speaking of the house, as far as the way the president handled things there, it was to basically not allow the witnesses to testify. do you think that would change in the senate? >> i don't think it's going to change in the senate. they never want it. they complain. the president says, oh, well, why aren't we going to have witnesses in the senate? they should have called them in the house. they wanted them, mr. president, you knew it. you explicitly made it clear, and your attorney general certainly helped you, to not provide any witnesses. that is one of the charges against the president, or at least we forget, obstruction of justice. the fact that the president of the united states obstructed this process and abused his power. i want to keep this really simple, because i think that senator kennedy is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. he says on the one hand, and for those who take this, he says, i'll keep an open mind but i already made up my mind because this is calcified. which one is it? you should support the consti

mr. mcconnell have? >> very substantial?o establish any particular rule. so, the starting point is the rules that applied in the most recent impeachment in the 1990s and there are going to be suggestions for changes. some people suggest that it should be not a real trial, but i suppose you could call it a fake trial, a trial with no witnesses, no real evidence. but i don't think that mcconnell will have 51 votes for that. i don't think he'll have 51 votes to bring in the whistleblower. i don't think he'll have 51 votes for any number of things. but i also don't think the democrats are going to have 51 votes for a lot of what they want. so, this is going to be a very tough negotiation, laying down the ground rules of the trial. and i think it remains to be seen what the trial will look like. >> right. >> but there will be a high price to pay if the republicans insist on having really no real trial at all, no witnesses. that will be the strongest confession of guilt possible because if they were not afraid of a real trial with

mr. mcconnell doesn't want a senate trial, he wants a senate coverup. i've been been in a courtroom where the accused can block witnesses from testifying and prohibit prosecutors from asking questions. you and your colleagues on the editorial board have argued that mcconnell is really doing a disservice to the constitution. this is not going to be some normal courtroom trial anyway. we know this. we know what the mood is on the hill. mcconnell has said very clearly he's not going to be impartial about this. others have said they haven't read the article. >> jennifer is absolutely right. the story right now, the narrative is the president has been impeached. it makes no sense for speaker pelosi or any of the democrats to want to move beyond that. that's going to be the story over christmas, the president has been impeached. moving to the point where the president might be acquitted by the senate, in his words, exonerated, that doesn't really help democrats. this is a moment where they're going to kind of -- i don't want to say enjoy it, because it's a sa

mr. mcconnell, the majority leader, is going to go ahead and relent and let witnesses be brought in.ut the state of mind of the administration and what was the intent and the intent to cover up? >> i don't think he'll relent because of the information. republicans are operating on a partisan basis and want to control the trial. the reason he would relent is because of the limited number of witnesses because pelosi is holding this back. he wants to move forward. i can imagine a clinton-like agreement, where they had limited testimony from a few key layers. that would be the most that senator mcconnell would allow, if anything. >> more on the senate trial here. nancy pelosi, clearly, withholding the articles of impeachment until she deems there's going to be a fair trial. now, we're seeing republicans like marc short question her strategy here. listen to this. >> quite confident this position is untenable and she's going to move it along. and chuck schumer can reach a deal and it will proceed in the senate. >> you think he will eventually -- >> there's no way she can hold this position

mr. mcconnell would understand the weigh of the responsibility that is coming down on his shoulders an theders of the united states senate. you saw patrick leahy pen an op-ed said what is on trial not just the president but it is, in fact, the united states senate and the legitimacy of the senate and i would hope the majority leader would recognize that as well. >> and they are pushing to call trump witnesses as witnesses and one thing that pelosi wants and any agreement in the senate controlled by republicans would mean they get to call witnesses too. here is former vice president joe biden yesterday clearing up his position on whether or not he would be willing to testify. >> i would honor whatever the congress, in fact, legitimately asked me to do. i would, in fact, abide by the -- whatever was legally required manufactu required of me. i always have. >> do you think if biden gets subpoenaed he should comply and testify. >> i think the vice president has indicated he would abide by any lawful order that comes his way and i think that is -- that is probably the right thing to do. now let

mr. mcconnell has suggested he would like to see a short trial, and he doesn't want a circus because it'slear to people up on capitol hill that with all these moving parts, number one, the defendant can't call the shots but also, if you have a long trial, there's a real concern that it could be unpredictable, if you will. that is something mcconnell does not want because right now he believes he has senate republicans locked in, opposed to the conviction of the president. back to you. >> all right, joe johns. appreciate the reporting. if i don't see you first, have a great holiday. >> you, too. >>> meantime, the president is closing the gap on his 2020 democratic rivals in a new cnn poll of head-to-head matchups. it shows the president has cut the lead that joe biden and bernie sanders had on him and have back in october while overtaking mayor pete buttigieg altogether. these new numbers come on the heels of last night's democratic debate where buttigieg found himself to be a target. >> the mayor just recently had a fund-raiser that was held in a wine cave full of crystals and served $900