To head, laying out what democrats want to see including subpoenas for several senior trump officials. Over the president s dealings with ukraine. We have complete coverage as we wait for him to begin, lets start with mike emanuel to kick this off, what else are the Senate Democrats asking for . Part of it, pitching timing. He would like to do some pretrial housekeeping measures on monday january 6 then on january 7th, he would like for the swearing in of the chief justice and senators and then on january 9th he would like the house providing 24 hours for each side for opening presentations and rebuttals, 16 hours of questioning, evenly divided by democrats and republicans. He would like for witnesses to testify and be examined for four hours by each side, and upon the conclusion of final arguments, he would like the senate to begin 24 hours of deliberations. Chuck schumer making his demands in a very public way. There is not a single reason that has been given why the four witnesses that we have witnessed poor and the documents have that we have asked for should be presented. Maybe they will be exculpatory to President TrumpPresident Trump. So we are starting to see the public negotiation of a senate trial, more from Chuck Schumer in a matter of ms. Nantz. Dana i want to ask you off at this, in the house, the democrats are accusing the president of actually betraying the nation. They put out a 658 page report as they try to move Public Opinion in the final days before the house floor impeachment votes, and one of the key senators, rather lawmakers from a swing district now says she is a guess on impeachment. I made this decision out of principal and out of duty to protect and defend the constitution. I feel that in my bones. And i will stick to that regardless of what it does to me politically, because this is bigger than politics. But a key republican on the judiciary and Intelligence Committee says making intelligence chairman adam schiff the face of impeachment was a bad move. The democrats have made the mistake of mistaking the credibility of all of this on adam schiff, the person that they put in charge of the investigation is the one that helped started by meeting with the person who walked out of adam schiffs office and became the whistleblower. The house could vote on those two articles of impeachment as soon wednesday, dana. Dana as the train moves along, thank you mike emanuel, lets bring in a republican from louisiana serving on the House Judiciary Committee, many of you probably saw him last week during the coverage. I know that you are a constitutional lawyer, so you understood it very, very well. Putting the committee foot forward, there was also dissent put forward by the republicans. What were the major points of dissent in that part of the report . Well, the dissent was based on what we presented in the 14 hour marathon hearing that there are really two concerns ultimately that we have, there was a fraudulent process that brought us to this point as congressman ratcliffe was just noting and chairman who engineered the whole thing. They had secret meetings in the basement, they cherry picked the witnesses and the testimony that they wanted, and even to this day, dana, even though i am a member of the House Judiciary Committee and the subcommittee, we have jurisdiction over it, and i still am not able to review all the evidence. So why is that . Dana why hold that evidence back from you now . Great question, right . It seems like they are hiding something. That has been one of the primary concerns. So we have a great problem with the process that got us here, but also with of course the utter lack of merit in the two articles of impeachment. They have gone forward with in abuse of power motion which is totally amorphous, not a specific crime, which is why no previous impeachment has proceeded on the ground. The second one is the corruption of congress as we pointif donalg different than any Previous Administration including the one before him, barack obama. When congress is trying to fill the oversight investigation responsibility. They often ask if witnesses and documents of the Administration May not want to turn over for a number of reasons. The psych executive privilege and instead of going to court to get a degree on that, they impeach them. Dana mike emanuel just reported, and the two of the democrats, one in the 28 midterms, also districts that presiden that i saw said there , but in my memory it was mcadams. Are you hearing anything more . We know that congressman van drew of new jersey, a democrat, this is what jerry nadler said about him and the idea that he would switch parties over impeachment. Take a listen. What he is reacting to is a public pome that shows he cannot get renominated. His electric i electorate ise some details. Dana aside from van drew, does it look, congressman, like it will come down to party lines when you vote in the house this wednesday . I dont think that there is any question, that is the real peril of this. What the Founding Fathers warned us about specifically was the single party impeachment. That is what we have. The reason they were concerned, is because they knew that that would divide the country. Perhaps irreparably. You cannot proceed on political and vendettas. The crazy fact about all of this is that all these democrats committed to impeach donald trump in the day he was elected president , before july in the events of the hom phone h zelensky, 9 90 House Democrats already voted to impeach democrat and donald trump, they previously voted to impeach donald trump. So it is comical that they would pretend that they went into the hearing with any objectivity at all. Dana we are waiting to hear from senator schumer, the leader of the democrats in senate. Likely to be a trial in the senate paid he will lay out some demands. For who he wants to see called up as witnesses. What is the obligation, and if it is a party line type of vote, is the senate under any other obligation . There is a set of rules part of the last time it was revised was in 1986. They can proceed along those lines, but really, if they have 51 votes, they can change or alter those rules. We may see that. Schumer is saying that he wants a lengthy trial. I would say, bring it on. There are a lot of republicans who would love that. I think donald trump wants to have a lengthy trial, because he wants the facts out there. He has never to this moment been able to present his side of the story. On the other hand, i have heard Mitch Mcconnell and Lindsey Graham and other say it shorter trial would serve the interests of the country better. Maybe they are right. This is a very divisive process. Spilling can i ask you one last question before Chuck Schumer gets underway . If van drew, the democratic congressman from new jersey does switch parties, will the Republican Party and the house majority, the nrcc, will they rally behind him and back him in the election . It will be interesting to see. I know Kevin Mccarthy welcomed him to the party. We believe that those that are moderates and on the fence, that they probably should be in the Republican Party, because on this question, they push them to the limit. The Democratic Party is so far left that is leaving reasonable people behind. He is a good example of that. Dana mike johnson, thank you. Lets bring in the fox senior producer for capitol hill who is at schumers news conference. We are waiting for this to get under way, what do you expect . We expect Chuck Schumer to kind of run through what this memorandum was like that he sent to the Senate Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell yesterday as to what his demands are for a senate trial. He laid out some calendar dates that may be starting on the sixth with housekeeping bringing over the chief justice and swearing and the senators and jurors on the 7th of january and then getting to the house managers, the prosecutors in this case to present that on january 9th. Now nobody knows if they will agree to those parameters, you know, in 19981999, the Senate Leaders trent laud, tom daschle forged an agreement agreed to by all 100 senators that said we will not have witnesses on the floor. This is how long the trial will take. If you cant get to unanimous consent, there will be an important word you will hear over the next couple of weeks, you can have anything happening in the United States senate. Chuck schumer also asks for specific witnesses. Those who did not testify in house impeachment inquiry here among them, mick mulvaney, the chief of staff, john bolton, the formal National Security advisor. Ive been told that we have been given a one minute warning here were Chuck Schumer, the Senate Majority leader is going to lay that out and take some questions. We will just wait for him to come in the door for just a second. Dana before he comes in, with the numbers that they have in the senate, are they going to be able to get to unanimous consent on anything . Very unlikely, thats why the 51 number become so important. And this is where nobody really knows what would happen in the senate trial, is a good for the president . The republicans . Is it bad for the other side . Vice versa . Keep in mind that Mitch Mcconnell is very weary of what a long trial does to his senators including cory gardner from colorado, you also have Martha Mcsally in arizona, and Susan Collins in may. And here is senators sooner. Spell fox news alert alert, Chuck Schumer is going to speak about to the democrats romance dont act demands or what they would like to see and impeachment. Lets listen in. The main purpose today is to follow up on the letter that i sent to leader mcconnell about the potential Senate Impeachment trial and rules for them. But lets not forget that there are many other things the senate should be working on right now, this month, we recognized the seventh anniversary of the sandy hook massacre. In the seven years since that unthinkable tragedy, america has experienced countless incidents of gun violence. Ranging from horrific Mass Shootings to the thousands of shootings that devastated communities every day. The senate has not even debated background check legislation. The senate has not debated legislation to reduce the cost of health care. College education, or presiption drugs. Republican leadership has even refused to work with democrats on Bipartisan Solutions to secure our elections and deter foreign adversaries from interfering in our elections. All the productive activity in the congress is coming out of the house. The Senate Remains a legislative graveyard for so many different issues. Now on impeachment. As you know, the house is expected to vote on the articles of impeachment this week. Assuming the articles are adopted by the house, the senate will serve as a court of impeachment. Conducting an impeachment trial in the senate is enormously weighty and solemn responsibility. It is one of the most important things that the Founding Fathers aggregated to the senate. Senate democrats believe strongly that the trial must be fair and it is very important that the American People judge it to be fair. A fair trial is one where senators get all the facts and one that allows them to adjudicate the case impartially. Two weeks ago now i told leader mcconnell that i was ready to discuss trial rules. Instead of talking to me, he spoke publicly about what a trial may look like. And said that he was taking his cues from the white house. It was very partisan, very slanted, very unfair. So to get things back on track, i sent a letter to leader mcconnell last night outlining a very reasonable structure that would result in a fair trial. This morning i sent a letter to every United States senator. Democrat and republican. I hope that all of my will look at this proposed structure and make up their own minds. The four witnesses we proposed have direct knowledge of why the aid to ukraine was delayed. We dont know what kind of evidence they will present. They might present exculpatory evidence that helps President Trump. It may be incriminating against the president. But they should be heard. But by virtue of the Senior Administration positions they occupy, each of them will have information to share about the charges made by the house. Information that no one has heard at this point. In fact, in the case of mr. Bolton, his attorney stated publicly that he has additional and relevant information to share. Information that has not yet become public. How on such a weighty matter could we avoid hearing this . Could we go forward without hearing it . And that is why i sent the letter in part to leader mcconnell. We also proposed that subpoenas for documents that are directly related to the charges brought by the house come forward. There is always a lot of attention on the question of witnesses, but these documents are also of great importance when it comes to making sure senators have what they need to make a fully informed decision. Right now i think the house has amassed a great deal of evidence, much of it in the form of testimony from the president s own appointees. That the president committed impeachable offenses. But a good number of my republican colleagues have said that they believe the charges are serious, but there is not enough evidence for them to make a decision. We believe these witnesses and documents would provide the evidence they are looking for without being dilatory or letting the trial drag on for too long. I have not seen a single good argument about why these witnesses shouldnt testify. Or these documents be produced, unless the president has something to hide. And his supporters want that informatn hidden. The trial structure that i outlined in my letter to leader mcconnell will ensure that all the relevant facts come out without dilatory action. You know, there is a grand american tradition of a speedy and fair trial. That is just what we have proposed here. And i expect republicans will be sympathetic to our proposal for that reason. The president and House Republicans have resisted letting all the evidence and facts come out. The president has not offered a single exculpatory bit of evidence that refutes what is in the house impeachment charges. They have not refuted them. Our document could be summed up by joe friday on dragnet, just the facts, maam. Thats what we are interested in. Not conversions, not conspiracy theories that are irrelevant to the case, just the facts, maam. As i said, the president has offered nothing exculpatory to disprove the evidence has been put forward. Instead, he has orchestrated a coverup. It has left many in the senate and millions across the country asking, what is the president hiding . Why doesnt he want the facts to come out . In their investigation, the house compiled and completed an enormous amount of evidence in support of the articles of impeachment. But as i said, some applying republican colleagues are saying there is not enough evidence, the trial structure i outlined in my leader to mcconnell will ensure all the facts come out. So in the coming weeks, senators, particularly republican senators will have a choice, do they want a fair, honest trial that examines all the facts . Or do they want a trial that does not let the facts come out . Trials have witnesses thats what trials are all abo about. And documents. It is not just prosecutors in this case, the House Attorneys making their side, the president s lawyers make their side, we know that already. We have heard that. We need to know the facts from those who are in a position to know, and from documents that accurately reflect them. So, to engage a trial without the facts coming out is to engage in a coverup. To conduct a trial without the facts is saying we are afraid. We have something to hide. To conduct a trial without irrelevant witnesses who have not been heard from, to just rehash the evidence presented in the house, just does not make any sense. If leader mcconnell does not hold a full and fair trial, the American People will rightly ask, what are you, leader mcconnell, and what is President Trump hiding. Ready for questions. One at a time. Reporter back in 1999 you did not support hearings from new witnesses in the senate trial, why do you feel differently this time around . Here is what i said at the time. These are exactly my words. My view is we have heard from most of these witnesses over and over again. We have heard the same story. The witnesses in 99 had already been given, had already given grand jury testimony. We knew what they were to say. The four witnesses we have called have not been heard from him. That is the difference, and it is a difference that is totally overwhelming. The four witnesses that you have called, some of the republicans, not the senates job to get the witnesses . That was supposed to be done by the House Democrats, and the House Democrats decided not to get these witnesses, should the democrats in the house have pursued the witnesses . Im not going to secondguess the house. There is virtually no arguments, no good argument if you are interested in the facts and not having these witnesses come forward now, and remember, the standard at a trial is different