WE APPRECIATE IT.
>>> LET'S BRING IN NOW JOHN
BUFFY ASSOCIATE EDITOR FROM
"WALL STREET JOURNAL."
GREAT TO SEE YOU.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS ADDITIONAL
IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES THAT THE
DEMOCRATS REPORTEDLY NOT RULING
OUT ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP.
THEY STILL NEED TO HEAR FROM DON
McCANN.
COULD WE SEE ANOTHER IMPEACHMENT
IN THE HOUSE?
>> IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE.
DEMOCRATS SAYING THE ARTICLES
HAVE BEEN WRITTEN UP AND
APPROVED BY THE HOUSE AND THEY
ARE WAITING TO BE PASSED ON TO
THE SENATE.
THAT THE INVESTIGATIONS HAVEN'T
STOPPED.
REMEMBER THAT THE MUELLER REPORT
HAD 10 OUTSTANDING STATEMENTS
ABOUT OBSTRUCTION BY THE
PRESIDENT.
THOSE ARE STILL STANDING.
THEY WERE NOT TRIED.
THEY WERE NOT HEARD IN THE
HOUSE.
ELEMENTS OF THE MCGHAN WILL BE
PART OF THAT.
WHAT MCGHAN DID ON BEHALF OF THE
PRESIDENT IN MINDS OF THE HOUSE
OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.
>> DEMOCRATS SAY THAT MCGHAN'S
TESTIMONY PRODUCES NEW EVIDENCE
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMITTED
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
THIS THIRD ARTICLE MEANS HE
OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS.
GRAHAM SAID THIS IS PROOF THAT
DEMS DON'T THINK THEY CAN WIN AT
THE BALLOT BOX
>> I'M NOT SURE THAT THE
CORRECT.
HOUSE SPEAKER IS BLAMED NOT
WAITING FOR THE JUDICIAL PROCESS
TO PLAY THROUGH TO FORCE
WITNESSES SUCH AS MULVANEY AND
BOLTON TO APPEAR BEFORE THE
HOUSE BEFORE THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT WERE WRITTEN UP AND
PASSED ON TO THE SENATE.
THE SPEAKER IS DEMANDING
WITNESSES BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE
GNAT.
REMEMBER THAT THE WHITE HOUSE
SAID, THEY CAN'T TESTIFY.
THE HOUSE SPEAKER KIND OF MISSED
AN OPPORTUNITY BY LETTING THE
COURTS DECIDE THIS.
WHAT SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WAS
THE DELAY.
SHE DIDN'T WANT THIS DRAGGING
INTO THE CAMPAIGN NEXT YEAR.
SHE WANTED SOME KIND OF
RESOLUTION QUICKLY.
NOW THE SENATE SAYING, WE'RE NOT
GOING TO CALL ANY WITNESSES.
THE PROBLEM THERE, AT THE END OF
THE DAY, THE PUBLIC IS WONDERING
CAN'T THESE WITNESSES COME SPEAK
AND TELL THE TRUTH.
IS THERE A COVER-UP.
>> MCGHAN WAS SOMEONE THAT THE
DEMOCRATS ORIGINALLY HAD WANTED
TO TESTIFY EARLY ON WHEN IT CAME
TO THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION.
THE DEMOCRATS MADE A DECISION
THEY WOULD ONLY PROCEED WELL TWO
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
MEANING THEY WOULD LEAVE OUT
MUELLER AND FOCUS ON UKRAINE.
NOW THEY'RE DECIDING TO BRING IN
MUELLER IN THE 11th HOUR WHICH
SORT OF PRESENTS A SIGN OF
DESPERATION TO SOME WHO SAY THAT
MAYBE THEY DON'T HAVE ALL THEIR
DUCKS IN THE ROW.
THEY DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH
EVIDENCE.
THAT IS WHY NANCY PELOSI IS
INSTALLING TO GET ENOUGH
EVIDENCE.
HOW MUCH COULD THIS HURT THE
DEMOCRATS?
>> I THINK THAT'S THE REPUBLICAN
ARGUMENT THAT'S WHAT THE
DEMOCRATS ARE DOING.
I THINK THE DEMOCRATS WILL POND
TO THAT SAYING, THIS IS THE
PROCESS.
IT TAKES A WHILE FOR THE COURTS
TO MAKE THEIR DECISION.
THEREFORE, IT TOOK US A WHILE TO
COME BACK TO THIS ELEMENT OF
OBSTRUCTION.
WHETHER OR NOT THE MCGHAN ISSUE
LISTEN PRESENTED TO THE SENATE
AS PART OF THE TRIAL.
I THINK IT'S KIND OF PLAYING
BOTH PARTS OF -- DEPENDING ON
WHO YOU WILL SIDE WITH.
PEOPLE CHOSEN THEIR SIDES
ALREADY.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S PART OF THE
MESSY PROCESS.
CERTAINLY IT HAS GOTTEN MESSY.
THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT PASSING ON
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT TO
THE SENATE.
GIVES THE REPUBLICANS TO SAY,
THEY'RE AFRAID OF STEPPING
FORWARD.
>> I WANT TO MOVE TON TO
REPUBLICAN SENATOR LISA
MURKOWSKI.
SHE SAID SHE WAS DISTURBED TO
HEAR MITCH McCONNELL SAYING
THERE'S COORDINATION OVER THE
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE SENATE'S
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE WHITE
HOUSE IMPENDING TRIAL?
>> MURKOWSKI POINTED IT OUT.
SHE'S PA MODERATE.
SHE'S SOMEBODY MITCH McCONNELL
SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT SIDING
WITH DEMOCRATS ON THE PROCEDURAL
ASPECTS OF THE TRIAL COMING
FORWARD.
THIS IS WHAT McCONNELL SAID.
IF IT'S A TRIAL, YOU WOULD HOPE
THAT THE JUDGE AND THE JURY ARE
IN IMPARTIAL.
THEY HAVE SIDED WITH ONE SIDE OR
THE OTHER.
BY SAYING HE'S NOT GOING TO CALL
WITNESSES BY SAYING HE'S
COORDINATING WITH THE WHITE
HOUSE.
THAT'S PROBLEMATIC.
THIS IS NOT A TRIAL IN THE
TRADITIONAL SENSE OF A U.S.
COURTROOM.
IT'S A POLITICAL PROCESS.
>> THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY
ENTITLED WITNESSED AT THIS
POINT.
I WANT TO COMPARE BETWEEN
TYPICAL CRIMINAL TRIAL AND
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN THE SENATE.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.