[Sen. Doug Jones:] I've been trying to read this. I'm trying to see if the dots get connected. If that is the case, and I think it's a serious matter, I think it's an impeachable matter. But if those dots aren't connected and there are other explanations that I think are consistent with innocence, I will go that way, too. I've got to make sure that what I really want to see, though, is to fill in the gaps.
[Avlon:] All right. That's Democratic Senator Doug Jones of Alabama, raising the possibility that he could vote against convicting President Trump. Jones is facing a tough re-election battle in his home state, which he narrowly won last time around. Back with us, Joe Lockhart and Laura Jarrett. Laura, let me start with you. Folks look at this, and they say, look, Doug Jones has been a pretty straight shooter, but he represents Alabama. And is he going to vote his conscience or vote his district? And what are the implications for his reelect? Does this have an implication beyond Doug Jones or is this just about Doug Jones now?
[Jarrett:] He's in he's in a tough spot, right? He's facing a re- election in 2020. Jeff Sessions has re-emerged from his stint as attorney general, running again, he's now announced. So I think it's reasonable to say, I have questions. I think, you know, we always jump to the cynical view, which is obviously that he's just doing this to kowtow to voters. But it's reasonable to have questions. But it might be so specific to Alabama that you're not going to see a lot of other Democratic senators out there mimicking Doug Jones on this.
[Camerota:] Doug Jones says he wants the answers to fill in the gaps. That's his quote. Without witnesses at a trial, how do you how are you going to do that?
[Lockhart:] Well, he's not going to be able to. So I think it's a very effective argument for just before Christmas on, you know, a Sunday show to say, I want all the facts so I can make a reasonable decision. So it puts more pressure on getting the facts. You know, I think all of this involves several levels of politics. And we shouldn't shy away from that. Democrats have a chance to retake the Senate. They don't want people to do things that will mean they'll lose. On the other hand, one of the main thrusts of the Democrats' message over the next month of two is this shouldn't be about job security. It should be about the Constitution of the country. So they're in a tough spot. I didn't read Jones as saying, I'm not going to vote
[Camerota:] I didn't read it that way either.
[Lockhart:] for guilty. And and he has had a couple of tough votes already since he's been in the Senate. And he's voted his conscience rather than, you know, looking at what helps him for re- election. But this is exactly the argument we're going to be looking at from both sides over the next couple months of, you know, am I doing this for the country or am I doing this for me? And so far, Republicans have been arguing, I'm doing this for me. In fact, you know, Roy Blunt couldn't even say yesterday that the president made a mistake on the call. Couldn't even answer that question. So we know where they are. I think Democrats need to be a little bit careful that they don't fall into the same trap.
[Camerota:] OK. This just in.
[Avlon:] Got some breaking news.
[Camerota:] This is late night court filing from the Department of Justice. And they are making the argument to that this federal appeals court that's trying to decide whether Don McGahn, the White House counsel, has to testify, that they should the federal appeals court should stay out of it, because this impeachment is underway. Here's what it says: "If the court now were to resolve the merits questions in this case, it would appear to be weighing in on a contested issue in any impeachment trial. That would be a question of propriety, whether or not such a judicial resolution preceded or postdated any impeachment trial."
[Avlon:] I mean, just to put that in plain language, what they're saying is, because one of the charges is obstruction of Congress, if the court were to weigh in on obstruction of Congress and, effectively, force or compel McGahn to testify, that it would complicate that charge. This seems like pretty circular logic.
[Jarrett:] So that's what courts are for, to weigh in on contested issues. And they're right, that there are federal questions that sometimes courts are weary [SIC] of stepping in on. But on this one, I mean, it's beyond just McGahn. If the court weighs in and says, White House, your immunity defense is bunk. It doesn't matter. The president is not king. If they were to weigh into this, it could mean something for Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, all of the people that the White House has blocked. It's much bigger than the McGahn question.
[Camerota:] Doesn't this also put the lie, Joe, to the Republicans' talking point of why aren't they going through the court system? Why are Democrats rushing this?
[Avlon:] How dare you search for constancy?
[Camerota:] They're not even trying to fight this in the court in the court system.
[Lockhart:] It's you know, it's that's just a plain Republican lie. Let's make matters worse here. This is the same White House Counsel's Office that was arguing six months ago that this isn't serious, because there's no impeachment process going on. We shouldn't have to turn anything over, because there's no impeachment. And that there's an impeachment process going on, and they're saying, we shouldn't turn it over, because there is an impeachment process going on. That's not circular logic. That's 3-year-old logic.
[Avlon:] Well, look. You know, and moving the goal post is a sport in Washington, but before we go, I've got to get your take on something Ken Starr, former independent counsel against Bill Clinton, who obviously you worked for, said this weekend. I want to get your reaction. Let's play it.
[Ken Starr, Former Independent Counsel:] So this is a chapter in our history. It's already proving to be a very ugly chapter in our constitutional history.
[Unidentified Male:] Do you think this is an effort to overthrow the president?
[Starr:] Absolutely.
[Avlon:] Joe?
[Lockhart:] Well, speaking of ugly chapters in our constitutional history. Let me just on the merits there, this is the Constitution working. This is the Constitution working exactly the way the framers said. Ken Starr's chapter is exactly the way it wasn't. Ken Starr empaneled a grand jury and investigated 15 different things, found something to get the president on, and then proceeded to, over the next six months, leak selectively information every single week. And his entire and his one of his prosecutors quit, because he because he said what Ken Starr and his team is trying to do is force the president to resign, to overthrow the will of the people through embarrassing him and shaming him. So if anyone says that, it's you know, it's wrong. For Ken Starr to say it, well, it's Ken Starr.
[Camerota:] On that note
[Avlon:] All right, then.
[Camerota:] Joe, thank you very much. Laura, thank you. So now to this. This massive 69-car pileup in Virginia has left dozens of people hurt. Miraculously, when you look at your screen, no one died. That story and what you need to know if you are traveling this holiday week. Next.