On giving. If you want to look at this way, at least had it comes to conspiracy theories. Were going to tell you about his new controversial interview with new York Magazine. Well bring you the very latest developments with boeing after that Aerospace Giant fired its ceo yesterday. I think there was one headline that talked about him being the teflon ceo. Not anymore. A lot of questions around that. But we want to begin this morning with the latest on the impeachment bankrupt will. In the week of newly unearthed emails from cre Administration Officials that revealed that the white house tried to conceal his dealings with ukraine. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer yesterday issued a new demand for those documents that democrats believe must be obtained for consideration in an impeachment trial. In a letter to his senate colleague, schumer lays out a long list of records, including internal emails and documents from the white house, the state department, even the office of management and budget. In part, he writes, there simply is no good reason why evidence that is directly relevant to the conduct at nish the articles conduct at issue should be withheld from the senate and american people. Blt pr relevant documentary evidence currently in the possession of the administration will augment the existing evidentiary record and will allow them torque oppose the admission of this evidence would be to turn willfully blind eye. Here he is. The senate should issue subpoenas for additional documents that we believe will sm shed additional light on the assistance funding to ukraine and its requests for certain investigations to be announced by the government of ukraine. The need for the senate to review documentary evidence has received far less attention than the need for witness testimony. Despite being an equally important aspect of the trial and getting the facts to come out. We dont know what these documents will say. Just as we dont know what the witnesses will say. They may actually be exculpatory of President Trump or they may be further condemning of President Trump. But they should come out. We should see these documents no matter what they say. The new emails from mr. Duffey and the Trump Administration show why its so important for the white house to produce the documents we have requested. They will shed light on who ordered the aid cut, and why they ordered it. If there was ever an argument that we need mr. Duffey and others to come testify under oath and an argument that we need documents related to what was revealed about mr. Duffeys actions, this is it. President trump last night weighed in on the senate equipment trial writing on twitter, of course, quote, wouldnt it be reasonable to assume that republicans in the senate should handle the impeachment hoax in the exact same manner as democrats in the house handled their recent partisan scam . Why would it be different for republicans than it was for the radical left democrats . Trump also attacked House Speaker nancy pelosi over her decision to hold off on sending the articles of impeachment to the senate tweeting yesterday, quote, pelosi gives us the most unfair trial in the history of the u. S. Congress and now she is crying for fairness in the senate and breaking all rules while doing so. She lost congress once, she doll it again. As trump complains of an unfair trial in the house, it is worth noting that he was not subject to a trial in the house and that his trial would be in the senate. And the president continued his attack on pelosi last night accusing her of, quote, doing everything she can to delay the zero republican vote articles of impeachment and trying to take over the senate. Trump writes she has a bad case and would rather not have a negative decision. This witchhunt must end now with a trial in the senate or let her default and lose. And as you can imagine, Senate Republicans mirrored President Trumps sentiments with pelosi with Lindsey Graham tweeting out yesterday, it is time for Speaker Pelosi who claimed impeachment was a national imperative to fish or cut bait. Commit to sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate Consistent with constitutional obligations. If she refuses, senators should take matters into their own hands. Graham added, quote, her actions are an affront to the constitution. Are, the senate and denies trump his day in court. Heres what was said about her methods. Most of my constituents dont have a very high opinion of congress, under any circumstances. If you ask em, theyll Say Something to the effect of do members of congress suffer from Mental Illness . No, most seem to enjoy it. Thats their attitude. Some angry. Others find this very odd. I find it odd. Speaker pelosi is now telling the senate youre prevented or im prohibiting you from doing something you really dont want to do unless you do it in a way that i approve of. And its very odd. I mean, whats the old movie line . Looks like i picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue. Well, lets bring in senior Political Correspondent for the Washington Examiner david drucker. David is also a contributing writer at vanity for. Good morning to you on this holiday. Hey, guys, good morning. Is there any room for compromise, david . Do you see any light at the end of this tunnel with these opposing views . Is anything going to get accomplished before january 6th when Congress Comes back in session . Yeah, i dont i dont think so. And i should compliment senator kennedy on his airplane reference. But i think the way to understand it is and amid all these colloquialisms, Senate Republicans arent interested in conducting any trial. Its something that as far as theyre concerned has been forced upon them and if Speaker Pelosi doesnt want to send over the articles thats just fine with them. Now, there are two ways to look at this. Look, i have an enormous respect for pelosi as a tactician. Shes one of the best in the business that ive ever covered. If shes withholding articles because shes trying to control the president and get him upset about this idea that hes not going to have his exoneration trial and theyre not going to have 67 votes for removal, maybe youd get a couple of republican votes to convict, but at this point im curious if youll get any, then i could understand that the strategy what the strategy is and it would make some sense. If theyre really trying, pelosi and schumer to agree to more favorable terms for a trial, meaning witnesses and process and things like that, i dont think this will work. What mcconnell is most concerned about is protecting his vulnerable 2020 senators from tough votes. There are about a handful of them. So if they never have to vote on any witness list. If they never have to vote either for or against the president , that would be just fine with him and he could spend his time handling the United States mexico, cana states mexico canada trade agreement and confirming more judges and things like that. Leverage would be there if mcconnell felt compelled to conduct a trial. One other thing i would note here when it comes to which witnesses should be called, im not passing a value judgment here, the only way you end up with any witness being called is if you can find 51 senators to vote to agree to call that witness. What mcconnell has had to explain to the white house and so far hes had some success, there are not 51 votes for the president s dream wish list in figures like hunter biden, the former Vice President s son, the whistleblower and others. And youre not going to find youre going to be hard pressinged pressed to find 51 votes for Mick Mulvaney and others that they want to hear from. So youll end up at an impasse. But when it comes to witnesses dont you find it ironic that here you have the president and the democrats on the same page as opposed to Mitch Mcconnell . You gift reasons for why he doesnt want to have it. But is there any thought that, all right, we could call, you know, hunter biden, we could call adam schiff if you let us call Mick Mulvaney, john bolton and the like . Couldnt there be a tit for tat agreement here . Theoretically and i dont want to rule them out without asking them how they feel about that. I think that given how the president and his Team Approached the impeachment investigation in the house when they specifically did not want these people being questioned either in depositions or otherwise, all of a sudden theyre going to agree to let some of these key people take questions, its very unpredictable. You dont know what theyre going to say. Mick mule vinny got himself in a mess of trouble in a News Conference when he admitted sure, there was a quid pro quo, who cares. John bolton, its unclear what he would say because he has major Foreign Policy disagreements with the president and he did know the like the way the ukraine episode was handled. Youre going to allow that and possibly put the president in more political jeopardy at a time where they feel as a matter of politics theyve emerged from impeachment and the investigation in the house in a pretty good place. It sounds like a good tradeoff, you get yours, we get ours, but i dont see how the president is going to end up agreeing to that. Im actually very curious how Many Democrats want to call hunter biden given their sense the sensitivities around how they feel joe biden was roped into that whole thing as a witness. And, david, stick with me for a second because i want to get to another aspect of all of this which is the House Judiciary Committee saying its recommending additional articles of impeachment against the president. The potential move comes as the democratic Led Committee continues to push for the white House Counsel testimony of don mcgahn as it investigates potential obstruction of justice during the Trump Administration during Robert Muellers investigation. The committee in a 19page filing has asked the federal Appeals Court to order mcgahn to testify arguing that his testimony could provide new evidence that may be essential at a Senate Impeachment trial as well as lead to new articles of impeachment. The Dc Circuit Court of appeals is scheduled to hear arguments on january 3rd on whether it will force the subpoena. What is the likelihood, you think, that, a, the courts are going to wade into this conversation about mcgahn testimony and what would the implications be if he is, in fact, required to provide testimony to the ongoing impeachment conversation . Well, i think its a matter of how far into the Election YearHouse Democrats want to pursue the impeachment topic. It may very well be justified and warranted given some recent information and information that may come to light through additional testimony or Court Decisions that at least allow for testimony. And then there might be a fight over executive privilege. You know, i think democrats have to decide whether or not they want the relengs of their houe House Majority to center around impeachment or the things that most Americans Care about as a priority. A lot of voters are interested in impeachment, they dont like the president , at least, you know, half the country, if you look at us as roughly split. They wont something done about this. But for all the cliches about walking and chewing gum at the same time, for me, its like reading your smartphone while crossing the street at the same time. It can be very perilous if the they feel its justified and warranted and they have no other choice but go ahead with it. But it is tricky. I think there are democrats in swing districts that would like to be able to say that they did the job they had to do to hold the president accountable. Theyve been very sort of forthright about that. And now theyre going to focus on other matters. But if more information comes to light and pelosi can bring enough support around this, i dont think theyll stop investigating the president , nor should they. The issue is whether they want to do it through an impeachment process versus an oversight process. So lets pivot here. It is Christmas Eve, a big day for many in the christian faith. Lets talk about the christianity today oped, the first one that called for the removal of the president and his impeachment, all with the backlash as well from the other evangelicals. Eugene robinson quotes from that editorial and he said to the many evangelicals who continue to support mr. Trump inspied of his blackened moral record, we might say this, remember who you are and who you serve. If we dont reverse course now will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come . And then he continues to write, the answer is no. The evangelicals cant have it both ways. They cant claim to be a clarion voice of christian values in Public Square while at same time behaving in politics like amoral. They argue that we are all imperfect, we are all sinners in any way just look at all the antiabortion judges trump has appoint. But come on, can a Christian Movement completely ignore morality . Can it pretend not to know the difference between a leader who strives to be good and one who doesnt . Tell me, where in the bible does it is say anything goes . And trump has made kurds scarce, but there are till brave leaders out there. Evangelical leaders have turned a blind eye to his obsession. It has led to a blasphemous reduction of christianity to judge ships and allowed figures such as Franklin Graham and jerry to shrug off their idols. Such shamelessness is why christianity todays editorial seems so courageous, unlike republican politicians and most evangelical christian leaders. However, democrats have dared to challenge trumps contusional accesses, most will be rewarded for it in their directs, bstric but those who have shown the most courage are those that show most courage are those moderate democrats from districts trump kerd in tixt. 2016. There are few republicans in the caucus or behind the republican communities most powerful churches. As you listen to these, im curious your reaction because i guess an argument could be made that evangelicals are putting policy over morality . But isnt it a high sense of morality that is what the evangelical community is motivated by, is defined by . Are they actually just flying in the face of who they are by doing this . I guess thats sort of up to them. The evangelical community is not monolithic so there are younger evangelicals that have very deep issues with President Trump. There have also been studies that show even if you identify as an evangelical, the more you actually attend church once a week, twice a week, a few times a month versus into the often, the more likely you are to have some issues with how trump condigico conduct himself among other things. Theres a broad swath of evangelical voters that look at outcomes. If you look at some segment of this community that has been politically active over the past generation or so, they feel like over the years theyve supported many candidates, mostly republicans, who promised to effect policy outcomes for them, promised a certain kind of judge and legislation. These people, these politician that they supported, at least how they conducted their personal lives were morally in line with how these voters thought they should condict themselves and how they, themselves live their lives. But they feel like the policies didnt deliver, the judges werent delivered. Now from their point of view they see a culture in crisis. They see a culture that looks down on how they live and how they think the country should function and here you have somebody thats imperfect whos delivering for them and protecting them. I think had they look at washington and a bunch of politicians that dont look out for them, they say, look, theyre all bad, but at least this bad one is for me and this bad ones protecting me. And we might look at judges and look at it as a crutch, but if youre an evangelical who thinks the conservative judiciary is going to serve your personal family interests and the nationals interests, you might think that compromising by supporting somebody with morally questionable values to deliver a judge who is exactly in line with what you think is necessary is worth it. And i think thats the thought process for a lot of these voters. All right, david. Thank you for starting us off this morning. Happy holidays to you. You too, guys. Lets see whats outside. Big question on everyones mind today. Lets go to janessa webb and see are people traveling or people just want to finish up shopping, whats it going to look look . I it depends on location. Bubble of warm air for the plains, midwest. But were dealing way stubborn system for the southeast. Major hubs like atlanta, jacksonville, even myrtle beach are currently seeing these minor bands of rain. It will continue to push offshore, but its the winds behind the cold front up to 35 to 40 miles per hour. Its moving fairly slow, but today it gets a lot better. You can see the precipitation in the form of rain is going to be drying out for those major hub. S