>>> 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.