Intense. President trump reeling a bit. Just look at his tweet storms. The personal attacks he unleashed at his rally last night, which were going to get to in a moment. House speaker nancy pelosi, meanwhile, is floating what looks like a trial balloon to potentially temporarily withhold the articles of impeachment from the senate. Over concerns that Senate Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell isnt going to run a fair trial. Mcconnell has admitted hes not acting as an impartial juror and that hes working hand in hand with the White House Counsels Office on the senate trial. During our press conference today, pelosi reiterated that she is waiting for the senate to act before she proceeds. She then met with Senate Minority leader chuck schumer. This afternoon, schumer met with mcconnell. Just moments ago, Schumers Office said in the meeting, schumer reiterated his demands for witnesses and documents. Look, its possible pelosi is simply trying to give schumer some leverage in negotiations about a trial. Even though its also possible mcconnell may want her to withhold the articles because then he gets to at least temporarily avoid the spectacle of an impeachment trial altogether. President trump, on the other hand, seems eager for a trial. At the heart of the partisan disagreement is whether the senate should hear from witnesses. But for now, there appears to be Little Movement as both sides today retreated to their predictable corners. The vote did not reflect what had been proven. It only reflects how they feel about the president. The senate must put this right. We ask, is the president s case so weak that none of the president s men can defend him under oath . Is the president s case so weak that none of the president s men can defend him under oath . If the house case is so weak, why is leader mcconnell so afraid of witnesses and documents . Lets get right to capitol hill. Our own Garrett Haake up there. So, garrett, like i said, the definition of a trial balloon is what democrats have done. Nancy pelosi is not saying shes doing this for any other reason other than waiting. You know, she hasnt talked about any larger motive that other lawmakers have speculated on. Hows the trial balloon playing . I guess is probably the first question to ask. At least among House Democrats and senate democrats. So far, so good, chuck. Although, theres been some confusion among democrats over what exactly the plan is here. Everything ive heard thus far has been supportive. The reality is the house just locked up their doors for the rest of the year. Theyre not coming back until january. They never selected the managers for the impeachment case. So they they werent ever going to move these articles over to the senate side before january anyway. That makes the next two weeks impeachment purgatory, right . There is a lot of room for these behind close doors negotiations and discussions between the leaders as they try to work out some kind of trial format that everyone will at least not hate. If they dont love it. So pelosi can hold back the articles here without it having any actual effect on what theyre doing going forward. Now, whether this becomes a strategy that goes into further into january or even february, it becomes politically dangerous for any number of reasons. Not the least of which is democrats just spent the last month arguing that there is an urgent need to impeach this president now. You would think then theres a fairly urgent need to continue to the trial. Youve got Democratic Senators who are running for president who are probably going to want to be running for president in late january and early february. Not waiting to be called back for a trial. But in this moment here, what pelosis decision does is it creates some space for mcconnell and schumer to have this negotiation about what the rules will be. To at least get this thing moving in a direction that both parties can agree to. All right. Help me out with the calendar here. When do they come back into out of recess . Is it going to be that friday, january 3rd . Or is it not until the 6th . The house is back on the 6th. The senate hasnt said yet. We might get that announcement from Mitch Mcconnell later in the evening. This is, again, so many moving target squs moving pieces in all of this. The senate was in part waiting to see what the house would do in terms of impeachment. You know, remember on the senate side, they werent entirely convinced that the house would finish up their impeachment work before they went home for the break in the first place. So the Senate Calendar for january is a big giant question mark at this point. And i just one final sort of point of clarification. When the house sends over the articles, it is automatically has to be top priority for the senate. Thats right. So hypothetically, they send em over on january 6. Does the senate have to deal with em that day, 24 hours, 48 . Is there an understanding of what that timetable is of when they have to begin to act . I think thatll be part of what gets negotiated out. Remember, in the clinton impeachment, the house voted and sent the articles over in the same day. So theres just not a lot of precedent to go with here. But Mitch Mcconnells made clear theyre not going to, you know, dillydally around on this. Theyre going to get the articles. Theyre going to go work. Its going to be a six day a week process. Senators are essentially going to be bolted in their chairs for this whole thing. Theyre putting off their vote on usmca, which a lot of republican senators would love to see passed so they can have something to tout back home. Even that will wait. Let me pause you there. They just passed usmca. Almost an astonish bipartisan levels of support. Almost equal on both sides. It it beyond stunning that i wish i had more time to talk about the trade thing. And we will talk about it late in the hour. But have they sent that over . Or did they also not send over usmca yet . Unclear if theyve sent it over. But even if the senate the senate would have to get unanimous consent. There is a million other things that would have to happen for them to get that done before they leaf town. I mean, there is the smell of jet fumes is overwhelming in this building right now. A lot of lawmakers are just trying to get out of dodge right now. Yeah. The jet fumes. They smell awfully good right now from National Airport is my guess. Garrett haake starting us off on capitol hill. I can already hear more echo in your voice, which means fewer people are there. Joined now by one of the houses Top Democrats when it comes to decisions involving impeachment. Hes chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee. Congressman engel, good to see you. Let me start it looks like a trial balloon to us here in the in the cheap seats here. This idea of delaying sending the articles over. How long are you comfortable delaying sending over those articles . Well, im comfortable right now with the way nancy pelosi has conducted herself. And has worked with all of us during impeachment. I want to see a fair trial. I want to see a free trial. It is very troubling when the Senate Majority leader and other senators said they have no intention of being impartial jurors. Which is really what theyre supposed to be. So hopefully, theyll theyll realize that this does not help anyone. Let alone everybody in our country a country. And theyll cooperate, at which point i think theyll move ahead expeditiously and very quickly and we can we can continue. But i think its not helpful when the senators, and particularly the majority leader, is saying that hes not going to follow the constitution and be a impartial arbiter. Well, let me ask you this. The Mitch Mcconnell may not like how nancy pelosi runs the house. You guys and nancy pelosi may not like how Mitch Mcconnell runs the senate but really one doesnt have a lot of say over the other. No, thats true. But the constitution does provide the parameters for impeachment. And if the senate is going to not follow that, then i think thats something that we have to call to everybodys attention. I would like this to move as quickly as possible. I think its important. You know, we knew when we brought up articles of impeachment that the senate has a republican majority and the chances of them doing anything are are not very great. But we followed the constitution. Thats all were asking of the senate. Follow the constitution. Well, theres only one sentence here in the constitution about this. Article one, section three. The senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. It doesnt describe what that trial should look like. No, but the the thing that we can go back to would be the the impeachment of president clinton. I was here during those those days. And both the senate and the house cooperated. The republicans said that they would not coordinate anything with anybody. And and and the senate and the house seemed to work together. Here, right off the get go, were hearing all kinds of things that block smooth smooth moving. Im hoping this is only a blip and that we can move. I dont see why we cant. Im hoping calmer heads will prevail. But we have an obligation to our country and to our citizens to follow the constitution. Thats the whole problem, frankly, with the republicans. They dont want to follow the constitution. Let me ask you this, though. How much should Public Opinion matter here . The country is right down the middle divided on this. And it its one of those, at the end of the day, Public Opinion does count for something, does it not . It always counts for something. But i think more important than Public Opinion is to try to do whats right. I understand that. But do you get to a point where in some ways, is it not legitimate if the senate decide to worry about where Public Opinion is on this question of whether its better to let the Voters Decide . Versus the institution of the u. S. Senate to decide . Well, chuck, when we went into into impeachment, i mean, we knew then that the senate has a majority of republicans. And the chances of getting them to cross over was minuscule. But we thought it was important to do. Again, to follow the constitution. So i dont think Public Opinion should sway anything one way or another. We have obligations. The house has fulfilled its obligations. Were calling on the senate to fulfill its obligations. Im marveling at the overwhelming bipartisan support there is for usmca. Sans, 41 members of congress and youre one of the 41 that voted against this trade agreement. Most of your democratic colleagues voted for it. Im just curious what was your reasoning . Well, you know, in a large bill like that, there are things you like in it. There are things you dont like in it. And there certainly were some very good things in it. For me, we had a problem with the environmentalists who are very unhappy with it. They convinced me that this wasnt the best bill that we can come up with. Again, there are things in that bill that i liked. But you you cant vote 80 one way and 20 another way. You got to vote yes or no. And i thought that that i would vote no and show my concern with some of the environmental lack of environmental proposals in the bill. Are you basically saying you agreed with 80 of this trade deal . Well, i think its i think the trade deal, you know, ive voted for a few trade deals through the years. Most of the time, i voted no. And i think that this trade deal is is better than most. But i dont think its good enough because youre, again, youre attaching lots of things to it. And the environmental things are very important to me. I have 100 voting record on environmental matters. And i like to keep it that way. Fair enough. Eliot engel, democrat from new york city. Thanks for coming on sharing your views. Appreciate it. Always a pleasure. Thank you, chuck. Let me turn now to a future juror in the senate trial. Its senator michael bennet. Democrat for colorado. Member of the Senate Intelligence committee. President ial candidate. So this trial has got all sorts of ramifications on you. Senator bennet, youre here. Knowing you the way i know you, i assume youve already reached out to a handful of rank and file republicans that you have a Good Relationship with in the senate wondering is there anything you guys can do that mcconnell and schumer cant . So let me ask. Is there any talks that arent involving mcconnell and schumer between a Bipartisan Group of you that may figure this out . You know, i think that were getting out of here just in time. Nerves are frayed and im usually the guy who says we ought to stay here and finish our work. I think its time for everybody to go away for a few days. And i hope, over the course of the coming days, well be able to start those conversations, chuck. To see whether we can get to a place where we can get to an agreement on how we conduct a fair trial in the senate. That can elevate the reputation of the senate and everybody around here. That would be useful. And and in current, you know, sort of recent days, sort of unheard of. I mean, but whats plausible here . I mean, at the end of the day, you you it is sort of a everybodys got to agree to some pain, perhaps, that they may not like in the rules in order to do this. And everybodys got to agree to some things that that they might like. You really think we live in a world that can do that these days . I dont i dont know. I mean, hope springs eternal. I i think that the more likely outcome is that mcconnell will end up doing whatever mcconnell wants. But you asked, you know, will we have discussions about it . And i think well well make an effort. Well, theres some things. Mcconnell, on one hand, hes got some power here. But its limited once the trial begins, is it not . You mean because hes got to get 51 votes . 51 votes to do things during the trial. Right. So i mean, is there a point where there is an agreement. But once the trial starts, it could go it could go in any direction . It could. Whats your sense . My sense is that right now theres no negotiation really going on. I mean, obviously, senator schumer has put his position out. And Mitch Mcconnells put his position out. And i assume that the two leaders will begin to negotiate. And those of us that can be helpful will be helpful. I would rather have it wrapped up before we actually start the trial. And were giving everybody something. But if that doesnt work, it is true that hes got to get 51 votes to sustain his position. And democrats could get 51 votes to sustain our position with respect to witnesses. Its not clear to me that the republicans share Mitch Mcconnells view tonight. That the right way to do this is with no witnesses at all. I think the American People i had i had a i had a republican senator on sunday. Pat toomey, who is not yet hes not winced they shou not convinced they should do this without witnesses yet. Hes keeping an open mind. Which makes sense because the American People you know, they still are coming along to to focus on this. They many of them have not yet focused on it. And the senate has the opportunity to be able to lay the facts out in front of the American People in a fair trial. Which is what i hope well do. Speaker pelosi is withholding sending the articles over. Do you endorse that tactic . How long do you endorse that tactic . At one point, does it look too much like a tactic . And not enough about getting a fair trial. I think shes done a pretty good job lately negotiating stuff like the trade agreement you were talking about earlier. So im not going to second guess her on this. At some point at some point, you know, it may look like a tactic. In which case, im sure shell shell relent. But i think what shes trying to do is send a message that she that shes not that shes still got some cards to play. And as long as shes got them, shes going to play those cards. What you brought up the trade deal. Im curious. Where do you plan to vote on this . On usmca. Im struck by the almost near unanimity in a polarized environment that democrats and republicans in the house are this close on trade . You know, its interesting. So i have not taken a final position yet. Im still studying it. But there are hugelybeneficial things in this trade deal. The interesting thing about it is, it was the speaker that got them into the trade deal. The deal that the president negotiated with mexico didnt have the labor protections, the labor inspections of mexico that are in this trade agreement. So here is a rare case where washington actually worked the way it was supposed to. Donald trump negotiated a deal that he thought was adequate. It wasnt adequate for the democratic majority in the house. The speaker of the house said, you know what, were were not going to take it the way youve written it. But if you can accomplish this, this, this, and this, nonnegotiable, we might be able to vote for this. And they changed it, to their credit. The administration changed the deal. Lighthizer changed it. And now, youre getting a big vote on the floor of the house of representatives thatll pass with a big vote in the senate. Its a reminder this place is not built just to have dueling press releases. This place is is built so that people of with disagreements, different points of view, can fashion a result that represents the broad views of the American People. Not a lazy consensus in the middle. But results. Who knew that two of the most productive times in my lifetime and your lifetime, senator, of Congress Working together would be during impeachments. Maybe we have a maybe we have a new reform for congress. Have em focus on impeachment. Take the arrows and quietly actually negotiate behind the scenes. Being a little cynical but maybe not. I would do that without impeachment. A better reform might be to ban members of congress from becoming lobbyists after they leave here. I think that would h