good evening. it's all but certain donald j. trump will be impeached. whatever you think of him, his conduct, or allegations against him, what nancy pelosi said this morning likely sealed this day in history. >> sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our founders and a heart full of love for america, today i am asking our chairman to proceed with articles of impeachment. >> and with that, president trump is now facing what only three other presidents have, house lawmakers drawing up formal indictments against him. andrew johnson, bill clinton were ultimately impeached. richard nixon resigned instead. and just as then, the process now is divisive. it started up passions and partisanship and gave rise to allegations such as this one earlier today. >> do you hate the president,

madam speaker? >> i don't hate anybody. >> you represent -- the reason i ask. >> i don't hate anybody. not anybody in the world. so don't be accusing me. >> i did not accuse you. >> you did. you did. >> i asked a question. representative collins yesterday suggested that the democrats are doing this simply because they don't like the guy. >> that has nothing to do with this. let me just say this. i think the president is a coward when it comes to helping our kids who are afraid of gun violence. i think he is cruel when he doesn't deal with helping our dreamers, of which we're very proud. i think he is in denial about the climate crisis. however, that's about the election. this is about the -- take it up in the election. this is about the constitution of the united states and the facts that lead to the president's violation of his oath of office. and as a catholic, i resent your using the word "hate" in a sentence that addresses me. i don't hate anyone.

i was raised in a way that is full -- a heart full of love and always pray for the president. and i still pray for the president. i pray for the president all the time. so don't mess with me when it comes to words like that. >> it was a remarkable moment. and the top of the next hour, speaker pelosi will join jake tapper for a cnn live town hall. first though, the president's reaction quoting from his tweet, quote, nancy pelosi just had a nervous fit. she hates that we will soon have 182 great new judges and so much more. stock market and employment record. she said she prays for the president. i don't believe her, not even close. the president also likes using what might be charitably described as mental health imagery in describing house democrats as he did in this tweet shortly before nancy pelosi's announcement. quote, they have no impeachment case and are dmeening our country. nothing matters to them, they've gone crazy. therefore i say if you're going to impeach me, do it now, fast so we can have a fair trial in the senate and so that our country can get back to business.

do it now fast the president says, keeping him honest for weeks now, yesterday republicans have been saying the opposite about the need for speed. >> they're rushed on this because they're trying to get it out because they don't want to appear to be trying to interfere in the 2020 presidential election. >> there was no objectivity or fairness in the media's rush of stories, just as a fevered rush to tarnish and remove a president. >> i'm certainly hoping that the house will be able to multitask in their rush to impeach the president. >> the issue that we have to deal with going forward is why the rush? >> law professional jonathan turley, who you saw there on the right of the screen, yesterday's republican witness also criticized the speed of things, warning against what he called an impulse buy. i talked to one of his democratic counterparts about that, harvard law professor noah feldman who joins us shortly. also tonight the reporting on the president's tv lawyer and alleged bagman rudy giuliani who may be providing a key enseine tif for democrats to move quickly because even as this is playing out, giuliani is in

ukraine apparently engaging in the very conduct that's landed the president in trouble. we'll bring you to the latest with that. quickly, i want to go to the white house. what are you learning about how the administration, what is their latest preparations for impeachment? >> yeah, anderson, the white house is a looking to mount a robust defense of the president. pat cipollone, the white house counsel, has hired dozens of attorneys and he has been preparing for this potential senate trial for months, even looking at past impeachment trials to try to gain some perspective on how to craft a response to the allegations that president trump abused his power in his dealings with ukraine. notably, the white house has also told us through sources that they plan to use this as an opportunity to bash democrats. you saw there in that tweet by president trump that he suggested that republicans may try to compel prominent democrats to testify, including house speaker nancy pelosi, the chairman of the house intelligence committee adam schiff, and even joe and hunter biden. of course, the president doesn't

ultimately determine who testifies in this senate trial, and that's part of the reason that pat cipollone, members of his staff, members of the white house communications team have been sitting down with republican senators more and more often for weeks, trying to not only craft messaging and a potential strategy, but also to try to avoid any potential land mines, anderson. >> is it clear how the president is handling this behind closed doors? >> well, for weeks we've been hearing that the president has sort of been in denial about all of this, that he did not actually believe that democrats in the house would vote to impeach him. we're actually told that he's come to terms with that reality in part because he was watching testimony yesterday as he was returning from a nato leaders meeting in london. the president was asked today if he believed that being impeached would tarnish his legacy. he said he did not because it's all a hoax, anderson. >> boris sanchez at the white house, thank you. the question now what's next. for that we're joined by democratic congresswoman and judiciary committee vice chair

mary gay scanlon. congresswoman, thanks for being with us. speaker pelosi is trying to frame this in somber terms. it's not something congress does lightly or with partisan intent, she is saying. it is extraordinarily partisan, however. everyone is dug in. do you have any reason to believe that will change as you move ahead with articles of impeachment? is there any sign of that? >> well, i think as with the speaker, we're hopeful that people will do their constitutional duty. it's not personal. it's not political. it's about the constitution. i think we laid out really clearly yesterday with the witnesses talking about why we have an impeachment clause, why the founders thought there were certain things that constituted impeachable conduct, and they're the very things we're talking about here. it's foreign interference in our government. it's corrupt elections. it's corruption by our executive. this ukraine incident and the cover up involved really involves all of those things. >> it certainly is political. it has political ramifications. it's hard to see it -- it certainly has to do with the constitution, but is it really fair to say it's not political?

>> the only folks who are talking about this being about an election are republican counterparts. they keep saying oh, this is about undoing an election. impeachment is not about undoing an election. elections are for, as the speaker suggested earlier today, they're for when you disagree with someone's morals or you disagree with their qualifications or you disagree with their policies. this isn't about any of that. this is about the fact that the current president appears to be undermining our constitution through corruption. >> i know the judiciary committee is going to have a hearing on monday during which you're going hear from the intelligence committee majority and minority counsels. there is a lot of expectation. a full house vote could be held before christmas. what do you think of the timeline? and also the argument that, you know, there is nothing in the constitution about how long this could take or should take? >> right. well i think we're just trying to work through it as expeditiously as we can. the report that was put out by the intel committee this week has a lot of urgency to it. i mean, we saw with the mueller report, we saw that the president had welcomed and used

interference by russia in the 2016 election. and then when he was caught out, tried to cover it up and obstruct that investigation. now we have the situation with ukraine where we're looking ahead to 2020 election. he is soliciting interference from another country, and when he got caught out, he's tried to obstruct that investigation. so we really do have a lot of urgency to move quickly because we have another election at stake. >> do you have any reservations, though, about moving forward, actually charging the president of the united states in what is akin to an indictment without having heard from people like john bolton, mick mulvaney. obviously you wanted to. the white house isn't cooperating. but democrats could wait out the court fight and possibly compel them to testify. >> well, i think we have to deal with -- we have to play the hand we've been dealt, okay. so back in may, we asked don mcgahn to come in. he's the president's former white house counsel who allegedly was told by the president to cover up the fact

that the president ordered the special counsel to be fired. we just got a ruling two, three weeks ago that the president wrongly obstructed him from coming before congress, but now the president has appealed that ruling. so we could be weeks and weeks and months and months further along in this process before we get to hear from those witnesses. so if the president wants to tell his tale, if there is a tale, a vindicating tale to be told, he has every opportunity to do it, but he has chosen not to. and it's beginning to look like that's because there is no factual defense. that's why we have all this finger-pointing. >> and are you confident that when there is a full house vote, there is already one democratic congressman from new jersey who says he's going to vote against the articles of impeachment. do you think you would lose any more members? >> i think the bigger question is how many republicans they lose. >> do you think they will lose any? >> i think they should. i mean, they already lost one, but they threw him out of the party. >> congresswoman scanlon, i appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you.

>> perspective now on the law and politics from former republican presidential candidate u.s. senator rick santorum. these days he is also a senior cnn political commentator. also with us former obama white house communications director jen psaki and cnn legal analyst jeffrey toobin. regardless of what happens down the road in the senate, this is a very significant day. >> it's a huge day. and, you know, i thought speaker pelosi meant to emphasize that. i mean, she talked about the constitution like hillary clinton on big days, she wore white, which is the color of the suffragettes, which underlines the momentousness of what's going on here. you know, this has only happened a very small handful of times in american history, and nancy pelosi didn't want to do this. she really did not want impeachment to be on her watch this term. i heard it from her. many people heard it from her. she was not going to allow this to take place just on the basis of the mueller report.

but i think she felt not politically, but constitutionally obligated to do this once the ukraine story broke. >> jen, do you think she made the right move doing this? >> i do. and i think i agree completely with jeffrey here. she did not. you saw this tone from her today. she is sad. she is somber. she was clearly passionate and emotional at times, as we saw in that clip. but she felt that the president's hand forced her hand. the president's action forced her hand. and certainly when the moderate democrats, the national security democrats came out and wrote that op-ed, that was sort of there was no turning back at this point. i think what we'll see, though, from her is she is going to continue the make the case in a nonpolitical way. that this is not about overturning an election. yes, there are people who wanted trump out from the beginning, but this is about protecting the united states of america for the next election. really, pushing hard on making the case that this president has shown himself to be somebody who will not only accept, but he will seek information from a foreign power to win. so i would expect that's where she'll keep it if she maintains

it with that tone and keeps her members maintaining at that tone. i think this is the right choice, the right decision. >> senator santorum, do you believe nancy pelosi when she says this isn't political, it's about the constitution? >> no, i don't believe that. look, i do believe because i was there during the clinton impeachment that people take this -- if you're trying to impeach a president or vote to impeach a president in the house or even more so in the senate, you take that very, very seriously. and i don't doubt that people are taking this seriously. but i don't think it's credible -- it wasn't credible for me. it wasn't credible for anybody through this process to say it's not political. i mean, you come with a political perspective on how you view this president, and it's weighted heavily by policies as well as politics. so to say it's not political is just frankly not credible. i agree with -- i don't think nancy pelosi wanted to do this. but what i do know about leaders in washington, by and large is they're not leaders. they're followers of what their caucus wants to do. and when her caucus flipped, she

did. i don't think her -- i don't know nancy that well. i know her, but i don't know her that well. maybe if we had a private conversation she would say i still don't want to do this, but i had no choice. i think that's where she is. if she's wise, that's where she is. but she doesn't control her caucus. her caucus controls her. and that's the way it works. >> but, you know, yes, politics infuses everything. >> of course it does. >> there is nothing wrong with that. >> yeah. >> i agree, there is nothing wrong with that. >> but the caucus is moving because the facts pushed them. >> and they changed. >> i would just say that's another domino that -- again, i don't think the proof is there. i don't think it's as substantial as everybody suggests. i think what the president did is inappropriate. i don't think it's anywhere close to impeachable. but if you have that predilection of believing every possible bad inference against the president, you can get to that conclusion, and that's where they are. >> i think for speaker pelosi and for a lot of democrats, the question was and still is should

any president, democrat or republican be able to seek dirt on a political opponent? should that be something a president is allowed to do? manu raju asked this question today of kevin mccarthy. he didn't answer the question, and that's a difficult one for republicans. >> i think it is a difficult one. as i said before, i thought it was inappropriate to bring up the biden name. i don't think it was inappropriate to ask for an investigation of burisma, but i think it was inappropriate to bring up the bidens' names. and there are lots of things short of impeachment that deal with inappropriate behavior. >> when the president tweeted about the senate trial today and talked about we're going to have schiff, the bidens, pelosi, and many more testify, is that going to happen? >> you have to ask mitch mcconnell. mitch mcconnell is going to run this process. again, he is going to follow -- >> senator santorum, you seem to think it is? how does that actually work? >> here's what happens. again, i was very, very engaged in this. senators are going to look at this, everyone thinks oh, they're going to respond to what the president wants. they're going to look at this as -- number one, and i really do believe this, what they think

is right. not just for them politically but for the country, but also for the senate. there is a real responsibility on all three fronts, and i think what you're going to see, as we saw back in the clinton impeachment, it's not as clear-cut on either side what is the right approach, and i don't know. it's a different senate when i was there, but there was a great desire to find compromise 20 years ago. great desire. >> they can -- mitch mcconnell can call who he wants? >> they can have no witnesses. they can have some witness. they can have depositions. what they did in the clinton trial was they didn't have witnesses in the senate, but they he sensually depositions with a handful of senators off the white house campus, off the capitol campus. and that's possible. but the thing that you never hear republicans say is we want

an inquiry into the facts of what happened with ukraine. they want to talk about joe biden. they want to talk about adam schiff. they never want to answer the question that manu raju asked today, is it appropriate what the president did? late word, rudy giuliani and his white house phone calls and travels when we come back. plus joe biden's campaign trail confrontation over his son in ukraine when we continue. take a look. >> you said i set up my son to work in an oil company. isn't that what you said? get your words straight, jack. [ slurping ]

must be hot out there, huh? not especially. -[ slurping continues ] -what you drinking? gasoline.

right, but i mean, what's in the cup? gasoline. [ slurping ] for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. for those who were born to ride, (loud fan noise) (children playing) ♪ (music building) experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln 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.

great piece of breaking news on calls rudy giuliani made to the white house that first came to light in the house

intelligence committee's impeachment report. cnn has learned that some of them are said to be associated with the office of management and budget may have simply been calls to and from the white house and not specifically the omb. the calls in april of 2019 were well before any known action by the white house to hold ukrainian military aid, raising questions as to whether there were discussions earlier than previously known. as for what mayor giuliani is up to right this moment, that is a separate question. it's one of the reasons the democrats decided today for moving impeachment proceedings forward so quickly. he has been in ukraine and he is taking, they say, more problematic action on the president's behalf, reportedly talking to the some of the same familiar characters and again threatening ukraine. quoting now from his twitter feed, quote, the conversation about corruption in ukraine was based on compelling evidence of criminal conduct by then vice president biden in 2016. that has not been resolved, and until it is will be a major obstacle to the u.s. assisting ukraine with its anti-corruption reforms. the words bear repeating has not been resolved and will be a major obstacle. back with rick santorum, jeff

toobin and jen psaki. what kind of investigation -- what is rudy giuliani rudy giuliani doing in ukraine? >> anderson, you ask hard questions. it beats the hell out of me. i think he is reinforcing the view that the president is trying to intimidate people in ukraine to do his political bidding. rudy giuliani is not some honest broker. he is not some corruption investigator. he is someone trying to get donald trump reelected president, and that's what's going on there, but, you know, i don't know how closely people follow these things. this seems much more likely to backfire than to actually help in any way, especially since he's involved with all these figures. >> it's counterintuitive, jen, from you're thinking of the president's side, you wouldn't think oh, yeah, let's have rudy go back to ukraine. >> right. it's sort of a big middle finger to the people who were investigating this and looking at this whole situation, and it's putting him in a bigger spotlight.

that's why it's such a head scratcher here. i think his entire tweet doesn't make any sense at all, as he we know and have been discussing. obviously ukraine has gone through a period of years of corruption. they've made some reforms. there is more work to be done. there is no evidence rudy giuliani or donald trump cares about that. that's certainly not what he's working on. what we're all talking about and have been for weeks is the most corrupt thing probably that anyone has been trying to get ukraine involved in. it's all a little ludicrous. it's crazy to see that he is in ukraine. i don't know why he is there. >> i'll give you a positive of what i think is the rationale explanation, i don't know whether it's true at all. >> money? >> rudy feels like his reputation has been besmirched. i think he feels like he's been basically ridiculed by the media as being someone who is sort of this crazy guy working. and i think he wants to go and vindicate himself. i think he wants to go and gather more evidence and basically prove out that he is right and you're wrong.

and that makes sense to me. rudy's -- rudy is a man of great pride and great stature and america's mayor, and now he is sort of being kicked to the curb, and he's going to fight back. i think that's what's going on. >> and the way to do -- the problem is he doesn't know what he's talking about, and he is -- >> well, he thinks he is does. >> he is dealing with people who have the worst reputations. he is on a television network that thinks fox news is some leftist outlet. this is the way he is restoring his -- i'm not saying you're wrong. >> i think he is trying to gather the evidence to prove his case. >> isn't that like o.j. trying to gather the evidence? is that really -- >> i think that would be a little unfair. a little unfair. >> i feel like my whole life is coming together here. all these stories right here. >> just, you know, it's like when donald trump said as a citizen that he would send detectives to hawaii to investigate, you know, the birth

certificate of president obama. there has never been any evidence he actually did send detectives. there is not an investigation, and the u.s. embassy, there is plenty of arms of the u.s. government that can investigate corruption in ukraine. >> and let's go back to the idea that many on the right believe there is a deep state and there are these people particularly in the state department who have different agendas and are -- and they believe that they're wrong. >> there's the treasury department. >> i hear you. but i'm just saying, there is a general mistrust -- >> sure. >> -- of the state, if you will, the deep state, and rudy believes that his scenario that he's laid out is the right one. >> he also could be drumming up business. he does a history of business -- seeking out businesses in ukraine. he tried to get a contract for security things in the capital. >> all over eastern europe and all sorts of places.

look, i think first of all the reference to the deep state, what we saw a few weeks ago is that the deep state he has been referring to are decades long public servants who have been trying to work on the national interests of the united states which the context which the trump administration wants. >> i'll fight you on that one because i do believe just because a bunch of smart people are over at the state department doing what they think is the best thing for the country isn't maybe what the president wants to do, and by the way, he's the one that runs foreign policy, not them. >> they want to address corruption. >> i understand in this particular case there is some crosscurrents here. but the idea that we're going defer to a group of state department people who because they've been there a long time and are really smart are going to do the right thing for america? sorry, that's not their job. their job is to do what the president tells them. >> that's exactly what their job >> no, it isn't. >> thank you. up next, anti-putin activist garry kasparov who penned an

op-ed titled "i live the in the post-truth soviet world and i hear its echoed in trump's america." we'll be right back. [airport pa]"all flights have been delayed." t-mobile makes the holidays easier... ...like this. because right now when you buy one of the latest samsung phones you get one free. on that. so you can post this... ...score this... ...be there like this... ...and share all of this... ...with that. so do this, on that, with us. now, buy a samsung galaxy s10 or note 10 and get one free.

i am all about livi♪g joyfully. hello. the united explorer card hooks me up. getting more for getting away. rewarded! going new places and tasting new flavors. rewarded! traveling lighter. rewarded. haha, boom! getting settled. rewarded. learn more at the explorer card dot com. and get...

rewarded! itintroducing the new braava jet m6 robot mop. with an adjustable precision jet spray and advanced pad system braava jet breaks up messes and gets deep in corners. braava jet. only from irobot.

today at an event in iowa biden

faced an audience member who prodded him about his son's business in ukraine and this is how he defends himself. >> we all know trump has been messing around in ukraine over there, holding foreign aid for them to come up saying they're going to investigate you. we know all about that crap. he's no backbone, we know that for that. but you, on the other hand, sent your son over there to get a job and work for a gas company that he had no experience with gas or nothing in order to get access for the president. so, you're selling access to the president just like he was. >> you're a damn liar, man. that's not true. and no one has ever said that. >> i see it on the tv. >> you see it on the tv. i know you do.

by the way, that's why you're sedentary. >> let it go, let it go. the reason i'm running is because i've been around a long time and i know what people know. i get things done. that's why i'm running. if you want to check my shape, let's do push ups together, man. let's run, let's do whatever you want to do. number two -- number two, no one has said my son has done anything wrong and i did not in any occasion and no one has ever said it. >> i didn't say you were doing anything wrong. >> you said i set up my son to work on an oil company. isn't that what you said? get your words straight, jack. >> here on msnbc -- >> you don't hear that on msnbc. >> the hell i don't. >> i'm not going to get in an argument here, man. >> i don't want one. >> yeah, you do. but, look, friend, look, here's

the deal. here's the deal. >> it looks -- it's like you don't have any more backbone than trump does. >> let the guy talk, let him talk. >> my more questions? >> david axelrod is senior adviser to the administration. i wonder what you made of that type of thing. is that the right way for biden to handle it? >> i think the technical term, anderson was he was really pissed, and he showed it. and part of it is that he's very reactive to questions about his children and about his son. that said, and so, you know, i think people will excuse him that much. that said, it turned into a bit of a rant and he was overtorqued so that's not the way he should handle it. and i would suggest that he could have spared himself a lot of trouble at the beginning of this whole saga if he had simply said what hunter biden has said

which was it was a mistake to go on that board. vice president should just say that. vice president should just say that, and he's laid out all he's going to create problems for himself that go to whether he has the discipline to do the job. >> i guess some supporters would like see ago i passionate and fiery biden, particularly since part of the calculus is whether they can go toe to toe when faced on a stage with president trump. >> yeah, right. and i think that to a degree, that fire was there and i think people might respond positively

to that. if he had approached it in a different way, if he had said that's not true, even calling him a damn liar, i think that was over the line, but it showed some fight. but then to get into the push-ups and how much he knows and was just seemed a little bit off the rail. >> i want to ask you about president obama's former special assistant aide reggie love, someone you know along with to two other obama officials. >> austan goolsbee. they just endorsed pete buttigieg. i wonder what it says that they're not putting their support behind biden or does it -- does it surprise you? does it not? does it mean anything? >> look, in fairness, there are a lot of people who worked for barack obama who are supporting joe biden now. i think the lion's share of endorsements from people who worked in the administration probably have gone to the vice president, and there is a real sense of loyalty to him. that said, there are people in other campaigns as well.

buttigieg just picked up some good endorsements. austin goolsbee endorsed him, linda douglass, who worked on the affordable care act in the administration endorsed him. and reggie, of course, was quite close to the president. so these were good endorsements for buttigieg. it's a good sign for him. and i think what's happened is you have people who are loyal to the vice president who see him as a legatee of the administration, but they see others who see in buttigieg some of the qualities that they saw in a barack obama as he came up as a candidate, and they're drawn to that energy and that youth and that idealism. >> is there any way to know how much these kind of endorsements really register? john kerry said he is going to endorse biden tomorrow. >> yeah. i actually think the kerry endorsement is useful to biden, because kerry ran in iowa. he was the senator from massachusetts, and if he becomes an active surrogate for biden, he is a popular figure within

the democratic party and particularly in those early primary states, that would be helpful for biden. i remember back in 2004 when kerry was in some trouble in iowa when he was running for the nomination. ted kennedy came and campaigned vigorously for them and made a difference there. so there are figures who are big enough to make a real difference if they put their shoulder to the wheel. >> yeah, david axelrod, thanks very much. i'm going to talk in just a moment to one of the four legal scholars who testified at wednesday's judiciary committee hearing. following that town hall with nancy pelosi from washington. jake tapper is going to moderate as voters ask questions and the road head for impeachment.

i'm a verizon engineer, and i'm part of the team building the most powerful 5g experience for america. it's 5g ultra wideband-- --for massive capacity-- --and ultra-fast speeds. almost 2 gigs here in minneapolis. that's 25 times faster than today's network in new york city. so people from midtown manhattan-- --to downtown denver-- --can experience what our 5g can deliver. (woman) and if verizon 5g can deliver performance like this in these places... it's pretty crazy. ...just imagine what it can do for you. ♪

skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast!

we're moments away from cnn's town hall with house speaker nancy pelosi. earlier today house republican leader kevin mccarthy upbraided her for, he says, not listening enough to wednesday's judiciary committee hearing. then he proceeded to quote the one legal scholar favorable to his line of defense and not quote the other three. >> if she paused and she actually listened to the hearing yesterday, on what a democrat who did not vote for the president, who has studied the constitution, who most at any time has been a witness for democrats or republicans based upon his own ability as a scholar that this is the weakest, the thinnest impeachment in the history of america, that there is no bribery, no extortion, no

obstruction of justice, and no abuse of power. >> he was referring there to one of the witnesses, professor jonathan turley. joining me now, one of the other three legal scholars who testified and went unmentioned by the minority leader, noah feldman. also joining us, robert ray who investigated the watergate scandal. professor feldman, you heard minority leader mccarthy there quoting turley saying this is the weakest in the history of impeachment in america. is it? >> no. and, you know, you have to begin with the fact that there's the memorandum of the call which provides you with a tremendous amount of evidence in just a couple of pages. so thickness is not the measure, it's content that's the measure. and what's in the record is substantial evidence to support the idea of a classic high crime and misdemeanor of the abuse of the power of presidency to serve the personal desires and preferences of the president to corrupt the election and to subordinate the national security of the united states to

his own interests. >> high crime and misdemeanor, what exactly is the high crime? >> the high crime is the classic high crime which is abuse of the office of the presidency for personal gain. and that's what the framers thought of as sort of high crime number one, because the reality is that you can use the office of the presidency for good and that's fine, but if you use the office the presidency to advance your own personal interests, that's essentially the essence of corruption. that's what the nature of corruption is. and that's absolutely what they considered to be a pure high crime. >> robert, do you agree that the president would have benefitted personally with an investigation of or at least even the announcement of an investigation of joe biden heading into this election? >> well, anderson, let me start first with high crime number one is treason. and high crime number two is bribery. and the point is, is that an impeachable offense has to be a crime.

you can talk about there are a special category of crimes that must also constitute an abuse of the president's office. but it still has to start with a crime. and that's the deficiency here. the latest narrative seems to be from the house democrats that the president represents a clear and present danger to the country, which i think, you know, the president's reaction apparently to that was, so what are they accusing me of treason now? it harkens back to where we started more than two months ago with bill weld who made essentially the outrageous claim that this call constituted treason. fairly, that's overstated. >> is it right for a president to benefit personally and to request a personal benefit to use his office to get a personal benefit? >> i heard professor feldman say during the hearing that this constituted as well a campaign

finance violation. the problem with that -- >> can you answer my question, though? >> the answer is no, because a something as nebulous as the collateral effect on a campaign as a request to a foreign government to open up an investigation, at least in the eyes of the justice department, apparently the criminal division and the public integrity section is that's not sufficient to constitute a campaign finance violation. the answer to your question is no, it doesn't pass the personal benefit test. >> professor feldman, what about that? >> so that's preposterous. the question is not whether a statute has been violated. the question is whether the constitution violated. it's definitely not whether the department of justice that works for the president thinks it's been violated. in england, high crimes and misdemeanors were not always statutory crimes. it's a red herring to stay we

should care at all what the statute says. second, it's also true -- >> finish your thought. >> second of all -- thank you. second of all it's also the case that when it comes to the con feral of a benefit we don't have to look to campaign finance law. we can just use the common sense of congress. congress is entitled to determine whether there was a personal benefit there that aided the president and if there was, then congress can safely say there was an abuse of power that rises to the level of high crime and misdemeanor. that's the bottom line. it's up to congress to determine the personal benefit. >> i can't disagree with that. it is ultimately up to congress to make that determination. but i would suggest to you that that determination is now going to be made equally on a partisan basis in the house which will have no support from republicans. and then it will move over to the senate for trial where it will have support of all republican senators which will result in an acquittal.

i'm not sure what really ultimately will have been accomplished from that. then finally i disagree, the framers well-understood the common definition of bribery. that's been supplied in the bribery statute. i suppose reasonable people can disagree about this, i don't think a bribery defense has been shown. and short of that, as much as you want to talk about abuse of power, i think as professor turley correctly pointed out, abuse of power untethered from a high crime and misdemeanor which would be either treason, bribery, or some other high crime and misdemeanor is not sufficient to form a legitimate basis to remove a president from office. >> professor feldmann, i wonder what you made from the argument that this is a rush, that there's not enough evidence at this stage. >> it's seems very strange to me. first of all you have the call and that's a tremendous amount of evidence. furthermore, any lack of evidence that exists now is just a result of the fact that the

president has ordered all of his subordinates, the whole executive barrage to stonewall and not participate in the election. it seems strange to say since the president is blocking this, more evidence is -- the president's systematic refusal to engage with congress. if you can't impeach the president and you can't indict him, he's above the law. >> we have to end it there. i really appreciate it. thank you very much. cnn town hall with nancy pelosi moderated by jake tapper starts right now. thank y'all. when we were looking for a roommate,

he wanted someone super quiet. yeah, and he wanted someone to help out with chores. so, we got jean-pierre. but one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with renters insurance. ♪ yeah, geico did make it easy to switch and save. ♪ oh no. there's a wall there now. that's too bad. visit geico.com and see how easy saving on renters insurance can be.

so that early retirement we planned. it's going ok? great. now i'm spending more time with the kids. i'm introducing them to crab. crab!? they love it. so, you mentioned that that money we set aside. yeah. the kids and i want to build our own crab shack. ♪ ♪ ahhh, you're finally building that outdoor kitchen. yup - with room for the whole gang. ♪ ♪ see how investing with a j.p. morgan advisor can help you. visit your local chase branch.

we're moments away from cnn's town hall with house speaker nancy pelosi. she'll take questions from a cross section of voters. earlier kevin mccarthy abraided her for not listening closely enough to wednesday's judiciary hearing. then he proceeded to quote the one legal scholar favorable to his line of defense and not quote the other three. take a listen. >> if she paused and she actually listened to the hearing yesterday, on what a democrat who did not vote for the president, who has studied the constitution, who most at any time has been a witness for democrats or republicans based upon his own ability as a scholar that this is the

weakest, the thinnest impeachment in the history of america, that there is no bribery, no extortion, no obstruction of justice, and no abuse of power. >> he was referring there to one of the witnesses, professor jonathan turley. joining me now, one of the other three legal scholars who testified and went unmentioned by the minority leader, harvard law school professor, noah feldmann. professor feldman, you heard minority leader mccarthy there quoting turley saying this is the weakest in the history of impeachment in america. is it? >> no. and, you know, you have to begin with the fact that there's the memorandum of the call which provides you with a tremendous amount of evidence in just a couple of pages. so thickness is not the measure, it's content that's the measure. and what's in the record is substantial evidence to support the idea of a classic high crime and misdemeanor of the abuse of the power of presidency to serve the personal desires and preferences of the president to corrupt the election and to subordinate the national security of the united states to his own interests.

>> high crime and misdemeanor, what exactly is the high crime? >> the high crime is the classic high crime which is abuse of the office of the presidency for personal gain. and that's what the framers thought of as sort of high crime number one, because the reality is that you can use the office of the presidency for good and that's fine, but if you use the office the presidency to advance your own personal interests, that's essentially the essence of corruption. that's what the nature of corruption is. and that's absolutely what they considered to be a pure high crime. >> robert, do you agree that the president would have benefitted personally with an investigation of or at least even the announcement of an investigation of joe biden heading into this election? >> well, anderson, let me start first with high crime number one is treason.

and high crime number two is bribery. and the point is, is that an impeachable offense has to be a crime. you can talk about there are a special category of crimes that must also constitute an abuse of the president's office. but it still has to start with a crime. and that's the deficiency here. the latest narrative seems to be from the house democrats that the president represents a clear and present danger to the country, which i think, you know, the president's reaction apparently to that was, so what are they accusing me of treason now? it harkens back to where we started two months ago with bill weld who made the essentially outrageous claim that this call constituted treason. fairly, that's overstated. >> is it right for a president to benefit personally and to request a personal benefit to use his office to get a personal benefit? >> i heard professor feldman say

during the hearing that his view that this constituted as well a campaign violation -- >> but you haven't answered my question. can you answer my question though? >> the answer is no, because a request to a foreign government to open up an investigation, at least in the eyes of the justice department, apparently the criminal division and the public integrity section is that's not sufficient to constitute a campaign finance violation. the answer to your question is no, it doesn't pass the personal benefit test. >> professor feldman, what about that? >> yeah, that's preposterous. the question is not whether a statute has been violated. it's definitely not whether the department of justice that works for the president thinks it's been violated. the question is has the constitution been violated? in england, high crimes and misdemeanors were not always statutory crimes. in the united states in the history of impeachment here, high crimes and misdemeanors have often not been statutory crimes. it's a complete red herring to say we should care at all about

what the statute says. second of all it's also true -- >> finish your thought. >> thank you. second of all, it's also the case that when it comes to the conferral of a benefit, we don't have to look at campaign finance law. we can just look at the common sense of congress. congress is entitled to determine whether there was a personal benefit that aided the president. and if there was, then congress can safely say that there was an abuse of power that rises to the level of high crime and misdemeanor. that's the bottom tien. it's up to congress to determine the meaning of the personal benefit. >> robert. >> i can't disagree with that but i would suggest that determines is now going to be made equally on a partisan basis in the house which will have no support from republicans and then it will move over to the senate for trial where it will have support of all republican senators which will result in an acquittal. i'm not sure what really

ultimately will have been accomplished from that. finally, i disagree, look, the framers well understood the common law definition of bribery. that has now been supplanted by the federal bribery statute. my position is -- i suppose reasonable people can disagree about this. i just don't think a bribery has been shown. and short of that, as much as you want to talk about abuse of power, i think as professor turley correctly pointed out, abuse of power untethered from a high crime and misdemeanor which would be either treason, bribery, or some other high crime and misdemeanor is not sufficient to form a legitimate basis to remove a president from office. >> professor feldman, i'm wondering what you made of professor turley's argument that this is a rush, that there's not enough evidence at this stage. >> it seems very strange to me. so first of all you have the call, and that's a tremendous amount of evidence. furthermore, any lack of evidence that exists now is just a result of the ha