Which looks like it will happen and its inevitable he wanted the senate to take the time because he thought it would be politically advantageous but at this point it looks like hes been talked out of that. Mcconnell, the Senate Majority leader, felt like he wanted a quick trial and do not want to bringo in new witnesses and was able to prevail upon the white house if that was the best way toin go in those negotiations ae still ongoing and they are happening not only between the white house and the republicans n but also between the republics in the senate and democrats but at this time it looks like they are coming in on trying to have a relatively Speedy Senate trial that does not bring a lot of new witnesses but President Trump felt like maybe they could have brought in witnesses like hunter biden and others to expand the scope of it and try to push it for political advantage but at this point it looks like they will go in a different direction and also what is happening this alast week is that President Trump iss trying to push through as many deals as he can to look like hes been productive if the house moves forward on impeachment. Who will represent the president . Will there be witnesses for the the whiteand what is house part of this . White house is talking with i mcconnells office on exactly how that will go through. One of thehe most recent ideas s been to have the white House Counsel represent the republican side in the senate and that is still or has not been completely nailed down. It would be unusual to have the white House Counsel run the republik inside in the senate and show a collapse of the separation of powers between the senate in the white house but mcconnell has said very clearly that he does not want daylight between him and the white house as the impeachment proceedings move forward. Mike, when will or it would if itth will lay the two leaders in the senate actually talk and will they negotiate or will Mitch Mcconnell go to Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski and say can you live at this or these were publicans who make the fact . We assume this week we will start to have a conversation and i think that will have began in earnest as soon as the houseboat on wednesday perhaps before that but both mcconnell and schumer know the situation here which is theres these rules in place and they were written in 1998, 1999 and they are not necessarily the best tools for this particular situation for both sides but fortunately in the senate you really cant do anything unless everyone agrees and that will be a tough order and something as divisive as this. Back in 1999 everyone got it and it literally got into a room and hashed out an agreement on the rules and it ended up passing on 100zero vote but no one sees it happening but what you did see happening was Chuck Schumer sent out a public marker of where he wants to send this conversation and talks about the timeline tryingof to get this started ant could be generate six and talks about witnesses and democrats would like to hear from and sketched out the process in the beginning of this negotiation which will continue through the week and perhaps and beyond that. He asked for a new witnesses. Mick mulvaney, john bolton, could that put pressure on moderate republicansou to say we should hear from Mick Mulvaney and john bolton . Yes, several of them had said that. Earlier in this process they like to hear from these people you know its unclear whether just how influential they will be and in forcing the issue. Hau have a standoff here where both sides have guns pointed to each other on these witnesses and the white house wants hunter biden and the whistleblower and these lists of people connected to what they would characterize as democratic wrongdoing democrats obviously want bolton, mulvaney, a couple other white house officials who have firsthand knowledge of what happened and have them cooperate in the house. Unfortunately, the volunteer is not that everybody gets to talk but the default will be that nobody additional gets to talk. You know, if you are betting in vegas on how this goes right now it looks like the default that most likely resolution to this is there will be no additional witnesses and this will be a trial where the house presents its case from its managers and the white house rebuffs and tha. May be the end of it. Over the weekend they broke the story about congress and banned drew. Why did he make this decision and what was behind it . We have not heard from congressman van drew. Hes not returned any calls so far, including several of my own. What he or what we do know from democrats who spoken to him or are familiar with his sort of thinking is that his decision to oppose impeachment not only impose it but vocally impose it goes on cable news including fox news and talks about it is alienated the democratic voters in his district who support impeaching the president. We got a copy at the poll that is campaign and commission earlier this month it showed that a quarter of the voters, democratic primaries wanted to renominate him, more than half wanted a new nominee. The second Congressional District in new jersey and i think this was simplyy an x essential threat to the political career and at the same time republicans are eager to find any way to show this is this impeachment process has back firing on democrats and i think the president saw an opportunity here and we note the two of them met in the white house on fridayay and it was a lengthy meeting that the president made the case for a party switch and apparently he took it very seriously and now we are waiting for him to make clear what his intentions are. The white house like this, right . They want to show affections from the democratic side to the republic decided specially in the house theyre looking at the house and want to be able to say that impeachment was not supported in a bipartisan way and they are hoping that for the white house perspective that it is only democrats who vote for impeachment in the house and that its or if the previous vote nt the rules of how impeachment proceed as a roadmap to how the final vote goes we will see a few democrats to fact over and vote against impeachment in the white house likes the optics of that and how that looks to their voters and narrative that this is a partisan effort. I will say the downside of the whole impeachment thing is not all roses for the Term Campaign and trouble White House White house. The fact isan the trump does not want to be an impeached president and look like he will be does not want to have that on his resume and politically its better to run for reelection as an un impeached president then one who has been voted and impeached by the house. It is not all positive for the white house from the campaign and the other thing is the impeachment trial as it goes forward in the senate means more headlines and emphasis on trump actions and what he did on the call with the ukraine leader asking for a favor that can be politicallyti advantageous. All of that attention there is concern among consultants that it could eventually tide of public opinion. Speaking of defections, whats the likelihood of the michigan representativean who ws a republican turned independent becomes a house manager that the speaker assigns him along with other democrats to become a house manager . There are a group of democrats who want that to happen and want him as part of the house execution team, as it were. Its a risky move and you know this is someone who has not really been steeped in the case and is not on any of the committees that had been investigating this. Hes treated a lot about it but has not been president and a lo of the medians internally where ntthey talk about the evidence d how they present this case. Ive been led to believe this is unlikely that he would be named here but this group of freshmen has been influential throughout this impeachment process and interacting hell nancy pelosi and the democratic leadership have handled things. Its not out of the realm of possibility by any means and it would be a very visible way for democrats to rebut this part of that narrative is correct before we get to calls, real quick, where is the what, democrats and how many are saying he will not vote or leaning towards not voting for impeachment . Only to so far has said the definitive nose and that is Jeff Van Drew and Collin Peterson were both expected after they voted against the resolutions for formalizing the investigation back in october. Lets get to eric in virginia. Rebel begin a collar, air, talking about impeachment this week with house with the vote on wednesday. Go aheady. Caller yes, i think this whole impeachment process are the only people who are losing are the American People because what will end up happening is that the democrats have been after trump since he got into office and they tried to discredit him and tried to bring him down but every failed and they brought out Stormy Daniels and that failed and Michael Cohen and that failed and brought out his taxes and that failed and basically they ran the whole russian thing for over one year year and half and that failed and now comes the ukraine issue but that will fail because he will remain in office due to the senate issue. What will happen is they will set a precedent, any time of an opposing Political Party doesnt like theg president in office they will come up with some ridiculous sham, personal issue to try to bring him down and the only thing that is happening is our country is not moving forward. Thats the only thing not having. Host brian bennett, to gabbard are they setting a precedent here and could this for democrats backfire. This is an argument rubbing his homemade that all the steps of the democrats have been because they did not like the results of election. They wanted a way to get trump out. I think the democrats especially have said look, this is about protecting the institutions of our democracy and raining and the power of the executive branch and 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 and look at the record of the phone call with resident trump and president zelinski of ukraine and see a moment where they bring out the javelin missiles in the military aid and in the next moment President Trump says i want to ask you for a favor so how about these investigations into the bidens and dnc servers and so the democrats are sayingg do we want a president who is willing to push our National Security interest into the market political arena and this is they believe this is an important discussion that we have. I think overall this whole process given more information to the public about how the president operates and how he does his business and its up to the members of congress to decide if that is what they want in a president and if we have voters who remain in office if thats what they want. Po host remake of the House Judiciary Committee reports that was released overnight, 600 pages, where they argue constitutionally they believe he has got something wrong here but not only that but they added the word crime to this report in saying he violated antibribery and wire fraud statutes. Why would they add this and why would they be saying that not only he violated the constitution but committed crimes . And other lawmakers who are said theres no crime here and thats been a talking point that they wanted to rebut this notion that there is no actual crime but there had been talk early on there was a campaignfinance violation and a discussion about the constitutional standard for bribery and whether it was the same current federal Legal Standard for bribery and they wanted to wash all that away and say listen, this guy if you think there werent crimes here, there were crimes here. Clearly the president will disagree with that and if you are ever charged for this conduct which i have no indication he will be but i think that heat will be putting out a robust defense against any prosecution but it does help to rebut this particular talking point. Host rory in rancho margarito, california, republican, go ahead. Caller yes, the time for impeachment is irrelevant. Trump makes jobs, people want to keep their money, democrats want to take their money away and pay and make everyone productive into a poor person. If they do that then nobody, i mean nobody, will work or make any money whatsoever. If you get rid of trump you will have pence and pence is a hard republican. If you get rid of pens then you have pelosi and he is going the way of biden. She cant think or talk or act. You will have alzheimers president in that case. No, you need to keep trump. A lot of people dont like him but at least he is productive and the democrats are only socialists or communists. Host rory, lets talk about the impact of 2020. Both of you take the question of poles and what its showing so does is help or hurt the president . Internally in the trunk and paint they believe that helping the president particularly in key battleground states he needs to win the electoral college. When you look at the larger pols the number of people in the united s states to support impeachment has stayed relatively ecstatic over the last month so its entrenched the current interests and i think we will see over the next three months a result of this and how it plays out. I think the national pollsre sove been pretty static and theres been right around 50 supports for impeaching and moving the president but i know democrats saw that last week there was University Law school poll in wisconsin that showed pretty sobering opinions in that very key battleground states atwhere they seem not to be completely on board with this process and the voters, democrats need to get back and take wisconsin back next year and i feel there were a lot of eyes on the poll and so host the president wanted by 70000 votes. Right. The serious stuff that gives or sends chills in the night and i think it also is why we are seeing this week not only impeachment on the floor but usmca and the president s trade agreement which is supported by a lot of the democrats up for reelection this year and nancy closely wants to send the signal were not just impeaching but working with him and getting things done. Host that vote to take 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 and putting it on the floor with one of his major initiatives. Its a confluence of Interest Rate yet impeachment creating a moment where the demo rats want to look like theyre being productive on other things onid the peoples work pushing through important bills and the president also wants to show hes trying to get things done. Ultimately he believes its too is a managed look like hes also been productive and getting the initiatives and the usmca had a replacement for the nafta trade agreement is one of those issues that hes wanted and wants to show hes delivering and seems like nancy pelosi is in a position where she and the democrats also want that. Its down to the details and thwhich group feels like they he more leverage in the end but that seems like a moment or both sides have a common interest to get this done. Does the usmca pass the senate . Yeah, we said were grumblings last week from summer vulcan senators who basically said you negotiated this with closely but at the end of the day the president supports it in the republican members of the senate will support it. Thats pretty wide demagogic support and you saw gerard brown and ron wyden will both come out but been progressive on trade and sharon brown never voted for a trade agreement and very long congressional career saying they supported. Theres been a pretty bulletproof bipartisan cord in favor of this but there is one hiccup i should mention over the weekend we heard there was grumblings to mexico from the Mexican Government that they do not like particular provisions that were written into this that the agreement had not been fully vetted or language not been fully vetted. That iss something we are lookig at to see whether that gets resolved or turned into a Sticking Point that could put a cloud over everything later this week. We see how that plays out. Joseph, santa barbara, california, independent. Caller good morning. Ive been with you guys since b1978. Anyway i like to make two points. Both have to do with the constitution. The first thing is the problem that we are having here is it depends on what is in the president s mind and what was his intention and nobody knows that. The people who support the president will get give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was doing it for the right purposes for the country and people who dont agree with him will take the other sides. The second point constitutionally everybody sent teams and think we will lose a republic if this thing does not happen. What they dont realize is lets asassume that first of all, they should have gone to court like they did with nixon and of course nixon had to turn in his papers so if trump defined that what would happen . What would happen is exactly what the constitution says for the military takes an oath to support the constitution and the people, not the president. They would run him off to Guantanamo Bay and mike pence would be put in office. That is just malarkey. The problem with we have here is it definitely is a partisan impeachment and that is not what the constitution because there are both sides and one is they did not want a dictator or someone who was bad for the i country but the other side is they do not want the president sets policy and he is not just you know, like a governor or Something Like that. Host joseph, understood. Brian, lets have you jump in here to talk about what he just said. Are the republicans arguments against process working in order to cast democrats is not being fair to the president . I think republicans certainly believe criticizing the process is a way they can say this is unfair and a partisan effort and d