Like hes been talked out of that. Mcconnell, the Senate Majority leader, felt like he wanted a quick trial, but didnt want to bring in new witnesses and was able to prevail upon the white house that that was the best way to go. Those negotiations are still ongoing and theyre happening not only between the white house and the republicans in the senate, but also between the republicans in the senate and the democrats. But at this point it looks like theyre coming in on trying to have a relatively Speedy Senate trial that doesnt bring a lot of new witnesses. President trump felt like maybe they could have brought in witnesses like hunter biden and others to try to expand the scope of it and try to push it for political advantage. Well, at this point it looks like theyre going in a different direction. And also whats happening this last week, President Trump is trying to push through as many deals as he can to try to look like hes being productive as the house moves forward on impeachment. Host who will represent the president . Will there be witnesses for the president . What is the white house part of this . Guest the white house is talking with mcconnells office right now on exactly how thats going to go through. One of the most recent ideas has been to have the white the counsel represent republican side in the senate. That still hasnt been ompletely nailed down. It would be unusual to have the white House Counsel run the republican side in the senate. It would show a sort of collapse of the separation of powers between the senate and the white house. But mcconnell has said very clearly that he doesnt want daylight between him and the white house as the impeachment proceedings move forward. Host mike debonis, when will or will they, the two leaders in the senate, actually talk and will they negotiate or will Mitch Mcconnell go to Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski and say can you live with this, or other republicans who might defect . Guest we dont know. We started to have a conversation. I think thats going to probably begin in earnest as soon as the house votes on wednesday, perhaps before that. But both mcconnell and schumer know the situation here, which is, you know, theres these rules in place, and they were written in 1998, 1999, and theyre not necessarily the best rules for this particular situation. For both sides. So, unfortunately in the senate, you really cant do anything unless everyone agrees , and thats going to be a tough order with something as divisive as this. Back in 1999, everybody got it, literally got into a room and hard out an agreement on the rules. And it ended up passing on 1000 vote no. One really sees that happening this time. But what you did see last night was Chuck Schumer set out sort of a public marker of where he wants to sort of send this conversation, talks about the timeline of trying to get this started, week of january 6. Talked about witnesses that democrats would like to hear from, and kind of sketched out the process as the beginning of this negotiation, which is probably going to continue through the week and perhaps almost certainly beyond that. Host he asked for new witnesses, Mick Mulvaney, john bolton. Could that put pressure on moderate republicans to say we agree, we should hear from Mick Mulvaney and john bolton . Guest yes, and several of them have said that. Earlier in this process, they said theyd like to hear from these people. You know, its unclear just how influential they will be in enforcing the issue. You have a standoff where both sides have guns pointed to each other on these witnesses. The white house wants hunter biden and the whistleblower and what eople connected to characterizes democratic wrongdoing. Democrats obviously want bolton, mulvaney, a couple of other white house officials who had firsthand knowledge of what happened, and havent cooperated in the house. And, you know, unfortunately, the default here is not that everybody gets to talk, the default here will be that nobody additional gets to talk. If youre betting in vegas on how this goes, right now it looks like the default, the most likely resolution to this is that theres going to be no additional witnesses, and this is just going to be a trial where the house presents its case from its managers, the white house rebuts, and that may be the end of it. Host over the weekend, the Washington Post broke the story about congressman van drew. Why did he make this decision . What was behind it . Guest well, we havent heard from congressman van drew. He hasnt returned any reporters calls so far, including several of my own. What we do know from democrats who have spoken to him or are familiar with his sort of thinking is that his decision to oppose impeachment, and not only oppose it, but vocally oppose it, talk to reporters about it, go on cable news, including fox news, and talk about it, has really alienated the democratic voters in his district who support impeaching the president. We got a copy of a poll that his campaign had commissioned earlier this month. It showed that only a quarter of the voters, likely democratic primary voters in his district, wanted to renominate him. More than half, well over half, wanted a new nominee for the second Congressional District in new jersey. And i think that this was just simply an existential threat to his political career, and at the same time, republicans are eager to find any way to show that this is this impeachment process is backfiring on democrats, and i think the president saw an opportunity here. We know that the two of them met in the white house on friday. Told there was a lengthy meeting that the president made the case for a party switch, and apparently he took it very seriously. And now were waiting for him to actually make clear what his intentions are. Host and the white house likes this, right . Guest this is important to the white house. They want to show defections from the democratic side to the republican side, especially in the house. They want to be able to say that impeachment was not supported in bipartisan way. Theyre hoping that the white houses perspective that its only democrats who vote for impeachment in the house and that if the previous vote on the rules of how impeachment proceed, that is a road map for how the final vote goes, then well probably see a few democrats defect over to vote against impeachment. And the white house likes the optics of that and how that looks to their voters and their narrative that this is a partisan effort. Now, i will say the downside to this whole impeachment thing, its not all roses for the Trump Campaign, trump white house. The fact is trump doesnt want to be an impeached president. Looks like hes going to be. He doesnt want to have that on his resume. And politically, its better to run for reelection as an unimpeached president , than one who has been voted and impeached by the house. So its not all positive for the white house and for the Trump Campaign. The other thing is the impeachment trial, as it goes forward in the senate, means more headlines, more emphasis on trumps actions, what he did on the call with the ukraine leader asking for a favor that could be politically advantageous. All of that attention, there is concern amongst some Political Consultants that it could eventually change the tide of public opinion. Host the defections, mike debonis, whats the likelyhood that Michigan Republican active justin amash, who was a republican turned independent, becomes a house manager, that the speaker assigns him, along with other democrats to become the house manager . Guest theres a group of democrats, freshmen democrats, who want that to happen. They want justin amash as part of the house prosecution team, as it were. But its a risky move. This is someone who hasnt really been steeped in the case. Hes not on any of the committees that have been investigating this. Hes tweeted a lot about it, but hes not been present in a lot of the meetings internally where theyve talked about the evidence, how theyre going to present this case. Ive been led to believe this is unlikely that he would be named here, but this group of freshmen has been very influential throughout this impeachment process in direct willing how nancy pelosi and the democratic leadership have handled things. So its not out of the realm of possibility by any means, and it would be a very visible way for democrats to sort of rebut this partisan narrative. Host before we get to calls, where is the whip count with democrats . How many are saying they will not vote or leaning towards not voting for impeachment . Guest only two so far have said definitive noes. And thats Jeff Van Drew and Collin Peterson from minnesota, who are both expected after they voted against the resolution formalizing the investigation back in october. Host all right. Lets get to virginia, republican caller. Were talking about impeachment this week. The house scheduled to vote on wednesday. Go ahead. Caller yes. Its interesting. I think this whole impeachment process, the only people who are losing are the american people. Its whats going to end up happening is democrats have been after donald trump since he got into office. They tried to discredit him, find something to bring him down and every one of them has failed. They brought up stormy daniels, michael cohen, brought out his taxes. They all failed. They basically ran the whole russia thing for over a year, year and a half. That failed. And now out comes the ukraine issue. And thats going fail because hes going to remain in office due to the senate issue. Whats going to happen, theyre going to set a precedent. Any time an opposing Political Party doesnt like the president whos in office, theyre going to come up with some ridiculous sham, personal issue to try to bring them down, and the only thing thats happening is our country is not moving forward. Thats the only thing thats not happening. Host ok, so Brian Bennett, take that. Are they setting a precedent here, and could this, for democrats, backfire . Guest this is an argument republicans have made that all of the steps by the democrats have been because they didnt like the result of the election. They wanted a way to get trump out. I think the democrats especially have said, look, this is actually about protecting the institutions of our democracy, reining in the power of the executive branch. This is our duty as members of congress to make sure the president doesnt overstep. And they look at the actions of the president on ukraine. They look at the record of the phone call with President Trump and president zelensky of ukraine and see a moment where the president of ukraine brings up javelin missiles, the military aid, and in the next moment President Trump says i want to ask you for a favor, how about these investigations into the bidens and the d. N. C. Servers . The democrats are saying, look, do we want a president whos willing to push our National Security interests into the american political arena . And they believe this is an important discussion that we should have. I think overall this whole process has given more information to the public about how President Trump sandrates how he does his business, and its up to the members of congress to decide if thats what they want in a president. It will be up to the voters if he remains in office to decide if thats what they want as president in 2020. Host what do you make of the report that was released overnight . Hundred pages. They argue constitutionally they believe he has done something wrong here. But not only that, they added a word crime to this report in saying that he violated antibribery and wire fraud statutes. Why would they add this . Why would they be saying that he not only violated the constitution, but he also committed crimes . Guest theres a number of republicans, a number of lawmakers, period, who have said theres no crime here. Thats been a talking point. I think that they wanted to rebut this notion that theres no actual crime. There had been talk early on there had been a Campaign Finance violation, sort of a discussion about the constitutional standard for bribery and whether it was the same as the current federal Legal Standard for bribery. I think they sort of wanted to wash all that away and say this guy, if you think that there werent crimes here, there were crimes here. Now, clearly the president is going disagree that, if he were ever charged for this conduct, which i have no indication that he will be, but i think that he would be putting on a robust defense against any prosecution. But it does help to rebut this particular talking point. Host rory in california, republican, go ahead. Caller yes, the time for impeachment i think is rrelevant. Trump makes money. He wants to give them money. Democrats want to take their money away and make everybody into a poor person. If they do that, then nobody and i mean nobody is going to work and make any money whatsoever. If you get rid of trump, youll have pence, and pence is a very hard republican. If you get rid of pence, then you have pelosi, and hes going the or she is going the way of biden. She cant think or talk or act. And youll have alzheimers president in that case. No, you need to keep trump. A lot of people dont like him, but at least hes productive, and the democrats, theyre all socialists or communists. Thats it. Host ok, lets talk about the impact of this on 2020. Both of you take the question of polls and what is it showing. Does this help or hurt the president . Guest internally in the Trump Campaign, they believe its helping the prerks particular until battleground states he needs to win the Electoral College. When you look at the larger poll, the number of people in the United States who support impeachment have stayed relatively static over the last entrenched in current interests. So i think were going to see, over the next three months, the result of this and how it plays out. Guest i think the National Polls have been pretty static. Theres been sort of right around 50 support for impeaching and removing the president. But i know a lot of democrats saw last week there was a Marquette UniversityLaw School Poll in wisconsin that showed some pretty sobering opinions in that very key battleground state where voters seem not to be completely on board with this process. The voters, democrats, need to get back if theyre going take wisconsin back next year. There were a lot of eyes on that poll, put it that way. Host the president won it by 70,000 votes. Guest right. And thats the sort of stuff that gives strategists chills in the night. I think it also is why were seeing this week not only impeachment on the floor, but usmca, the president s trade agreement which is supported by a lot of the democrats who are up for reelection this year. Nancy pelosi wants to send the signal were not just impeaching, were working with him too and getting things done. Host that vote is taking place on thursday after they vote on wednesday for impeachment. How is the president going to respond to the house voting on it and likely approving, if shes putting it on the floor, one of his major initiatives . Guest this is a confluence of interests actually. You have impeachment creating a moment where the democrats want to look like theyre being productive on other things, on the peoples work, pushing through important bills. And actually the president also wants to show that hes trying to get things done. Ultimately he believes that its to his advantage to look like hes also being product and i have getting through some of his initiatives. The replacement for the nafta trade agreement is one of those issues that hes wanted. He wants to show that hes delivering, and it seems like nancy pelosi is in a position where she and the democrats and house also want that. Its going to be down to the details. Which group feels like they have more leverage in the end . That seems like a moment where both sides have a common interest to get this done. Host mike debonis, does the usmac pass in the senate . Guest yeah, we believe so. There was grumbling last week from some republican senators who said you noth this with nancy pelosi, didnt talk to us. About the the end of the day, if the president supports, it the republican members. Senate are going to support it. Its got pretty wide democratic support. You saw Sherrod Brown and ron wyden come out, who have been been very progressive on trade. Sherrod brown has never voted for a trade agreement in his very long congressional career, saying that they support it. There seems to be a pretty ulletproof bipartisan accord in favor of this. There is one hiccup i should mention. Over the weekend we heard there was grumblings from the Mexican Government they didnt like some particular provisions that were written into this that i guess the agreement hadnt been fully vetted or the language hadnt been fully vetted. Thats something were looking to see whether that gets resolved or turns into a Sticking Point that could put a cloud over everything later this week. Host joseph, california, independent. Caller good morning, greta. Host good morning. Caller been with you guys since 1978. Anyway, two points, and both have to do with the constitution. The first thing is the problem that were having here is it depends on whats in the president s mind. What was his intention . And nobody knows that. So the people who support the president are going to give him the benefit of the doubt and the e was doing it for right purposes, for the country. And people who dont agree with him are going take the other side. Now, the second point constitutionally, everybody seems to think were going to lose our republic if this thing doesnt happen. What they dont realize is lets assume that first of all, they should have gone to court like they did with nixon, and, o