What can we expect on a trial in the senate . Our experts weigh in and Amy Klobuchar joins us live. Plus, bloomberg launches hes taking on him. Im Mike Bloomberg and i approve this message. With the biggest ad buyin. Chris christie and donna brazil join our round table. Well break down the politics, smoke out the spin. The facts that matter this week. Announcer heres chief anchor george stephanopoulos. Good morning and welcome to this week. After two weeks, 12 witnesses more than 30 hours of testimony, the public hearings into the impeachment of President Trump appear to be over. What did we learn . The evidence established a series of facts. Did President Trump launch a campaign with ukraine into joe biden . And that trumps Key National Security players knew about it. Ambassador Gordon Sondland put it starkly. Everyone was in the loop. That included secretary pompeo, right . Many people. Secretary pompeo . Yes. Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney . Yes. Shadow diplomacy outside normal channels. He was being involved in a domestic political errand. So much still in the shadows. Central figures refusing to testify. Secretary of state mike pompeo, former National Security adviser john bolton, acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and trumps personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. You understood that mr. Giuliani spoke for the president , correct . Thats correct. As the hearings came to a close, the partisan divide wide as ever. Republicans firm in defense of trump. Ive not heard evidence proving the president committed bribery or extortion. Democrats emphatic. The president deserves impeachment. In my view theres nothing more dangerous than an ethical president who believes hes above the law. In the words of my great colleague, we are better than that. Adjourned. Lets dig into where things stand with our panel of impeachment experts. Melissa murray professor of constitutional law, chief legal analyst dan abrams, Barbara Comstock and kate shaw who served as Legal Counsel in the Obama White House now a profess have of constitutional law. Welcome to all of you. Dan, let me begin with you. Did the democrats make their case . Did they prove an Impeachable Offense . It depends what their case is. Did they show there was a quid pro quo, that aid was withheld in exchange for an investigation . Yeah. Theyve got those facts on the table. Its hard to dispute that. Thats only the first question. Question two is was it wrong . I think they did a good job of demonstrating it was wrong. Most americans believe that. Question three is the most important. Anything is impeachable. The question is is this enough to remove him from office . Thats yet to be seen. One of the important questions moving forward when the democrats think about articles of impeachment is how broad do they go . Up to this point we talked about they want to go narrow, stay focussed, et cetera. Now you have to wonder if theyll go a little broader when they write up these articles of impeachment. Will they include some of the information about mueller and obstruction . As a legal matter, you would say of course. Why not include additional charges if you believe theyre valid . As a political matter they have to decide if it helps or hurts. So much of it is politics. Barbara, did they make the case . It depends on what the case is. On obstruction they had a lot of witnesses who pointed out, like sondland, they didnt have access to the documents. Theyve been repeating that over. The bribery, given thats an ffl pridngguntf youve bn ying to h its like the clinton impeachment where a lot of people will say its wrong, but will herd said it was inappropriate, the conversation, but i dont think it was impeachable. Thats where some most of the republicans are saying, no, its not wrong. Nothing wrong with the call. The president is driving that line. I think youll see other republicans take the line that will herd did, the clinton line of its wrong but lets not impeach. One of the arguments you hear from some democrats even if the outcome is ordained in the senate, you have to go forward with an impeachment as a deterrent to prevent this kind of action from future president s. Its a strong argument for the democrats. The idea we cant have a chief executive who believes that he or she is above the law and a Strong Congress thats willing to deploy impeachment to deter that. Barbara is right. Its not just a legal proceeding. Its a political proceeding. Whether youre a democrat, republican or convincible. In the house those lines hardened over the two weeks. Thats right. I think that one defense you could imagine is the one barbara described. This was wrong. This should not be done. Maybe it warrants Something Like censure. It doesnt justify the first removal of an american president in our history. Its not quite serious enough. But youve seen the opposite. The president insisting he did nothing wrong and his party coalescing around it. A little bit inconsistent with public opinion. Most people think this is wrong. Wrong is not the constitutional standard. High crimes and misdemeanors, bribery, theyve been understood as something thats a threat to political order. Its intolerable to keep a president in office who engages in conduct like this. In some ways thats why i think the democrats made a or the witnesses made a case the investigations that the president wanted were political. The president was willing to use the white house meeting and military aid as leverage. Theres some open question as to the military aid, how and when and through what channels the directive to hold the aid was issued and the lifting of the hold. Thats important. Thats where you get into the double bind. The person who can answer the questions of how the military aid was withheld, Mick Mulvaney, the white house chief of staff who said it was withheld in part because of these investigation. Lets thats whats going to be interesting about the senate trial. In the senate is it possible these people are forced to testify. I dont think so. I dont see how they go about doing that. You can count on the fact that the democrats are going to try if there are going to be witnesses. In the clinton trial there were no live witnesses who testified. It was arguments. Thats the question here as you talk about a senate trial. Will there be witnesses will you have Rudy Giuliani the president s attorney . I cant imagine hell be arguing the case. He was on tv. Hes on tv right now. You say you cant imagine. Some constitutional scholars have raised ways it might happen. One argument made is that the house could try to compel by setting a deadline for impeachment. They could go to the courts. Because they have a deadline, coming into an election year, the courts could expedite any proceeding. Its happened in 2000 during the recount with george bush. Its a standard feature in election law. Theres a great piece by nick foley. Thats one way. Weve seen the court fast track when its had to. The political optics of this are really important. The idea that were fast tracking, its a witch hunt, its all in the bag, democrats want to stay as far away from that lien line of inquiry as possible. One of the strongest articles of impeachment is obstruction. If they get the witnesses, thats going to undermine that article of impeachment. Not getting those firsthand witnesses is a problem and youre not taking the case seriously enough and you are making it political. That is precisely the dilemma. The democrats are saying its proof of obstruction the witnesses arent coming forward. Why not take the time to see if they would come forward . There are echos of strategic calls made by robert mueller. He decided not to force the president to sit for an inperson interview. Ai iwould t and work with the material we have. In some ways the democrats seem to likely be moving in that direction. We have the universe of testimony and were not going to try to force more. If theres Material Information that some of these witnesses still hold, theres a real question whether they should exhaust all legal avenues to try to access it. Melissa is right. Courts can move quickly if the democrats are focussed on what they need. Theres a chance they could get a ruling. I dont think that removes any obstruction article. There are other articles of the obstruction case including witness intimidation. I think theres an argument they should try to run the process through quicker. Something is happening tomorrow, dan, that could play into obstruction. The court is expected to rule on whether don mcgahn, President Trumps former counsel who played a role in the mueller report, whether he should be compelled to testify. You could see him called as an impeachment witness by the house judiciary committee. Potentially. Thats a court ruling. The question is where do you go from here. You would have other witnesses saying ill wait to see the resolution. Theres always a way to delay these until it gets to the Supreme Court. You can keep pushing it off waiting for a final ruling. Lets take a step back. One thing we talked about when we were talking about broadly about impeachment and what if founders thought. Think about the standards. Its high and low. Misdemeanors and high crimes. Theres bribery and treason. There was a reason they put that in there. They wanted it to be vague. They wanted to talk about wrong doing generally. When we talk about bribery, it doesnt necessarily have to adhere to the statute. The statute didnt exist when bribery was put into the constitution. Its going to be interesting as the articles move forward and the word bribery is there, are they talking about the bribery as the founders thought about it which is just kind of payoffs and improper activity, not if federal statute. They were particularly worried about improper activity with foreign nations. Yes. This is completely on point in this case. It was definitely the case they were worried about foreign intervention in the domestic operations of the United States. Its clearly implicated here. Its also in the emoluments case. That seems like 500 million years ago. Dan is right, they didnt anticipate 18usc201. They dont have the opportunity to take that off the table trying to understand what bribery means in terms of impeachment. They have to look at the modern model to understand what were working with today. Impeachment was meant to be a broad consensus and bipartisan. In a 50 50 country youll get a 50 50 divide. The house will vote impeachment and the senate most likely will acquit and the public will decide in november. There is a new player thats involved and thats chief justice john roberts. Theres some question about whether he would have the power to compel new witnesses. If it goes to trial, right, chief Justice Roberts will preside over the trial. Its a role he can define as he sees fit. He may take the position that William Rehnquist took its a largely ceremonial role and he wont do lot that affects the course of the senate trial, ordering witnesses to appear, things of that nature. I think its likely hell urge the senate to work out those determinations internally. Maybe with guidance from roberts, but not him making the decision. That could lead to an interesting situation. Lets say the democrats say we want to hear from Mick Mulvaney or mike pompeo. Roberts gives it over to the senate. Its not certain you would have a majority against seeing Mick Mulvaney come forward. You have a few senators on the fence that could vote for that. It could. It would be viewed as heresy within the party. Maybe theyll be able to peel off a view. I think were looking at it the right way. I think kate is right. The idea that chief Justice Roberts is going to be a hero for the left and hes going to force witnesses to testify and the senate will have to overturn him, thats a pipe dream. Its going to be based on senate votes. The best they can hope for is peeling off a few of the moderates. I dont see it happening because i think theyll want to stay out of being the focus. Thats the question. Theres so many different moving parts to this. The Supreme Court considering two tax cases about President Trumps tax returns, both the one from the d. A. Here in new york and Congress Also seeking them. Theres been some suggestion that if the Supreme Court took these cases then he would be asked to recuse himself from a senate trial. You guys are shaking your heads. Its in the constitution. They cant do that. The court has been at great pains to stay out of the political fray. They had the opportunity to take controversial cases. They punted on those. Now theyre before the court in this year os docket. Its going to be an explosive year for the court. Chief Justice Roberts has taken great pains to keep the court of the political fray. Chief justice William Rehnquist was quoted as saying regarding his role in the clinton impeachment trial, i did nothing in particular and i did nothing wrong. If the Supreme Court takes this, theyll be deciding it right in the middle of the president ial campaign. Probably in june. Does that put a thumb on it for the court saying well stay out of this . It may. It may mean if they take the cases, they expedite them so theyre decided in february or march rather than june. On recusal theres been speculation that if he takes the trial he may have to recuse from the cases. Potentially. In the clinton impeachment you had executive privilege cases that were going up. Theres precedent. Its not constitution he presides. He presides. No question. No question hell preside. Barbara you have experience with the clinton impeachment. The fundamental lesson is strategy. As you look at the republicans in the senate, is the strategy edges towards the president s strategy which nothing was done wrong or perhaps it was inappropriate, but not impeachable. I think it may be the latter for quite a few of the senators. The president is talking about wanting witnesses on the floor like hunter biden. He also wants adam schiff. He will witness. Mitch a tight reign on this. He wants a short trial. He doesnt want a circus. The white house would like to have a senate trial like the th. I think the reason you had Lindsey Graham come out and say hes going to do the investigation of hunter biden and those matters is so they dont have to deal with those issues on the senate floor. Before we go, do any of you think its possible that the house doesnt follow through and vote on impeachment . I think its possible. For the first time this morning im like would they consider a censure. Thats more for the senate. Some sort of statement. Its hard to think of how they could not i dont think you unring this bell. This bell is gonna get rung. Thank you very much. Fascinating discussion. When we come back one of the likely jurors for President Trump democratic president ial candidate Amy Klobuchar. Up next nate silver looks at whether a moderate like klobuchar is the best bet for democrats. And ultrafast speeds. Almost 2 gigs here in minneapolis. Thats 25 times faster than todays network in new york city. So people from midtown manhattan to downtown denver can experience what our 5g can deliver. woman and if verizon 5g can deliver performance like this in these places. Its pretty crazy. Just imagine what it can do for you. Save it slimeball. Onstrating ive upgraded to mucinex. We still have 12 hours to australia. Mucinex lasts 12 hours, so im good. Now move kim nooooooo only mucinex has a patented tablet that lasts 3x longer, for 12 hours. Supporting Innovative Companies buthat will shape tomorrow. And Building Workforce development and tuitionfree College Programs to generate the talent companies need. Modern infrastercture,gy, new york is doing more than any other state to build for the future of your business. New york state, the state of the future. Learn more at esd. Ny. Gov but in my mind im still 25. Thats why i take osteo biflex, to keep me moving the way i was made to. It nourishes and strengthens my joints for the long term. Osteo biflex now in triple strength plus magnesium. groans hmph. food grunting menacingly when the food you love doesnt love you back, stay smooth and fight heartburn fast with tums smoothies. Tum tumtum tum tums with tums smoothies. Problems. Nobody likes problems. But why is that . At ibm, problems actually inspire us, to fix things, to change things, to push the world forward. Which is why so many people who dare to take on problems work with ibm. This is charlie not coughing because he took delsym 12hour. Which is why so many people and this is charlie still not coughing while trying his hardest not to wake zeus. Delsym 12hour. Nothing lasts longer for powerful cough relief. I realized i wanted to study the stars, i want to be a physicist. I had a tenth grade level of education. I find youtube videos on calculus, differential equations, statistics, algebra, trigonometry. Im now working as a scientist. I cant see a stopping point in me ever doing that. Im now working as a scientist. Introducing new Vicks Vapopatch easy to wear with soothing vicks vapors for her, for you, for the whole family. New Vicks Vapopatch. Breathe easy. Lets get those independents and moderate republicans who cannot stomach this guy anymore. This is how we build a coalition so we dont just beat donald trump. We bring the u. S. Senate to some sense. Im not only running to defeat donald trump. Im running to prepa