Plus our power house round table takes on the state of the 2020 race. Announcer from abc news its this week. Here now coanchor martha raddatz. Good morning. Welcome to this week. Its been over a week since the block buster impeachment hearings. Tomorrow democrats will take another important step in the highspeed, highstakes impeachment inquiry. The House Intelligence Committee is set to release its report to its members monday ahead of the first public hearings in the Judiciary Committee wednesday. Its the Judiciary Committee which is tasked with drawing up articles of impeachment. Theyll hear witness testimony from legal experts and ultimately deliberate what may or may not constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. Trumps legal team has been invited to participate in those proceedings. As of this morning, theyve yet to issue a response. For more lets bring in abc news chief legal analyst dan abrams. Dan, the Intelligence Committee is producing a report based on their investigation including the public testimony they handed to judiciary. Explain judiciarys role and how they craft the potential articles of impeachment. Think of the Intelligence Committee as the investigators where, the police or fbi, in a typical investigation. They then hand over their findings, their investigation, their report to prosecutors. The prosecutors here are in effect the house Judiciary Committee where they have to decide what charges are appropriate to move forward. Theyll evaluate this as a legal matter more. So less about the facts here, more about the, quote unquote, law. Remember when youre dealing with impeachment as opposed to a typical trial, what would be viewed as the statutes become a little less important than exactly what the judiciary exactly what the Judiciary Committee members decide is appropriate. Wednesdays judiciary hearing will be the first opportunity for the White House Legal Team to participate in the impeachment inquiry. Is it to their advantage to show up . Typically you would say, yeah, of course. Why wouldnt they show up . They demanded to be part of process, et cetera. As a practical matter, im not so certain theyll do that. Look, part of their defense look, part of their defense look, part of their defense here has been to delegitimize the process, to call it a circus, a motion, a sham. They know they have republicans on that committee who are going to do their bidding for them. Theres a real chance here that theyll say, you know what, were not going to be involved. You guys deal with this. Knowing they have the republicans on that committee who will be asking the sorts of questions, making the sort of comments they would have made anyway. Finally, dan, we saw a federal court ruling saying don mcgahn has to comply with a subpoena from congress over the mueller probe. Not necessarily about ukraine. Legally what could that ruling mean for former National Security adviser john bolton and acting white house chief of staff Mick Mulvaney having to potentially testify . If you read the ruling, it would seem to apply to them. There are arguments about why this may be different than those cases. Remember what that case was and wasnt. Thats a case about immunity meaning thats saying don mcgahn has to show up. It doesnt tell us what he has to testify about. Then you say the same thing about bolton and mulvaney. Even if they have to show up, the immunity argument isnt valid. Theres still going to be fights about what they should have to testify to about or not. Thanks very much, dan. Joining me now is val demings, democratic congresswoman. She serves on the house intelligence and Judiciary Committee overseeing the impeachment hearings. Congresswoman we know the Intelligence Committee will send its report to the judiciary. Do you expect Firm Recommendations and whether the evidence be included . Good morning. I do believe that all evidence will be included in that report. The Judiciary Committee can make the necessary decisions that they need to. As you know, this week we will begin the critical process of hearing from constitutional experts to really lay out the ground for impeachment of the president. As we turn over that report to judiciary, we still have a lot of work to do. We know the witnesses for wednesdays hearing will be legal experts on impeachment. Any sense on how many future hearings your committee will hold or do you expect to call any fact witnesses or recall . We havent made the decision on future hearings or future witnesses. Our main focus is to have the president and his counsel, who you know are given the same privileges as president nixon and president clinton had to participate and engage in the impeachment process. Even to the point if we have executive sessions on the Judiciary Committee, theyre invited to participate. Were hoping the president and his counsel will take advantage of that opportunity. If he has not done anything wrong, were certainly anxious to hear his explanation of that. Have you got any indication the white house will be involved or the counsel . We have not. As you may know, chairman nadler sent a letter. I know theyve been in conversation with the white house and counsel. They sent a letter again inviting the president , making sure he and his counsel are aware of the opportunities to fully engage and participate in this process. We are certainly hoping that he will, as i said, take advantage of that opportunity. As i just talked about with dan, you have the mcgahn ruling which could affect bolton and mulvaney. Why not wait to see if they could testify . What we have requested are documents from the witnesses that you have just mentioned, the state department, chief of staff. We want to have those documents to review those documents that will help to lead any interview or testimony from those participants. As you well know, theyve not been willing to obey lawful subpoenas that have been issued. Were not going to play games with them. The American People are not going to, i think, tolerate any games. If theyre serious about obeying lawful subpoenas, they need to respond to the request for documents and obey those lawful subpoenas. Couldnt their accounts be critical to understanding whats happening . Again, why not wait . Well, as i said they have not been willing to really comply with lawful subpoenas. They want to, what i believe, is play a political game and tie the process up in the courts as long as they can and run the clock out. Were not willing to play that game. We have requested documents. Those documents as you well know are critical and very valuable to the work before us. So if they comply with the document request, i believe it shows a good faith effort on their part to further cooperate with the inquiry. Congresswoman, youve seen all the facts and evidence laid out on these impeachment hearings. No witness has personally testified that the president directly conditioned the release of military aid on investigations into his political opponents. Does that missing element really undermine the democratic argument . Let me tell you, the best witness, the most effective, the most valuable witness that we have is the president of the United States himself. When president zelensky on july 25th, on the infamous call, mentioned the fact he was about ready to purchase additional weaponry, President Trump responded but i need you to do me a favor though. He then went into to what the conditions will be. We know that every witness we talked to, none of the witnesses we talked to have been directly involved or not were able to give any reasonable, rational explanation for holding up the military aid. We do know that the aid was only released after congressional committees started asking questions and the whistleblower came forward. Lets go back to that phone call. Given the president was ultimately unsuccessful in the quid pro quo as republicans argue, the ukrainians never opposed the investigation, the aid ultimately flowed and trump met with zelensky at the u. N. , should democrats consider a censure instead of impeachment . Youre going to make me go back to my Law Enforcement experience. I had an opportunity in 27 years to deal with a lot of people who attempted to rob a bank, attempted to burglarize a house, attempted to car jack an individual. We didnt say since you werent successful, we caught you, you werent successful so lets just let you go and forget it. We have an obligation given to us by the constitution. I know its one the American People want us to uphold. Were going to do the work before us. Congresswoman the fact that the president got caught in the act does not relieve him of being held accountable for the wrong doing that he has engaged in. Congresswoman, you talk about public opinion. Public opinion on support for impeachment has not increased through the hearing process. Theres not been a single House Republican to join the democrats in this. How do you really move forward given what you said about the public . Let me say were going to do the work before us just like as a Law Enforcement officer i never took a poll before i lived up to my responsibilities based on the oath that i took. I have been extremely troubled and disappointed by the behavior of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Many of them i work on committees with. Ive worked on other legislation with. I know them. I have the utmost respect for them. But their refusal to hold this president accountable and to clearly go into their partisan corner and protect this president at any and all costs is troubling to me and i believe troubling to the American People. Thank you so much for joining us this morning congresswoman demings. Thank you. For the gop response lets bring in Judiciary Committee member congressman tom mcclintock. Congressman, have you heard whether the president s lawyers plan to participate in the Judiciary Committees first impeachment hearing this week . No, i havent. I think it would be to the president s advantage to have his attorneys there. Thats his right. I can understand how hes upset at the illegitimate process we saw unfold in the intelligence committ committee. The big question will be if jerry nadler continues that or if he respects the president s Due Process Rights not only to be represented by counsel, but also the ability to call witnesses, to confront his accusers. You think they should bring in lawyers . I think its too his advantage. Chairman nadler asked whether the republicans plan to issue subpoenas or supply written questions. Will your party do that . I expect they will. In fact i know discussions are ongoing as to the witnesses we would like to call. As you recall in the intelligence hearings, republicans asked for nine witnesses. Adam schiff vetoed six of those. In a free society the prosecution doesnt get to choose what witnesses the defense wishes to call. Thats whats been going on and the question will be whether jerry nadler continues that sham in the judiciary hearings. When it goes to the senate, that will play a big role in the senates deliberations. Theyll insist on full Due Process Rights and that could blow up in the democrats faces. We talked about the mcgahn decision here all morning. We know its being appealed. If the courts rule in the future that officials like john bolton and Mick Mulvaney could testify, do you believe they should . Absolutely. In fact i think it will be to the president s advantage for them to testify now. He has to weigh that against the catastrophic damage that would do to executive privilege that ensures when policy is being developed, those discussions are unfettered, are candid, are thinking outside the box. Thats why the doctrine of executive privilege exists. He has to weigh those elements. I understand why hes making the decision he is to protect the doctrine of executive privilege. Not only for his administration, but for future administrations. The discussion has been going on since George Washington was subpoenaed by the house in 1796. You believe they should testify, but not say much . No. I think it would be to his advantage to have them testify. Again, that would shatter the doctrine of executive privilege. Thats the question he has to weigh and whether to invoke that privilege. What about testimony from the president s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani who Gordon Sondland said was in the loop on everything, should he testify . More information is better than less in every aspect of an inquiry and the adversarial process is important to test whats true and not. My objection to what the congress has done is its impeded that process by vetoing republican witnesses and by interfering with the Due Process Rights of the president in whats a quasi judicial proceeding. The New York Times said the president knew about the whistleblower complaint in august before he released the military aid in september. That means when trump spoke to Gordon Sondland in september he was well aware of what was going on when he said there was no quid pro quo. He would have to have been aware of that complaint. Whats your response to that . The implication is this is an admission of guilt because the president found out about the whistleblower complaint and released that aid. Thats not what happened. Several weeks went by before the aid was released. Remember, under our constitution the president has sole responsibility to but he specifically mentioned there was no quid pro quo to sondland. Exactly right. Could he be covering his tracks . Among all of the testimony of the handpicked witnesses from the democrats not one, not one was told that there was a quid pro quo. The only conclusions that they came to were supposition and impressions they got reading the New York Times. Remember, the president conducts our foreign policy. Hes commanded to take care the laws be faithfully enforced. The National Defense authorization act which authorized aid to ukraine requires the administration determines the country is taking steps to combat corruption before he releases the aid. As i read his conversation with zelensky, thats exactly what he was doing. When you defend the president and think about these hearings, is there anything in your mind that the president did involving ukraine that is wrong or that concerns you in any way . Well, he didnt use the delicate language of diplomacy in that conversation. Thats true. He doesnt use the smarmy talk of politicians. What you hear from donald j. Trump is the blunt talk of a manhattan businessman. He says what he means. He means what he says. Thats the only thing thats remarkable about that conversation. He was within his Constitutional Authority and was following the statute that congress adopted in granting aid to the ukraine. We have to leave it there. Thank you for joining us. My pleasure. Up next the economy remains strong. Will it be enough to carry the president to victory in 2020 . Fivethiryeights nate silver weighs in next. Victory in 2020 . 538s nate silver weighs in next. Fights cancer, repairs shattered bones, relieves depression, restores heart rhythms, helps you back from strokes, and keeps you healthy your whole life. From the day youre born we never stop taking care of you. nicki hi, everyone. We just passed the one Year Anniversary of our 5g launch, so lets think about it. We were the first in the world to launch 5g mobile. We flipped the switch on 14 nfl stadiums and with 5g ultra wideband, we hit over 2 gigabits per second. And were gonna be in 30 cities by the end of this year. So thank you all. This is charlie not coughing because he took delsym 12hour. And this is charlie still not coughing while trying his hardest not to wake zeus. Delsym 12hour. Nothing lasts longer for powerful cough relief. Save it slimeball. Onstrating ive upgraded to mucinex. We still have 12 hours to australia. Mucinex lasts 12 hours, so im good. Now move kim nooooooo only mucinex has a patented tablet that lasts 3x longer, for 12 hours. Conversation. President to victory in 2020 . Problems. Nobody likes problems. But why is that . At ibm, problems actually inspire us, to fix things, to change things, to push the world forward. Which is why so many people who dare to take on problems work with ibm. Which is why so many people a lot of folks ask me why their dishwasher doesnt get everything clean. I tell them, it may be your detergent. Thats why more dishwasher brands recommend cascade platinum. With the soaking, scrubbing and rinsing built right in. For sparklingclean dishes, the first time. Cascade platinum. Thanks to move free ultra i keep up with this little one. See the world with this guy. And hit the town with these girls. In a clinical study, 4 out of 5 users felt better joint comfort. Move free. Find our coupon in sundays paper. A couple years ago i got laid off. I did not know what i was going to do. And then a light bulb went off. I had a sewing machine that was still in the box. I pulled up youtube. I kept watching videos over and over, i finally got to the point where i could make a stitch. And thats how knotzland was born. We make handmade bowties out of repurposed fabrics. Because of youtube im an entrepreneur. Its been a crazy journey. You know we just set another stock market record. You saw that, didnt you . The stock market hit another alltime in history high. Meaning 401 k s and jobs. Everybodys getting rich. President trump repeatedly touting the economy after new record highs in the stock market last week and unemployment remaining at historic lows. Is a Strong Economy enough to boost trump to reelection