means they won't hike your rates over one mistake. see, liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected.

and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today. good day, everyone. i'm alex witt in msnbc headquarters in new york. this hour, the question looming over the administratithem, wonds is when they should start impeachment proceedings. the democrats make calculations after the president violated campaign finance law.

trump-directed hush money payments in the lead-up to the election to two women who claim they had sexual encounters with him. for congress members, crucial questions loom. is there enough evidence to investigate impeachment charges? are political costs included? what are the implications? the chair is ready to make his first move. >> the president responsible for mass fraud from several people. >> there is no reason to think the president shouldn't be indicted. the reason by the special counsel is it would take up too much time, he couldn't do his job. but the law specifically calls for impeachment. i don't see why the president can't be indicted. > >>. >> we're going after someone, the president, and we're going to squeeze whoever we can until we finally get a person.

>> who do you believe, the president or the justice department? >> i don't know. >> impeachment is a political process to be tried in a court of public opinion. senator angus king has this warning. >> i don't think that there is evidence yet available to the public where there would be more or less a consensus that this was an appropriate path. my concern is that if impeachment is moved forward on the evidence that we have now, at least a third of the country would think it was just political revenge and a coup against the president. >> also new today, the top democrat on the house intelligence committee, adam schiff, says the president may face serious consequences in the wake of friday's court filings. jeff bennett is joining me now with his post on the lawn now. jeff, good sunday to you. what all is happening? >> reporter: we can start with president trump, because on this otherwise quiet sunday,

president trump is here at the white house, lashing out at james co com james comey, accusing the fbi director he fired for being part of russian interference. we got the transcript late last night and the transcript shows that comey, on multiple occasions, stated he was unable to remember certain facts. he couldn't answer questions because of ongoing investigations. well, that is precisely what president trump has keyed in on in his tweets this morning. so here's what the president says. he says, leaking james comey must have set a record for who lied to congress the most in one day. his entire testimony was so untruthful. this whole deal is a rigged fraud headed up by dishonest people who would do anything so that i could not become president.

they are now exposed. on 245 occasions, former fbi director james comey told house investigators he didn't know, didn't recall or couldn't remember things when asked. opened investigations on four americans, not two, didn't know who signed off and didn't know christopher steele. all lies. the president is focused on comey today, less so on those new court documents that directly implicate the president in this illegal scheme to buy the silence of these women who claim to have had affairs with him in the lead-up to the election. you asked about adam schiff. here's what adam schiff, the top democrat on the house intelligence committee, had to say about that. >> there is a very real prospect that on the day donald trump leaves office, the justice department may indict him, that he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time. we have been discussing the issue of pardons that the president may offer to people or dangle in front of people. the bigger pardon question may come down the road as the next

president has to determine whether to pardon donald trump. >> reporter: and you can add to that what congressman jerry nadler, the incoming chair of the house judiciary committee said, it would certainly be an impeachable offense if it is determined that president trump directed illegal payments. alex? >> white house reporter for the associated press and msnb contributor and also author of the book, "power wars." welcome to you both. charlie, with regard to the comey matter here, what is the rain revelation from his testimony that possibly prompted the president to lash out on twitter? >> i don't think there was really a revelation in that testimony. from people going over the transcript with colleagues and myself looking through it, we certainly knew what he was talking about. what trump is mad about or

choosing to make an issue of are the many times comey chose not to answer questions. saying "i can't talk about it" or saying he couldn't remember certain details like who started the form with details. comey, of course, is a prime witness against trump on the question of whether he obstructed justice by trying to shut down the flynn investigation. >> by the way, i asked steve cohen who is on that house committee who asked questions of james comey, whether he is riding on t245 occasions when h was asked if it was right or wrong from steve kohn. what are you hearing out there? >> we aren't hearing much from the white house, other than james comey accusing the president, again, of lying.

the white house has been rather silent on comey's testimony, and i gather he's supposed to be back before the house later next week, so maybe we'll hear some more from the president and the white house on that. >> what about what we heard from congressman schiff, charlie, about the president possibly facing indictment as soon as he leaves office? what do you make of that comment? do you think there is anything in the court filings this week that may have solidified schiff's view on this? >> well, certainly the court filings showing that prosecutors believe that trump directed cohen in these illegal financial transactions aimed at influencing the election without reporting them to the fec. that does raise legal jeopardy for the president. we know that the justice department has made the decision repeatedly going back to the watergate era that it will not allow prosecutors to bring in charges against a sitting president, but the statute of limitations will not have run by january 20-21 when the next

presidential term starts. so even if he survives this term, he could be facing legal jeopardy reminiscent of president clinton facing legal jeopardy as he was about to hand over the presidency to president bush. he avoided being charged as long as he was still president. >> these court indictments also renew the talk of impeachment, but there are democrats saying we need more information before moving forward. here's what senator chris murphy had to say about it this morning. >> we should wait for mueller's investigation, but i should also counsel the special investigate or investigater to show his cards soon. he needs to show what he has sometime in early 2013 so congress can make a determination. >> is this the first time we're hearing a democrat at the very

least showing that the special counsel is doing today? >> that might be the first time we've heard a democrat say that, of course, it's been said for a while that they need to wrap up their investigation and perhaps lift this cloud from the president. democrats have to walk a fine line on the question of whether to go after the president for -- whether to try to impeach the president. they don't want to look as though this is all politically driven. you need some really hard evidence in order to make the case for impeaching the president. and the counter to that, of course, is that while the house will be controlled by democrats come january and they could and most likely would move full steam ahead on an impeachment process if there is more coming out of the investigation, the senate remains in republican hands. republicans picked up two seats. the president talks about that quite a bit, and the senate would be unlikely to go along

with the house on this. >> yeah, as the democrats picked up 40 seats in the house. charlie, the mueller revelations, do you think that accelerates or intensifies the house investigation coming up three weeks from now? >> it certainly puts them in the position that jerry nadler and adam schiff have a running start of things to look at. of course the list they're interested in is pretty long, including emoluments and so forth. it puts them in a strategic spot here. certainly their base is ravenous for them to push back against trump and they want impeachment. in the bush era, if you come at the king and you miss, you only strengthen the king. bill clinton came out in a stronger position than he was before. he was able to portray that as

vindication, portray his political enemies as extremists who overreached, and for this very reason we were just talking about, you better have a lot of republican senators who see whatever the facts are and are willing to remove a president before you start that ball in motion or we'll see that same dynamic play out. >> i want to ask this next question of both of you, and darlene, you first to answer it. your reaction on a yahoo report that trump first wanted his attorney general pick william barr for another job, defense lawyer. how do you read this? is there a conflict here at all? >> that's an interesting question. i don't know if there is a conflict there or not. many of us were surprised on thursday or friday, whenever it was, that the president announced he was going to nominate bill barr to be attorney general. there were other names in the mix. bill barr's name didn't seem to be there. so it came as a surprise. >> is this new, charlie, that --

have we heard this before, that barr was being considered as a defense attorney? >> when i read that from the article, it was the first i had heard of it. it fits the pattern. mike whitaker, the acting attorney general right now, first came to the trump white house's attention last summer, summer of 2017, when he was interviewing for a job of being the in-house white house counsel for the purpose of managing defense against the mueller investigation. if by the isekoff report, barr reached out and wasn't interested in the job which might create more separation than there was with matt whitaker. but that's important to know with bill barr going forward with his very likely confirmation to be the next attorney general. >> i'm sure both of you will stay on that for sure, darlene superville and charlie savage. thank you. >> thank you. what trouble is the president facing and what if he

is an illegal co-conspirator? my panel weighs in next. ♪ the greatest wish of all... is one that brings us together. the lincoln wish list event is here. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with $0 down, $0 due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment. only at your lincoln dealer. and a complimentary first month's payment. discover card. i justis this for real?match, yep. we match all the cash back new cardmembers earn at the end of their first year, automatically. whoo! i got my money! hard to contain yourself, isn't it? uh huh! let it go! whoo! get a dollar-for-dollar match at the end of your first year. only from discover.

i've always been amazed and still going for my best, even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin... i want that too. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? reeling in a nice one. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden sign of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you.

some lawmakers are standing behind their nobody is above the law belief, following new filings on friday with big revelations about the president and michael cohen. let's take a listen. >> this is a president who is now named as an unindicted co-conspirator. >> if someone has violated the law, the application of the law should be applied to them like it would any other citizen in this country. it's about what the laws are and

nobody should be above the law. >> there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits the president from being indicted. >> join me now with federal prosecutors. nelson, to you first. do you agree with congressman nadler, there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits him from being indicted, the president? >> that's exactly right. the bare terms of the constitution don't give the president any particular protection. i think, though, most legal scholars on both sides have agreed over the years that it would be extraordinarily difficult to indict a sitting president, and the supreme court. because you don't want to distract your president. you don't want your one president to be pulled into something as all-consuming as a criminal case. the supreme court considered this 20 years ago in the jones versus clinton case, where there was a civil action against the president. they didn't have to decide whether he could be convicted,

but they did say in a civil case, that can proceed, because it's not as all-consuming as a criminal case. i have to say it's a close question. >> yeah. is there a scenario that you envision, joyce, where the southern district of new york could indict president trump, keep it under seal, reveal it once he's no longer president? >> so for prosecutors in the southern district of new york to go ahead and indict the president, they'll have to get sign-off from the highest levels of the justice department, probably from acting attorney general whitaker since there is no indication that he's accused. and even in the likely event they were to get that from this current acting attorney general, it wouldn't provide immediate accountability. it would have to sit for two or six years until president trump left the white house. the american people probably deserve better than that, but

we're in this situation where the founding fathers left that up to congress to provide the accountability piece for a sitting president. so the real responsibility here should lie on the hill, not with career prosecutors. >> so there is this new report in the "new york times," nelson, and it says that prosecutors examined the statute of limitations on the finance violation. so my question is, why would new york prosecutors try to determine whether they can indict the president after leaving office if, today, they did not have reasonable doubt? >> well, that's certainly the logical implication. don't forget that any immunity from indictment would end the minute that a president left office. the reason why gerald ford pardoned richard nixon after nixon's resignation was because he didn't want the nation to undergo the spectacle and the trauma of indictment of the president for actions taken while he was president.

it's very sensible to look at what the statute of limitations would be here. >> what about that same report in "the times," joyce, which suggest the narrative being built by prosecutors is that the president defrauded voters? it's a question i've asked several times today, the defrauded question here. do you agree with that? is it clear to you that trump, quote, defrauded voters, according to that headline? >> so the way prosecutors look at this is less with the characterization of words and more with violation of specific statutes. we've seen this with the talked-about collusion with the election, which we now know technically is conspiracy. when we talk about the president defrauding the population, what pops into my mind are specific campaign finance fraud statutes, or making false statements when he filed financial filings with the government. those are certainly a species of fraud, but in addition to those specific legal counts that he could be indicted for, i think

we also have to think about this notion -- the president made sure that information voters shu should have had when they were making a choice in the 2016 election, he made sure that information wasn't available for them, and he did that certainly to influence the outcome of the election. that, i think, fits our common concept of what fraud involving an election is. >> and do you need, nelson, to prove intent when it comes to an accusation of defrauding voters? >> we have to separate two things here. what would you have to technically prove if you were trying to convict the president of campaign election law violations? and the second is, what would congress have to consider if they're judging the president's conduct? i spent the morning going over the federalist papers, and kim mccraw made some of the language

in the debates. and it clearly indicated if a president became president because of corruption or fraud, the example he gave was if a president bribed an elector, could that be an impeachable offense? and george mason said yes. if i could read, he said, shall the man who has practiced corruption, and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt? mason said no, and that's why he put the impeachment clause into the constitution. the founders thought about this, and i think congress would want to look very closely at, what did the president know? it was in his mind? was it his intent to defraud the voters? i think there is a plausible case being built. >> thank you for the history lesson there. quickly, delodelores angus king

has been said he should be scared over this. is there a reason to indict the president over the totality. >> it's the power the house holds. congress will see all of it presumably when mueller sends them a report, and it's hard to believe that based on just what we know publicly that it doesn't tip congressmen's scales because they don't have to prove an illegal crime. certainly lying to the people, failing to disclose dealings with russia, campaign finance violations, all of that taken together would be more than enough for anyone to rationally consider impeachment. >> thank you very much for the conversation.

much appreciated of t. joining us, someone who said defrauding the house committee may not make it to the level of impeachment, so is that even in the cards? i really didn't expect to learn so many interesting details. ancestrydna was able to tell me where my father's family came from in columbia. they pinpointed the columbian and ecuador region

and then there's a whole new andean region. that was incredibly exciting because i really didn't know that. it just brings it home how deep my roots are and it connects me to them, and to their spirit, and to their history. this holiday, give the gift that's connected millions to a deeper family story. order your kit at ancestry.com. to a deeper family story. if you have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture now might not be the best time to ask yourself are my bones strong? life is full of make-or-break moments. that's why it's so important to help reduce your risk of fracture with prolia®. only prolia® is proven to help strengthen and protect bones from fracture with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva®. serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure; trouble breathing; throat tightness; face, lip, or tongue swelling; rash; itching; or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems as severe jaw bone problems may happen or new or unusual pain in your hip groin, or thigh,

as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping prolia® as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium, serious infections, which could need hospitalization, skin problems, and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain. are you ready? ask your doctor how prolia® can help strengthen your bones.

this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today. new reaction today to the michael cohen sentencing memos

and the implied connections between cohen's crimes and president trump. >> here it appears the justice department doesn't think there is any problem with proving that this was intended to principally affect the election. >> this is a president who is now named as an unindicted co-conspirator. the allegation is he committed at least two felonies to try and manipulate the 2016 election. >> joining me now, congressman raskin, director of the oversight committee. congressman, welcome to you, sir. cohen's filings that implicate donald trump. are they saying this now changes the results of the 2016 election? >> i've not heard anybody say that. what's come out over the last 24 hours is the explosive revelation that the president himself allegedly directed this illegal campaign finance scheme,

the funneling of more than $150,000 for the payment of different mistresses in order to buy their silence, and that went over the $2,700 limit for campaign contributions and it also created an illegal corporate conduit contribution, and it was also concealing money going into the campaign. if it was conducted deliberately, that's a felony, so it's very serious business. >> i will say i know you were commuting to the studio to do this video and your congressman cohen did make that allegation. i know your honor quoted in "the times" today saying, prosecutors' narrative is clear. trump defrauded voters.

>> we have this investigation into the whole trump-russia connection, arguably the firing of comey and the interference with ongoing investigation, that's very serious business. the collection of illegal payments from foreign princes, kings and governments in direct violation of the emoluments at the trump hotel, at the trump office tower, the trump golf courses, and so on, all of that is about to come out because of judge mazetti's decisions in the federal district court, and now we've got the opportunity to look into that. also we've got what's been the heart of the mueller investigation, which is arguably the retreat from sanctions or the modification of sanctions against russia in return for russia's help in the 2016 campaign as well as whatever other business contacts were taking place between trump and various russian oligarchs. so there is a whole pattern of corruption and criminality which

is at the heart of the investigation. i don't mean to downplay in any way the seriousness of these campaign finance allegations. after all, they impeached bill clinton over telling one lie about an affair, and this is a whole campaign finance scheme designed to repress the truth about an affair or two affairs. undoubtedly, on the republican standard, they would have moved to impeach donald trump long ago had he been a democrat instead of a republican. >> i want to have us listen together to what alan dershowitz said after the memos were filed. let's take a listen to him. >> using information given by russia to wikileaks would not be a crime. what i'm afraid is this special

counsel, whose job it is to only find crimes will blur the line between crimes and sins and write a report designed to put the president in a bad light. >> is that from one of your professors? >> yeah, it brings me back to my first year of law school, and he represented o.j. simpson and now seems to have taken on donald trump as a pro bono client. i would rather refer to lawrence tribe, whose client is the constitution, who really has been doing a very good job of outlying the crimes. if you don't see any crimes, you won't find any crimes, but i think the bureau of law sees these crimes, and i think he was prosecuted in john edwards' case where he also mobilized outside money in order to pay off a

mistress and to advance his electoral campaign, and i think that's exactly what took place here. it was corporate money, it was over the limits. so none of that should be swept under the rug. i think my comment to the "new york times" was a way to undermine an honest campaign in 2016 and the truth is finally coming out. >> james rafkin, i look forward to speaking to you again. the president, ivanka trump, james kushner. >> if your insurance won't replace your car, what good is it? you'd be better off just taking your money and throwing it right into the harbor. i'm regret that. with new car replacement,

if your brand-new car gets totaled, liberty mutual will pay the entire value plus depreciation. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ discover.o. i like your card, but i'm absolutely not paying an annual fee. discover has no annual fees. really? yeah. we just don't believe in them. oh nice. you would not believe how long i've been rehearsing that. no annual fee on any card. only from discover. ...that's why i've got the power of 1-2-3 medicines with trelegy. the only fda-approved 3-in-1 copd treatment. ♪ trelegy. the power of 1-2-3 ♪ trelegy 1-2-3 trelegy with trelegy and the power of 1-2-3, i'm breathing better. trelegy works 3 ways to... ...open airways,... ...keep them open... ...and reduce inflammation... ...for 24 hours of better breathing. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. trelegy is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it.

do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling,.. ...problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. think your copd medicine is doing enough? maybe you should think again. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy and the power of 1-2-3. ♪ trelegy 1-2-3 save at trelegy.com. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. than psoriatic arthritis. as you and your rheumatologist consider treatments, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once daily pill for psoriatic arthritis. taken with methotrexate or similar medicines, it can reduce joint pain... ...swelling and significantly improve physical function.

xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests, and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz xr can reduce the symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. don't let another morning go by without talking to your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr.

. growing debate over president trump's choice of heather neuart for u.n. ambassador. she's a spoerks perskesperson f state department and a former reporter for fox news. >> she has no experience in government, she is clearly not qualified for this job, but these days it seems the most important qualification is you show up on donald trump's tv screen. >> joining me now, bill richardson, former governor and former u.s. ambassador to the u.n. bill, i always enjoy talking to you, and david gergen said it pretty succinctly here.

her resume is reportedly thin. if you were the president, would you pick her? >> he wants someone who has the secretary of state's confidence and ear. she is standing on diplomatic experience. i dealt with her when she was state department spokesman. i just say i was impressed. she's been knowledgeable because she has to absorb all the foreign policy briefings and explain them to the press. i don't know her that well. the two problems that i have is, one, it may not be a cabinet-level position, so she won't be in the mix when foreign policy decisions are made, just u.n. related. and secondly, the concern i have is that, you know, this gives the singular power on foreign policy just the two people, the secretary of state and the national security adviser. that may be okay, but you want different voices, and i want a

voice at the u.n. that talks globalism, multilateralism, cooperation with other countries, and if that position is not cabinet level, heather will not be at the table. that bothers me. >> so i want to ask about nikki haley, because did she qualify? did she have the qualities you would look for when she took over as u.s. ambassador at the u.n.? she was a governor, sure, but she wasn't a diplomat. would she have had a clear picture walk sbing into the uni nations with her tenure? >> you also have to have a politician with stature. i think the foreign policy knowledge briefings, you can obtain that. but you also need a wheeler dealer that's going to deal with other diplomats, that's going to say to russia and china, don't beat this resolution with north korea. you have to talk with our allies, france and england.

and there are others that you want their support on general revolutions. nikki haley, i think, brought that. she had political stature as an ambassador, as a governor, and i think in the end she was respected there. i think another factor is you have to have the secretary general, antonio viqueras, work with you well. he's a strong attorney general. i think we should just give her a chance. again, i'm not trying to make excuses, but i was impressed with her briefings, with her knowledge on foreign policy. i dealt with her on this rohingya issue on myanmar, and i must say i was impressed. but we'll see. we'll see. >> litzsten, we are going to be giving her a chance, it appears, so i'm grateful for your impressions thus far. let's talk about rex tillerson.

he talked before their relationship went off the rails. >> i think we did not have a common value system. the president would say, here's what i want to do and here's how i want to do it. and i would say, mr. president, i understand what you want to do, but you cannot do it that way. it violates the law, it violates the treaty. he got really frustrated. >> how unusual is this? not only what he said but that he said it. >> it's extremely unusual. i think secretary tillerson comes under rightful criticism for wanting to weaken and dismantle the foreign service, but he was a serious guy. he was head of a major corporation. i think he tried to explain to the president that there are certain things you can't do.

he also said other things that the president didn't read in briefing papers, that he operated on the fly. that's very disturbing, especially on national security issues. i must say i think tillerson has been relatively restrained, but now he's coming with more troubling allegations, concerns about the president and his handling of foreign policy and his lack of preparation. i worry when he goes into these summits with the north koreans, with putin and he's not prepared, and everything is on the fly, a gut instinct. you can't conduct foreign policy and national security that way. >> he is echoing the sentiments that have been bandied about for quite some time regarding donald trump and his approach on things. i want to talk about the "new york times" article that suggests that jared kushner's bomb with the saudi prince was

orchestrated that kushner was part of the an elaborate match-making plot. does this sound plausible to you? >> this is also very troubling on two fronts, one, that jared kushner apparently had a separate channel with the saudi prince unknown to the state department, unknown to the national council, a special channel where he could be manipulated. the second concern is that, nothing against being 36 years old, but he's not very knowledgeable about foreign policy. and this is an enormously important relationship. and when it came to perhaps jared lobbying that the president not have a serious response to the killing of the journalists and the arms deals and so many other things that are alleged is very troubling. i hope john bolton, the national security adviser, who is a very

strong guy just establishes a policy. but if you're going to have a separate channel, make sure it's authorized and it's monitored so our diplomatic officials, our intelligence officials, know what's going on. apparently they didn't. this is very troubling. this happened with mexico, too. kushner channel separate from the state department, the ambassador in mexico. this is not healthy. that's not a way to run foreign policies, and it has and with saudi arabia and with our overall foreign policy and our commitment to human rights on a direct response to the journalist martyr. >> you should know, given your vast experience. good to see you, my friend. appreciate it. up next, a call for a new election in north carolina. makes more holiday deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. ♪

with one notable exception. ♪

i am all about living joyfully. the united explorer card hooks me up. getting more for getting away. traveling lighter. getting settled. rewarded. learn more at the explorer card dot com. i think there have been impeachment offenses committed. we'll have hearings on the groveling that goes into the impeachment process and i'm sure they'll be followed.

>> let's bring in reena shaw, co-founder of the women's leadership always love talking with the three of you. right now, most democrats seem to be kind of tiptoeing around this whole idea of impeachment proceedin proceedings. they are shifting the focus to n nadler. are they still on the fence or you think they are waiting until they are sworn in to go full steam ahead. >> i think most people are waiting for mueller report. if you're a prudent politician, you can talk about all of this evidence that's accumulating. you can talk about the president being in as the late george h.w. bush said of another politician, deep doodoo. you can talk about all the smoke but you don't want to get to the

remedies until more of the facts are on the table. that awaits this report. what is not happening is the witch hunt idea is a dog that won't hunt. this is just not working anymore for the republicans. the democrats now have a lot of running room to follow this investigation where ever it leads. >> okay. let's play for you what democratic senator chris murphy said today. take a listen to it. >> the president has now stepped into the same territory that ultimately led to president nixon resigning. testifies an unindicted co-conspirator. certainly a different set of facts but this is investigation is starting to put the president in serious legal cross hairs and he should be worried and the hole k whole one tcountry should be wo. >> are the republicans more concerned or are they not truly convinced? >> i think they're not truly

convinced. though he may be in the territory, this is not enough. republicans really feel, still, no matter what you're looking at, the base or the moderate, seven out of ten republicans still feel the mueller investigation is a witch hunt. >> in what world? is that because the president keeps tweeting out things to that effect like witch hunt and everything else. there's nothing of the sort that's been proven. >> he's used that phrase over a dozen sometimes since the november 6th election. obviously it's working. here's the thing. when you have people like rand paul who not a vast majority of republicans agree but they agree with him on the fact this investigation adviser to be something of the sort that puts the pressure on the people around the president hoping to do a gotcha moment for the president. they agree this is all a bunch

of bluster and not really something we should be worried about. the president is not a criminal. that's what republicans generally feel. >> adrian we have independent senator angus king who is raising this concern. take a listen. >> i don't think there's evidence yet available to the public where there could be more or less a consensus this would be an appropriate path. my concern is that if impeachment is moved forward on the evidence that we have now, at least a third of the country would think it was just political revenge and a coup against the president. >> how much of a factor should the american public appetite be for that? >> well, i mean, look, i think if you capitalize on what angus king said by what nadler said

this morning on another sunday show where he said, look, whether or not these are -- these could be impeachable offenses but whether or not they justify impeachment is a different story. >> he said do they rise to the gravity of that you should undertake an impeachment. >> nooithe numbers are there in house. they are not there in the senate. if democrats decide to bring impeachment to the floor, which i think the public pressure at this point given what we found out yesterday and we're still waiting to get the full mueller report but when all the facts come together, i think the pressure on house democrats bring this to the floor for a vote will be pretty significant. the question becomes does this -- is this what democrats want to be focusing ongoing into

2020? there will be pressure to do so, but i'm not sure the majority of americans want to see this happen. >> there's a lot of political fatigue out there. i think it's across the spectrum. that had a huge impact on political will. to start the year out talking impeachment again. here we are two years after he's elected and we're still having that same tense conversation. this will further divide the country. this is not where we need to be. >> we're operating on incomplete information. i want to go back to watergate for a minute. there was a two year period after the scandal broke when mostly republicans were saying there's nothing here. it's a witch hunt. n nixon said stop wallowing in watergate. polls show people didn't want impeachment. they didn't want him to resign. that wasn't on the table. it wasn't until enough evidence

had accumulated that then the republican party and the person of senator goldwater's, hugh wa waters. they said your support on capitol hill has collapsed. we could reach that point. we don't know yet because the evidence isn't all in. >> well said. i'm going to have to let that be the last word. i want all three of you to come back next week. >> thank you. how mueller probe is making republicans even more nervous about the man in the white house.

we opened our doors with 70-megawatts, 35 mules, and an ice plant. but we brought power to the people- redefining what that meant from one era to the next. over 90 years later we continue to build as one of the nation's largest investors in infrastructure. we don't just help power the american dream. we're part of it. this is our era. this is america's energy era. nextera energy

ignition sequence starts. 10... 9... guidance is internal. 6... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...

♪

we have just hit the top of the hour which means i'm out of time. you have the next couple of hours. take it away. >> so great to have a lahand of from you. good afternoon. i'm richard lui. thanks for stopping by. growing fears following a week of bombshell mueller memos. there's new reports that says republicans are getting more anxious, fearful that president trump's legal problem puts the entire gop at greater risk. are they right to be worried? we'll discuss that. the legal and political jeopardy ahead. john kelly, you heard it. he's on the outs. how plans