occasionally talking and shouting over each other insistence that facts exist or facts don t matter. that s really troubling. we need to be able to reason together. julie made the point you re not contesting underlying facts. but the deflexes and trying to draw attention elsewhere. saying the facts don t exist that s sufficient. the argument should be about, here s the facts. we can agree that they exist. we can disagree whether it rises to level of impeachment. we haven t been having that level of adult conversation really. interesting how you delineate the two sides. jeffrey, to that point, we ve heard a lot of that and i have a feeling tomorrow hearing a lot more. we don t have specifics in terms of the tick tock of tomorrow. what are the details? can you tell us what are the details they will eventually hammer out to set parameters for the impeachment vote tomorrow? ultimately determining who gets to speak on either side and for how long. seems basically a forgone
overwhelming and compelling that the president did something very, very wrong here. yet you still have republicans denying that that s true. so that s very, very different from what i m used to in our criminal justice system. also, jeffrey, everyone s been watching on the house side these moderate democrats where will they go? on impeachment. turns out they ve been falling in line with speaker pelosi and the party, but when you look on the senate side, there are moderate republicans who are making leader mcconnell and the white house a little nervous. my question to you is, might they break? and vote with the democrats on these trial-related issues including wanting witnesses to testify in person? what do you think? i wouldn t be surprised if they did because each of them is facing, of course, a difficult political decision and really worried about the eyre of the voters on either side of the aisle. at the very least, falling back on a fuller process, getting more evidence out, hav
okay. jeffrey engle, to gloria s point, i mean, how well history looks at this letter? can you put this six-page diatribe into historic context for us? when listening to about, the news about this letter i had the exact same thought i m sure every american did. reminds me of andrew johnson in 1868. he first of all was one who would go off in diatribes and would, one of my favorite lines from him he made the claim during his impeach innocent no one had ever sacrificed or suffered more fon the you re yin than him. keep in mind his presidedecessos assassinated for it. secondly, critical, one of the articles of impeachment congress passed in 1868 was thatsulting congress. and so there is actually historical precedence for impeaching a president at least discussing the impeachment of a
schumer wanted to hear from witnesses he should have pushed house democrats to go to court. look at the numbers we have. new cnn polling shows democratic support for impeach and removal is down, double digits. the numbers. see them for yourselves. jeffrey, back to you, house democrats, still sitting in the house realm. do house democrats miss an opportunity with their investigation? the question is what were they trying to do? if we just remember each of these participants has a constitutional role as well as a political one. the founders, of course, did not actually develop a separation of powers. they separated, developed a competition of powers. that the house is supposed to jealously guard its powers. in this case, power to decide whether or not as a democratic elected body they feel there is something that should be looked at and tried by the senate, and then the senate i think is supposed to essentially take the house s word for it in the sense that if you believe after the hou
perhaps the president could be in real trouble here? yes and no. i think among republicans there is a lot of worry. but the question is does the president himself realize it? as usual and as you were talking about at the white house earlier the president is not someone who stays on message or goes along with the communication strategy. he is someone who very much has been in his bunker lashing out at everyone. so does he realize that he s really in danger here or does he just see this as, yet, another one of the sort of cycles of the conspiracy against him, the witch hunt that he s been painting the picture of since basically day one? and so i think we don t really know that but it makes a lot of republicans nervous is that the president is so unpredictable and not sure how seriously he is taking this whole thing. jeffrey, what about the president, his claim of executive privilege? well, you know, that is