tv New Day With Alisyn Camerota and John Berman CNN December 26, 2019 4:00am-5:00am PST
trial strategy. what does it mean? "new day" continues right now. >> i heard what leader mcconnell had said. i was disturbed. >> miss murkowski has problems with what mitch mcconnell said. >> drarts hoping four republicans will break ranks. >> ultimately that decision is going to be made by mitch mcconnell. >> this is the concern for mcconnell. i think it will have an effect on how they move forward. >> they treated us very unfairly. they didn't give us anything. now they want everything. >> we want to welcome our view ners the united states and all around the world. this is "new day." john berman is off. john avalon is here. merry day after christmas. >> happy boxing day. >> it is boxing day. thank you for reminding me of that. how was your christmas? >> fantastic.
and jack and tula had an amazing time in south carolina. >> fantastic. meanwhile, we begin with the first possible crack in republican ranks over the senate impeachment trial. lisa murkowski, she is a potential swing vote. she said she was disturbed by mitch mcconnell's statement that he is in total coordination with the white house and the president's defense team. >> in fairness when i heard that, i was disturbed. to me it means that we have to take that step back. from being hand in glove with the defense. and so i heard what leader mcconnell had said. i happen to think that that has further confused the process. >> murkowski also faulty of house democrats saying they made
a mistake not pushing for testimony from bolton and mulvaney. democrats are pushing to get those witnesses at the trial. but they need four republicans to agree. >> it remains unclear when house speaker nancy pelosi will formally send the impeachment articles to the senate. president trump spending his holiday week airing his grievances about the action. claiming the democrats have treated him unfairly insisting that republican leaders in the senate should run a trial however they see fit. joining us now, joe lockhart. he was president clinton's former press secretary, of course. and abby phillip. great to have you both. abby, let's begin with you as you look at murkowski. there's a lot of centrist independent republicans who have made noise about voting against president trump in the past who don't actually follow through when the hard votes are taken. does that seem like this to you? or might this be the beginning of a break? >> i do think that murkowski has
a track record of following through on her complaints. brett kavanaugh being one example against some significant republican, you know, opposition to trying to stop his -- she also has stood up in other areas. voting against betsy devos. one of the few republicans to do that too. she does have a track record of standing by her word. the question is based on the totality of what she said, does it seem like she actually will say to mitch mcconnell, i want the trial to look this way. i want it to have these characteristics. i'm not sure she will. i think she'll say she's not concerned about that kind of rhetoric. but i'm not hearing a sense from her that the underlying is significant enough to her to remove president trump for office. she is still a republican.
she still need the republican base. so like every other republican, it's a steep mountain to climb. >> one of the things you hear mitch mcconnell say is we want the same rules as applied to bill clinton. we want how it worked with the bill clinton impeachment. and you are our best guest who knew how it worked with bill clinton. they had unanimity in terms of all 100 senators agreeing on the rules before they decided on witnesses. is that how you remember it? >> well, there was a 100-0 vote at the outset that they worked out. that vote basically said we're going to move forward with the first phase of the trial which was lawyers presenting their cases. and then in the -- there'd be a second vote on what witnesses. not whether they'd have
witnesses or not, but which witnesses. and in that vote, that was kind of split along party lines. but there were enough democrats that said we ought to hear from miss lewinsky. so there were three witnesses. so that's not what mitch mcconnell is talking about right now. he's being a little disingenuous. >> when you look at the senators who could be persuadable. it's really about the question of witnesses more than the highest bar that exists which is removal. which none of the previous presidents impeached got to. what is the republican argument at the end of the day against a murkowski's concern saying that, look. we shouldn't have witnesses. even though we think the president did nothing wrong, more witnesses would be bad for the pursuit of the truth. they felt these were significant enough. house democrats would have tried harder to get them to testify. of course house democrats didn't do that because they knew it would get dragged out in the
courts. and unlike all of the other previous impeachments. we are up against a presidential election. that's what makes time of the essence in this. and there is this issue -- the democratic argument is this issue needs to be resolved before that happens. but i also think that it's clear that there's an awareness among republicans that these witnesses. if there was exculpatory information that they had that mick mulvaney had, that some of these other witnesses had, they would probably want to come forward. and put it on the table. but they're not doing that, because what they want to do is let the democrats' case be what it is. doing so would mean they have to present their own case. and they think the best scenario is to say we don't see enough here to remove the president.
let's just leave him in office and let them decide in november. >> the other reason the time is of the essence, not just the election is upon us, but that rudy giuliani was back in ukraine two weeks ago again trying to dig up dirt or fall for some story or dirt or whatever he's presented there by nefarious characters. later charged with crimes. so it's still happening. that's what democrats would say of why they're trying to do this quickly. >> what i think we sort of lost that in the shuffle a little bit, the idea that, you know, russia and bob mueller happened in the past but the fact it's happening again puts the next election at risk. so that is a huge factor and i think it'll be a talking point on the floor of the senate when this trial happens one other
point about lisa murkowski. which is why i think this is significant. she reliesless on the republican base in alaska than most do. she's crossed trump several times. remember, she wasn't on the ballot as a republican when she first won. she does have a streak. and she mentioned mcconnell by name here. she wasn't calling out the president. she was calling out her own majority leader and sending a signal that, hey, we're not going to just steam roll this. hold on. there are other voices here. now, the real question is will other people join her. the answer to that is who the heck knows. >> thank you for that candor. >> that kind of analytical decisiveness is why the democratic party -- >> why you make the big bucks. should we move onto what's happening in the diplomatic field? so "the washington post" has a really troubling article today about how much the diplomatic core has been degraded under
president trump. and the first sentence -- the first two paragraphs are important to read. the new russia adviser at the white house, the third in six months has no meaningful background on the subject. the only expert on ukraine has never spoken with president trump. only been mocked by him publicly. the u.s. embassy in keef will soon be without its highest ranking diplomat for the second time in a year as another ambassador departs after being undermined by the u.s. president and his personal attorney. this is so interesting in "the washington post" because it talks about all of their own personal pain that these diplomats have suffered. having been attacked publicly by the president. i mean, i didn't know that marie yovanovitch was getting obscene calls to her home and feeling unsafe. but also just the entire concept of the diplomatic core has been degraded. if you're a russia expert, if you have three in six months and one doesn't have meaningful
background in it, then the whole system is falling apart. >> there's no sense if you're a diplomat in this administration that you will have the confidence and the backing of the people who put you in your positions. just take bill taylor as an example. he testified in this impeachment probe and was put in his position by secretary of state mike pompeo. he's leaving the job in january. and trying to get out of there as quickly as possible. so pompeo doesn't have to be photographed with him. this is the kind of thing that, you know, if you were a diplomat why would you sign up to do this kind of job? these are people who were -- you know, bill taylor was begged to come back in to take over this position. so it's a long-term problem. there's a real morale issue that has really -- to restore morale in the agency. all of that has been --
>> let me stick with you for a second. the third in six months has no information on the subject. how is that possible? >> gone from someone like fiona hill who literally wrote the book on vladimir putin to people who have no tie to the subject matter in part because this is something that triggers president trump. that people who want to take a firmer stance on russia are sidelined, maligned on the outside. so it's a tough job to take. they're now getting to really the bottom of the bench here to try to find someone willing to take on that position. >> so just a few seconds, do you have thoughts on this? >> yeah. listen, there's -- you know, there was a story just in the last couple days that one of our ambassadors in africa was
recalled which is really, really unprecedented for speaking out for american values. the problem with russia and ukraine is simple. all of the experts understand the danger of russia. donald trump wants to cozy up to russia. that is a clash that can't be resolved. >> abby, joe, thank you very much. female voters could be the make or break in next year's election. where do things stand? we're going to break down the numbers in the gender gap next. . family brunch! just add ground coffee for a carafe, or pop in a pod for a freshly brewed cup. good strong coffee. our french roast. it was a decaf for you, yes? in your favorite mug. there we go.
all right. the gender gap was historically large. women overwhelmingly voetd for hillary clinton while men voted for donald trump. here to break down the numbers in a sweat their could break your tv, cnn political writer and analyst harry en tin. >> why do only you have that sweater? >> it's because i'm a beautiful person inside and out.
>> i've never seen it anywhere. it says "new day" on it. >> it's perfect. what do we have here? let's sort of set the stage, right? and look at the 2016 election. what we saw there was that women voted for hillary clinton by 14 percentage points. men voted for the gop by 11. that makes for a gender gap of 25 percentage points. and to give you an idea of how large that is historically speaking, take a look at this. this is presidential election gender gaps. if the line is to the left, women voted more democratic than men. what do we see through the years, a record gender gap. huge. >> fascinating. women voted more republican during the eisenhower years when the gop was more diverse. >> yes. that's absolutely true. the gender gap is a modern phenomenon that started around 1980 as the republican party moved to the right on cultural
issues. >> that lightning bolt graphic, it's interesting because there's a boomerang effect. >> it does go back and forth. but the trend is towards women becoming more democratic versus men. >> what does 2020 look like? >> so take a look here. i averaged our last two cnn polls. october and december. take a look at this. i'm specifically looking at biden and trump to simplify things a bit. look here. women in average of our polls voting democratic, voting for joe biden. republicans voting for trump by ten percentage points. that's a gender gap of 34 points. that is huge. i have never ever seen that in history. >> that's unbelievable. >> that's a canyon. i think the real question is why is this gap widening. this is 2016 versus 2020. and what we see is women in
2016. take a look at the biden versus trump polling. men pretty much voting the same. 10 in 2020, 11 in 2016 both for the gop. but women, that's where the gap lsh look at this. 24 point lead in our polling among women versus just a 13 point victory for hillary clinton back in 2016. >> so women either love joe biden or they have a problem voting for donald trump. >> i think the answer here is trump. and let me just point out. if this holds with women, it would be the biggest democratic victory among women just absolutely since 1964. even in that blowout election. >> i know it fluctuates with education. >> it does. soy broke this down among white voters with a college degree. what do we see here? we see that joe biden is winning in polling with white women with a college degree. men with a college degree, slightly voting for trump by a percentage point. here this is the huge group for
biden. white women with a college degree. >> but even the men, i'm shocked that's one point. that's very tight. that's fascinating. all right. >> yeah. part of that may be -- here we go. we were talking about women without a college degree when we talked on tuesday. so i brought you the 2016 and 2020 vote. back in 2016 there was a 27-point gender gap. republican white women without a college degree vote d -- take a look at the 2020 numbers. gender gap has exploded. 39 points. white men without a college degree, 43 point lead for donald trump. >> this is all despite a red hot economy. that's actually one of the things that makes it so important. >> i did a recent voter panel of white women without a college degree. we saw some erosion. people that were struggling with
the previous vote. >> it's a 19-point going towards the democratic party. >> how about in wisconsin? >> i just want to point this out. if you're talking about the swing states, look at this. wisconsin, a key swing state, 32-point gender gap here. democratic. women are voting democratic by 17 points. so we see it in the swing states as well. >> fascinating. >> you both are wasing out to see one movie this weekend. >> "little women." i love this film. unbelievable. i loved it. best film i've seen all year. i just loved it. i love history. i love strong women. i love all of it. >> you being a strong fan, i did not have on my bingo card. >> i'm an interesting fella. >> you are an evolved man, harry enten. >> i try with a beautiful "new day" sweater. let's get this in one last time. >> incredible. and that does look awesome.
we're just bringing you this beautiful shot. we just noticed this from the top of our building. this is looking south down manhattan. you can see 1 world trade center there appearing up above the clouds but the rest of lower manhattan seems to be shrouded in clouds this morning the day after christmas. there we go. no break yet in the stalemate over the senate impeachment trial. who's going to win this one? joining us now is rick santorum and hilary rosen. great to see both of you. merry christmas to both of you. senator santorum, do you think that leader mitch mcconnell should allow witnesses? >> i think they should go through the process they went through last time. i think it's a reasonable thing. i was part of the negotiation that arrived at the 1999 decision on proceedings.
what we said is let's make the sides present their case. if we felt there were some things that needed to be clarified that would help people make the decision, then we could have witnesses. we voted on the witnesses. as we know, we also voted on a decision to dismiss senator bird. even a few voted to dismiss the proceedings after the initial presentation. that could happen here again. everyone can say, you know what? we heard all the evidence. we're ready to make the decision. >> but just so i'm clear, it sounds like if you want to follow that model, you are for witnesses. >> i think you have to be open to having witnesses called to fill in where senators may feel they need more information. >> yeah. i'm just going to stick with you for one more question, because senator mcconnell had signalled that he doesn't want any witnesses. why is he saying that before we get there? >> yeah. i think what he's saying is, you know, he has all the information he needs. and we don't need to go down that track. i can tell you tom daschle said
the same thing 20 years ago. we have all the information we need. you know, we don't need to have any witnesses. in fact the democrats and president clinton were insistent on no witnesses and made the same case. >> but they ultimately negotiated to have three witnesses. zblult matly. at the beginning of the proceedings where we are right now, the clinton camp was no witnesses, no way. and eventually they conceded, you know, a handful. i think it was three is what we ended up listening to. >> okay. hilary, do you see the parallels applying here? >> i think the american people actually see these issues as very different from the old impeachment. but here i think is the key point. people are not going to focus in across the country as much on the sort of inter-party power plays and process issues. i think what the american people are going to focus on is what senator murkowski said this week. which is they want to see mitch mcconnell and the senate republicans take this issue seriously.
they want to know if there are facts that are not yet public. they want to know that donald trump has some sense of remorse about his behavior. they want to know, you know, that senate republicans are not going to be in cahoots with the white house. where you have essentially the jury of a trial coordinating with a defendant of a trial. that's, i think, what's going to be the big test. which whether this perception that republicans are taking this seriously whether mcconnell is allowing facts to be out there for senators. that's where people are going to be looking. >> before you answer, let me just play the sound that hilary is referring to from lisa murkowski. listen to this. >> in fairness, when i heard that, i was disturbed. to me it means that we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense.
and so, i heard what leader mcconnell had said. i happen to think that that has further confused the process. >> she's referring to mitch mcconnell saying he was working in coordination with the white house. >> yeah. well, i'd have two caveats on that. number one, lisa is right there needs to be a perception out there. in some respects i agree with hilary there needs to be a perception out there. and a reality that the senate is taking this seriously and that the senate is going to do what the senate thinks is best. that's what we did in 1999. we actually did take a step back and we made the decision as to what was best for the country. and as the senate is an institution. and i think ultimately that's going to happen in this case. but having said that, i remind you that tom daschle, bill clinton, and the like wanted no trial. they wanted to dismiss this thing out of hand. they were in cahoots with each
other from the very, very start about trying to short circuit this pros. the only reason they couldn't do it is they weren't in control. and the difference is that mcconnell and republicans are in control and have the votes to do that. i don't think it's a wise thing for them to do. i think it's better for them to step back. and i think the senators like lisa murkowski but a whole bunch of others, even some of the conservatives understand this is bigger than just getting rid of this and helping the president out. there's the senate needs to look and act like a senate that's responsibly dealing with this issue. and i think in the end they will. >> here are the key senators to watch. these are senators on the democratic side and the republican side that are either in swing districts or have not been in lock step with the administration on everything. and so hilary, do you think that we will see some republican senators break with the administration? and either say that they want witnesses or do something else? >> here's what i think it comes
down to. whether these senators who are vulnerable in maine or in colorado or in arizona. whether these senators believe that donald trump can sweep them to re-election in a national narrative election in the fall. or whether their personal actions on this are going to be what the voters judge in their increasingly purple, increasingly blue states. and so i think that that's the key issue here. people are very focused on the president. what they ought to be focused on is actually the dynamics of the senate. we saw this in the kavanaugh hearing where people felt like the wrath of donald trump could have more impact than anything else. that's when we lost three vulnerable democratic senators. i think we'll see the same thing here again with three vulnerable republican senators who are going to make a decision based on their state. and that perception and less
about mitch mcconnell and donald trump. >> can i make one quick comment on this? that is just be careful what you wish for if you're democrats on witnesses. because if the democrats are insistent on getting some witnesses and in fact, do, republicans are going to want witnesses too. and they're not going to be friendly to joe biden and they're not going to be friendly to the democrats. so i think the democrats are playing with fire here. and they may just decide ultimately as we did in 1999 that less is more. and that trying to -- and trying to bro this into a big production would be damaging to the senate and the country and better to sort of move on. that's what happened 20 years ago. >> hilary, should the democrats be careful about that? >> sure. well, and i think one thing is clear to me. which is that most of the country is baked on either side of this. democrats believe donald trump is lying. i think most republicans think he did a bad thing but he
shouldn't necessarily be removed from office. the key issue for democrats i think is to make sure that what we're doing to get the facts out doesn't drag this trial too far into next year. i think actually both parties agree that having some resolution of this before going into an election and running on how donald trump has failed americans on health care. how minimum wage is stagnant. how, you know, prescription drug legislation hasn't made any progress. those are better issues for democrats. that's what people want to be talking about next spring and fall. >> all right. hilary rosen, rick santorum, thank you both. >> merry christmas to all. boeing's latest strategy to boost its image after the 737 max crisis, what they're asking pilots to do to help get the public back on your side. it's time for the lowest prices of the season on
what are you doing back there, junior? since we're obviously lost, i'm rescheduling my xfinity customer service appointment. ah, relax. i got this. which gps are you using anyway? a little something called instinct. been using it for years. yeah, that's what i'm afraid of. he knows exactly where we're going. my whole body is a compass. oh boy... the my account app makes today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. not my thing.
boeing wants to help airlines regain the public's trust as it works to contain the fallout from two deadly crashes of its 737 max jets. "the new york times" reports that boeing is providing strategies to airlines to help ease concerns of passengers who now they say they're unwilling to fly on those troubled planes. joining us now, aviation analyst miles anderson and aviation analyst mary sciavo. mary is an attorney representing families of crash victims against boeing. news of a pr offensive on the part of boeing. the pilots are supposed to help communicate the message. my question to you is this. is this a pr problem or is this a 346 people dead problem? >> this is a fundamental engineering and safety culture problem, john. pr is papering things over to
say the least. and the company has to gain the confidence of the pilots themselves before they hand out these cards explaining the apparent safety of the 737 max. i think it's -- the cart is a little bit before the horse here for boeing. they need to address some much more fundamental issues before they start thinking about pr. >> mary, you know, they have been really doing polls and focus groups to see if people would be willing to fly on these airlines. and the numbers aren't gotten considerably better over the last several months. is this the right strategy to put the facts as they see it forward? or is there a deeper cultural problem that boeing needs to take more seriously? >> oh, yes. and there's a deeper engineering problem. i always say the only laws you can't break are the laws of physics. i mean, this plane when it had so many problems and in the process it was called the franken-plane. because they hung so many changes on it and tried to do so
many things with the plane on a very old certification. but this goes far beyond a pr problem. it almost makes you think that the people doing these surveys and planning this actually never consulted with a real airline flight department. it is impossible. you can't hand out cards telling them, oh, this is why this plane crashed before and this is why it's better. it'll never work. >> i think if that's the first thing i'd heard from a pilot when i got on a plane, i wouldn't be filled with confidence. but miles, let me stick on this one question. boeing was legendary for its engineering prowess, for a culture of quality. what changed? >> well, the world changed in the sense that there is a lot more competition and pressure. and there was a tremendous push at boeing over the years to outsource a lot of their work. i mean, building an airliner has always been a collaboration of a lot of companies. it's not all done on one factory floor. but there's been a tremendous push by the corporation to build parts, design parts offshore and
in the case of the 787, they admitted they did it too much that way. and they tried to pull things back in. in the case of the 737, you have to look at the root cause of this. it was a failure of a piece of hardware, an angle of attack sensor that happened twice. those parts should be quite frankly bulletproof. the fact that two of those failed speaks of another problem which we haven't been talking quite as much about. >> which is? >> which is the quality control. above and beyond the software sue, the quality control of these parts, it is suspect. and on top of that, the fact that they were lying on this critical life or death system with one sensor not redundant speaks to a failing y of the engineering culture. this is one of the greatest engineering in the history of man kind. putting the chairman of the board in the ceo slot, he's an
accounting guy, a business guy. maybe it's time to put engineers at the top. >> mary, you were the ig far long time. is this also in addition to an engineering problem a regulation problem? >> yes, it is. it's a huge regulation problem. because federal aviation regulations among other things say the plane has to be aerodynamically stable and this is not without the mcas system in boeing's words. of course they're tweaking it but that isn't going to help this. and you have another problem in federal aviation regulations requiring a redundancy. you cannot have a system that takes data from only one angle of attack indicator. just like you have to have not only double systems in some cases but trip toll resolve the issues. so by relying on one and it's -- even the patents, i've read the patent documents. even that's a little fuzzy. but relying on one and having a
plane that may not be aerodynamically stable violates regulations. >> there's another issue which is the forthrightness of boeing during this inquiry. on monday the day they announced the firing of their former ceo dennis muilenburg, they handed over documents to the house committee investigating this. what are you hearing are included in those? >> these instant messages between the pilots part of the test program are frankly shock. and in handing them over, boeing admitted this is not reflective of good safety cull her. safety sculture is a ground up type of thing. and if you allow that, basically a lot of little decisions can lead to people dying. that's what you see here. tiny little decisions which in and of themselves seems like it's going to be okay get stacked up on top of one another. and you end up with this culture which leads you in complex systems to truly a lack of safety. and i think that's what we're
seeing here. these documents just lay that bare. >> and we do have a statement from boeing, by the way, we should read. it says, we routinely engage with our airline customers communications teams to brief them on our latest plans. each airline is different in their needs so we provide a wide range of documents and assistance so they can choose to use or tailor as they see fit. that's the boeing side of things. mary, you mentioned to you it's almost like boeing is the mayor in the fictional town in the movie "jaws" trying to convince folks to get back in the water after two attacks. >> right. >> what actions should they be taking in your estimation? >> well, at this point, they've mishandled it so badly that by after all the first crashes saying it's the pilot's fault. after the second they said it's the same thing. that report isn't out yet but i've seen the data from the cockpit.
so by boeing blaming the pilots and blaming everything except the plane at this point and of course no one trusts the regulators now either. they said the plane was safe. you can't trust the mayor. you can't trust the sheriff in this town of jaws. so at this point they are literally going to have to go back to the engineering and prove to the federal aviation administration and others that the plane truly is safe, under regulation laws of physics. i think in the long run, they'll rename the program and take the plane through the witness protection program and give it a new identity. that's just my guess. i have no facts on this. >> it's a reasonable guess as well as a vivid example. mary, miles, thank you so much for joining us. all right, john. from a royal baby to "game of thrones" and everything in between, which stories were biggest on social media this year? we bring you the top trending stories of 2019. ♪music
it's the final days of the wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. hi, it's real milk, just00% farmwithout the lactose, id. so you can enjoy it even if you're sensitive. delicious. now, i've heard people say lactaid isn't real milk. ok, well, if it isn't real then, i guess those things over there can't actually be cows.
must be some kind of really big dogs, then. sit! bad dog. but in my mind i'm still 25. that's why i take osteo bi-flex, to keep me moving the way i was made to. it nourishes and strengthens my joints for the long term. osteo bi-flex - now in triple strength plus magnesium. atmospheric music. >> i like that. >> from political showdowns to scientific breakthroughs, we bring you the top trending stories of 2019. here's cnn's brooke baldwin. ♪ >> reporter: from the u.s. women's soccer team demanding equal pay to the passionate teenager fighting to save the
planet, socialed me ra remains a powerful advocate. here are our top nine trending stories of the year. number nine -- a friend who nearly broke the internet. jennifer aniston joined instagram and the internet couldn't handle it. her first pose managed to crash her page. her first photo, an epic "friends" reunion selfie and the caption, now we're instagram friends, too. one of the most popular instagram photos of the year with more than 15 million likes. number eight and to more instagram royalty. the duke and duchess of sussex, his birth, gender and name were all announced on the social media platform. just another way these modern royals are shaking up the monarchy. number seven, winter came, and fans were not happy.
it was one of the most eagerly anticipated final seasons ever and the most tweeted about show of all of 2019. while viewers were split on the ending of "game of thrones" it was an unexpected product placement that brought fans together. a coffee cup left on set. the internet erupted in memes. news from winter fell. the latte that appeared was a mistake. he had ordered an herbal tea. >> another death ever mt. everest bringing the death to 13. >> record num birs of climbers packed the summit. some think this traffic jam contributed to this year's death toll. climbers endured waits of two to four hours while in the death zone near the top of the mountain where there's only one-third of the oxygen. number five, a scientific event of intergalactic magnitude.
>> a huge breakthrough for humanity. >> the first photo of a black hole. >> black holes are the most mysterious objects in the universe. they're cloaked by an event horizon where their gravity prevents even light from escaping. >> 55 million light years away in a galaxy called m-87. in this galaxy, another black hole photo went viral the moment researcher katie bowman processed the first image showing the massive phenomenon. to see it, scientists in multiple countries around the world linked local telescopes to create this virtual observatory. predictably, twitter couldn't escape the doughnut memes. four, in paris, a catastrophic fire shocked the world. >> the world famous notre dame cathedral is on fire. >> millions watched as flames engulfed notre dame. the iconic 856-year-old cathedral. >> we heard the tower fall. people screamed. it's so sad. >> what went through my mind was
the heart of paris is burning. >> people pore e poured onto th streets to pray. and on social media, so many pay tribute by posting photos of their visit to the holy site. notre dame became the most tweeted news related hash tag of 2019. it inspired generosity near and far establishing a $700 million reconstruction fund. restorations are now under way. number three -- in 2019, democrats took back the house. nancy pelosi regained the speakership and had some of the year's most viral moments from the infamous state of the union clap-back. the rebuke that launched thousands of hash tag don't mess with me memes. >> as a catholic, i resent your using the word hate in a sentence that addresses me. i don't hate anyone so don't mess with me when it comes to words like that.
>> and staring down trump from across that cabinet room table. the image meant to be an insult. the president's caption, nervous nancy's unhinged meltdown instead went viral showing washington's most powerful woman standing up to the president. number two, the u.s. women's soccer team proved once again, they are the best in the world. congratulations poured in from all over social media. ellen degeneres said her world cup runneth over. barack obama thanked the women for being strong inspiration to women and girls and everybody across the country. the players' game poses became instant memes. and many of the players took their pleas for pay equity right to their fans. via their social media pages. and number one -- she's the teenager on strike for the planet. >> our house is on fire. >> "time's" person of the year. >> change is coming whether you like it or not.
>> greta thunberg is leading a generation of climate kids. >> people are suffering. people are dying. entire ecosystems are collapsing. we are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. how dare you. >> erempassioned speech catap t catapulted her. she used her platform to lead a global climate strike with more than 4,600 events in nearly 150 countries. #climatestrike was the eighth most popular hash tag of the year. for this 16-year-old and her army of climate kids, it's only the beginning. our thanks to brooke for that. i love those look-backs.
so much happens in a year. >> also just what a way to end a degade. this decade has been tumultuous. you see it all put together, it helps mark time. and greta thunberg in particular, that's one of those moments that may last. all throughout the year we've had extraordinary moments you can lose in it all. >> you are struck by the durability of "friends" and the popularity. >> good show. get over it. >> what? that's blasphemy. >> i'm saying here, people. that's so last century. >> ear muffs, audience. >> i like more of the abe lincoln nostalgia. >> you go way back in the time machine. >> it's all good. >> thank you to our international viewers for watching. for you "cnn newsroom" is next. for our u.s. viewers, a key republican senator expressing frustration with her own leader's plan for impeachment. "new day" continues now. i heard what leader
mcconnell had said. i was disturbed. >> ms. murkowski has problemed with what mr. mcconnell said. >> democrats hoping at least four republican senators will break ranks to compel witness testimony. >> we're in a very good position. ultimately that decision is going to be made by mitch mcconnell. >> this is the concern for mitch mcconnell. i think it probably will have an effect on how mcconnell and the leadership moves forward. >> they treated us very unfairly. they didn't give us anything. now they want everything. >> this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to your "new day. "thursday, december 26th. john berman is still off, sleeping off his massive meals, i'm sure, this week. john avlon is here with me. >> happy boxing day. great to be with you. >> all right. christmas did not change. the stalemate over the impeachment trial. but for the first time, we are seeing a republican break ranks
in the senate. senate lisa murkowski says she is, quote, disturbed by the coordination between senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and the white house in the lead-up to the president's impeachment trial. mur cowkey is one of a handful of senators whose votes are pivotal on the rules that will shape this ultimate senate trial. >> and democrats are pushing for testimony from key administration officials like john bolton and mick mulvaney at the senate trial. but here's the thing. they need four republicans to agree. president trump spent the holiday railing about process and criticizing democratic leaders. >> joining us now, we have cnn political correspondent abby philip and joe lockhart. he is president clinton's former press secretary. abby, senator murkowski, how significant is this? i think you were telling us she's known to have, in the past, marched to the beat of her own drum. the fact she's coming out publicly and saying that she's not comfortable with what mitch mcconnell has said. what