That a president hasnt even been charged with a crime in the articles of impeachment. This is outnumbered, im Dagen Mcdowell in here today Fox News Contributor lisa boot lisa boothe, kennedy, Iona College Gaels a professor and david webb, host of reality check on fox nation. You, sir, are outnumbered. We will get back to you and moments and have more from the couch but first lets go to fox news Congressional Correspondent chad pergram life on capitol hill. A lot going on in the past hour here and capitol hill. The white house has submitted its trial brief for the impeachment trial and i will read a couple of items that have just come in. The brief from the white house says that the house of representatives was determined to overturn the 2016 election and interfere in the 2020 election and the white house is arguing here that the impeachment articles are structurally deficient. We will get a rebuttal from the house impeachment manager before they get to the trial tomorrow, thats due before 1 00 tomorrow afternoon and you can bet that the impeachment managers will start to sifter this document from the white house. They just finished in the past few minutes, a walkthrough on the senate floor of the impeachment of managers walked again from the outside of the capital over to the senate and this is a reconfigured Senate Chamber for a trial. Its no longer a Legislative Assembly for the next couple of weeks as they deal with this trial. The big question is we still dont have the resolution from the Senate Majority leader, Mitch Mcconnell, on the framework. We expect a vote on the debate tomorrow. Here is Chuck Schumer. Why is Mitch Mcconnell being so secretive about his proposal . Well, there are two obvious answers. One, he wants to rush this thing through so quickly because hes afraid of what the American People might hear. Because the other thing in the cards tomorrow is possibly a motion to dismiss. Lindsey graham says thats not going to happen. There are a lot of senators who i think will wind up acquitting the president , but believe that we need to hear the houses case, the president s case, answer to the houses case and ask questions and thats when the witness requests will be. The idea of dismissing the case early on is not going to happen. We dont have the votes for that. So tomorrow, debate and vote on the framework, Chuck Schumer will offer an alternative that will probably be voted down and the prosecution, the house managers, present their case on wednesday and thursday. And then early next week consideration of witnesses and documents. Chad, really quickly and just to be clear these days will likely go into the wee hours of the following morning based on the timetable. Thats correct, if they use all the time. The fact that we are less than 24 hours starting the trial and they dont actually know the parameters. Considering the fact they are going to go slung the democrats are going to suggest that the administration and republican leader Mitch Mcconnell are trying to bury these impeachment charges and the dead of night. Chad, thank you so much. More from him as the day wears on. Let me bring in former assistant u. S. Attorney Fox News ContributorAndy Mccarthy. Based on what we know so far and what do you have looked out about this brief from the president s attorney, it looks like they are arguing that these two articles of impeachment dont amount to impeachment offenses. We heard Kellyanne Conway mention arguing the facts, which is something you heard might be off base. What you note based on reading this brief so far . I think as chad points out to the extent they are saying there is structural insufficiency in the articles of impeachment, which i interpret to mean that they dont state the kind of egregious misconduct that the framers had in mind when they put impeachment in the constitution. I think on the outcome of the president is fighting on the ground where he ought to be fighting done on the place where it is most strong. The problem i think they have come a dagen, when they get into the facts is if they are going to make sweeping claims that the president didnt do anything wrong, there is no quid pro quo come in the brief they filed over the weekend they said he even told sans blend there is no quid pro quo. It was a preemptive summary of whats on lynns testimony had been. That invites inquiry into the facts into whether there was a quid pro quo or whether he did nothing wrong. That kind of helps the argument that we ought to be able to hear from witnesses who can weigh in and are knowledgeable about those two subjects. I think that is the weak part of their case and to me, its the part they shouldnt want to get into because the bottom line here is that these are not impeachable allegations. Andy, its kennedy. I have a question about the document because this is a political exercise. How much of a brief like this would be political and how much would it be legal . Who exactly is, who are the president s lawyers trying to reach with this . Well, you are quite right, kennedy, this is more of a political process than a legal one. Its going to take place in these sort of Legal Framework that the constitution lays out for impeachment trials. At the end of the day, impeachment really has a political test more than a legal one. We can talk in an abstract legal way about what an article of impeachment or a high crime and misdemeanor is, according to hamiltons articulation of it and what the experience was in the colonies before the constitution was adopted. The genius of the constitution is that they gave us an impeachment standard where, unless the public is so convinced that the president needs to be removed that it exerts political pressure on twothirds of the senate to vote to remove him, despite what their partisan affiliations are, then you really dont have impeachable misconduct because theres no chance of removing the president. Andy, lisa boothe here, as you mentioned abuse of power and obstruction of congress arent criminal. Those arent crimes that they are charging the president with. What is the longterm impact for the house to move forward with impeachment now we will see this trial in the senate, whats the long term impact of the constitution into the country . I think we are not going to be able to make a judgment on that until we see how this trial plays out and what the public take on it is and how the public reacts to it. What i would to be worried about is what the framers were worried about, which is that the reason for putting the twothirds of a super majority requirement in the senate was that the framers were worried about that impeachment could be used in a partisan way. Or could be triggered by frivolous grounds. In order to push against that, the idea was unless you had conduct that could move twothirds of the senate to remove the president , you dont have an impeachment case. Historically, that has had been enough to stop the house from going down this road in the first place. The question becomes, we have now launched into this new era of partisan impeachment and i think the only way we can answer that question is if we have this trial and it looks like it is very political and the public is really turned off by it, may be that chastises people who would want to do this again that this isnt such a hot idea. I dont know if we can judge that now. Andy, i will point out that support for impeachment is underwater still based on the real clear politics average that more people are against impeachment and removal then for it. One last thing, is it possible, based on what you said, based on this brief filed by the president s attorneys are giving structural inefficiency, is it possible we see a case presented by the house impeachment managers where they are brief even cited talking about the lev parnas information and the Government Accountability report that was requested by democratic senator Chris Van Hollen did originally. Could you see them present that case . Then the president s attorneys dont even argue what was presented, they just essentially ignore whatever they say and then just say these two articles dont stand up to the test of impeachment . I think, dagen, thats where they would like to be at the end. The way i would look at it is, what are the democrats trying to accomplish here . Once you grapple with that and you get a read on it than Everything Else makes sense. They dont think they are going to have the president to remove, they know there is not 20 republican votes to do that, which is what they would need. What are they trying to accomplish . I think theyve given to halfbaked articles of impeachment to get in the door of an impeachment trial, and now what they are doing is continuing their investigation with the house leadership coordinating with senate democrats, and to the idea is they are going to continue to throw new allegations, new witnesses, new documents into the mix in the hope of extending this. The real objective here is not to remove the president , it is to bruise him up politically heading into the 2020 elections. The longer this goes on, the longer it gets extended, the longer it focuses on misconduct that while its not impeachable, does not make the president look good. The more it could hurt him politically going into the election. I think that is the theory they are operating under. Andy, great to see you. Thanks for jumping in that chair so quickly. Jeannie, what you make of this . Number one i am truly happy we are talking about hamilton and the founders. Can i celebrate that for a minute . I think what andy just said about the timing here is what has her democrats so much. I have long said, nancy pelosi was right back in march when she said its got to be bipartisan. They needed to do this on a time frame that allowed them to collect all of the information before they rode these articles. I think thats whats going to come back to haunt any democrat who really does want to see a trial here, is because the articles themselves lack of the teeth that are needed. I think we are going to see that. To me the time get the better of them and they are playing in a political calendar and this is going to obviously work to their disadvantage and it already has. One if you ever been silent . [laughter] first of all, in honor of all the democrats i can trigger, minute trump president ial conflicts. Now that ive triggered them. And he brought up a couple of points that were important. Opening a door in a court of laws what you dont want to do. A lawyer doesnt want to open the door to further questions of quid pro quo. The democrats have told us we should ignore president zelenskys response that said they were not pressured to. Do democrats want to go down the road where republicans can introduce president zelensky come his response, he wasnt pressured, they did get the eta. This is not a true court of law, it is a trial in the senate. If they open that door and republicans put that out there, democrats want you to believe president zelensky is lying or they want you to believe otherwise. The American People have made up their mind on this. If the polling is consistent, theyve made up their mind. Under 8 of republicans when i left my office i looked at the 5 30 eight tracking poll. Under 8 of republicans are for removing the president. Obviously she is shifting the criteria here and if Andy Mccarthy is right, that democrats and House Democrats just want to bruise the president going into the election they have to be careful. For them but it might be bruce inc. , for me it might be tenderizing. He may be going into the fall a little bit more succulent than he wants. I think his fundraising bears that out. They still havent figured out how to run against him. They are going to win on ids, impeachment may be the worst idea of all. They are keeping Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, michael bennett, and Amy Klobuchar locked up. I love that part. It really does seem like they are stacking the deck in favor of bloomberg and biden. The white house alleges that this is a dangerous version of the constitution. If democrats could come up with the crimes discharged President Trump in these articles they would. They have not. Now impeachment has become a partisan tool to weaponize against a president that you cannot defeat. Democrats and not just that. Is nancy pelosi set on the bill mark shall come in peach forever she said with a grin. As she was signing the article she was smiling. A fist bump and a crane. Michael bloomberg you mentioned, Michael Bloomberg is prepared to send a couple of billion to help defeat President Trump. How his deep pockets are changing the president told race. Plus 2020 democrats sharpening their attack of one another as we get near the Iowa Caucuses. Two weeks, whether that strategy could backfire. With va Mortgage Rates near 50year lows, one call to newday can save you 2000 a year, every year. Activate your va refi benefit now and start saving. L lu ÷ ]b2m ÷b÷gu i need all the breaks as athat i can get. Or, at liberty butchemel. Cut. Liberty mu. Line . Cut. Liberty mutual customizes your Car Insurance so you only pay for what you need. Cut. Liberty m. Am i allowed to riff . What if i come out of the water . Liberty biberty. Cut. Well dub it. Liberty mutual customizes your Car Insurance so you only pay for what you need. Only pay for what you need. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. The end might not be as happy as ayou think. End. After all, 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom is a stroke but the good news is you can rewrite your ending and get screened for stroke and cardiovascular disease. Life line screening is the easy and affordable way to make you aware of undetected Health Problems before they hurt you. We use Ultrasound Technology to literally look inside your arteries for plaque that builds up as you age and increases your risk for stroke and heart disease. So if youre over 40, call to schedule an appointment for five painless screenings that go beyond annual checkups. And if you call us today, youll only pay 149an over 50 savings. Read it again, papa . Sure. Ive got plenty of time. Life line screening. The power of prevention. Call now to learn more. Speak on the issue of Social Security come a time and time again joe biden has been clear in supporting cots to Social Security. We have a difference on that issue as well. And other issues. Is not personal, people have a right to know. That saying that i agree with paul ryan, the former Vice President ial candidate, but wanting to privatize Social Security. I have been a gigantic supporter of Social Security from the beginning. Weve got a billionaires who think they can just buy an election. He plans to skip the democracy part of the election. Shes right about that, thats going to resonate. Just two weeks until the Iowa Caucuses on the democrats claws are finally out. Bernie sanders and his campaign ramping up attacks on joe biden over race in the former vps openness to the Social Security cuts. Sanders is a distorting his this position. Meanwhile warren is also ripping biden about Social Security. All of this with the top four candidates neck and neck in the first in the nation caucus sta state, biden and sanders in a deadlock on poles. You can see theyre not even at percentage point separating them. Pete buttigieg still nipping at their heels. Social security come i think joe biden should own it and i think he absolutely should say yes, thats right. This program is going to be insolvent in 15 years. The people who are nearing retirement age are in the gravest danger. The Medicare Hospital Trust Fund runs out of money in six years. Now that we are into 2020. Sanders is right, elaine owen who writes for the editorial page of the Washington Post says he does have a history of wanting to cut Social Security or at least being open to it. There is going back to 1984 in the inflation rate was more than 4 come he called for a oneyear moratorium on the programs annual costofliving increases. He talked about raising the retirement age. He was the point person with obama administrations attempts to reduce the deficit, which did include not on the table were Social Security cuts. Im waiting for them to cut a granny off the cliff commercial because thats what democrats did to republicans. Their viciousness knows no bounds. Im surprised its taken this no long to get vicious. I think some of the criticism that Elizabeth Warren is out for Michael Bloomberg, they are spot on. Will that resonate with democrats . Saying heres this guy come hes not going to debate, hes going to spend billions of dollars trying to buy the nomination. The granny off the cliff lies ended up being one of the biggest lies of the year. About a bloomberg come i dont think hes a bible in iowa. Thats why hes focusing on the super tuesday state come hes not paying attention to the first four contests. What i think is interesting is in third of likely caucus but voters they are either undecided or support a candidate tha