how many doors i am knocking on under oath? if the house case is so weak, in columbia south carolina or why is leader mcconnell so cory booker gets a good question afraid of witnesses and documents. from mulvaney. >> would it still be a trial if you did it! there are no witnesses in a congratulations. senate proceeding, if they just >> welcome to a special end of opened it, moved to dismiss and the year edition of "a.m. joy." that was the end? if kamala harris was still in >> you could call it a trial. the race. it is an opportunity for her to you already know your weekly you could call it anything you want. demonstrate the skills she would but it wouldn't be a trial in statement, "who won the week." the constitutional sense because use in the united states. it is not going to matter to the constitution clearly bernie. it is not going to matter to contemplates that there will be full closure, to mark the ending what ordinary people call a elizabeth warren. they like her of her idea and trial, which means witnesses. her progressive principles. of what could describe 2019, in fact, there is not much nobody cares about michael reason to hold a proceeding in bennett. i don't see of it as making a the senate if it's simply a we'll sum it up in a special much difference. if it ends up being a logistical edition of "who won the year"! rehash of what happened in the house. it would simply poll the >> we'll break it all the way senators, not ask them to listen down and tell you who won the to any evidence. year for the culture. the constitution says they must nightmare. be on a special oath. i don't think it is going to and what would be the point of happen because i don't think first, we start with who won the chuck schumer will let mitch having them take an oath if they year in politics. could make up their minds joining me now is tiffany cross completely without paying any mcconnell get in the way of the from the beat d.c. attention to the evidence. senate trial. jason johnson of the root and any democrat who said that >> why you throw my former state senator under the bus? exonerating evidence wouldn't