good evening to you at home. welcome to trump and ukraine, the impeachment crisis. this is a new special digging into the scandal that is derailing the trump presidency like others. we have a range of special guests tonight beginning with experts that congress is currently scouring. how do you impeach a president and what process does the president owe if they put the president on trial? there have only been two such senate trials. but the impeachment power is the congress's most serious check on presidential abuses of power. without removal, it shook the presidencies of johnson and clint clinton. now, tonight, we are going to explore how the less sons from

those earlier fights may determine the fate of the trump presidency. >> just so you know, the call was perfect. >> one year for watergate is enough. >> i did not have sexual relations with that woman. >> i have an article two where i have a right to do whatever i want as president. >> it depends upon what the meaning of the word is. >> i'm not a crook. >> i answered everything. it is a hoax. >> i shall resign the presidency e fktive at noon tomorrow. >> there is no pressure. this is a scam. >> the credible threat of impeachment did drive nixon from office. but the threat was based on nixon himself, his words, his tapes, his evidence that did in his presidency. on this sunday night, three weeks into this ukraine crisis, if you can believe it, it is also president trump's words

that have moved congress to the brink of impeachment. never before has a president confessed in public to a plot to press a foreign government to help him win re-election. >> what exactly did you talk to the ukrainian president about biden? >> well, i would think that if they were honest about it, they would start a major investigation into biden. >> demanding a major investigation to take out a rival is exactly the kind of thing that can land a u.s. official in jail. and that's another way trump's current crisis tracks the actions that did push nixon ultimately out of office. it was actions that he took to help his re-election that undid him, a break-in of course at the dnc's offices at the watergate complex and then a cover-up about it. and that made ultimately for a damning and simple case, abusing power to get re-elected and abusing power to cover it up. nixon's team was convicted of crimes aimed at keeping him in the white house and crimes aimed at covering up those crimes.

why do we hear so much about the cover-up being worse than the crime? because the cover-up creates evidence of the original crime. plus, it adds a new one. remember, when nixon finally revealed that ♪ ♪ing gun tape, it wasn't some kind of an original confession of the break-in. it was evidence of nixon abusing power to try to stop the fbi from investigating the break-in, trying to get them under control. >> now, on the investigation, you know, the democratic break-in thing, we're back to the -- in the, the problem. you call them in. good. they should call the fbi in and say that we wish for the country, don't go any further into the case, period. that's the way to put it. >> pressing the fbi to be loyal to the president's agenda over the obligations of law enforcement, interfering in the election. that's what pushed nixon to

resign, impeachment and conviction on that evidence apparently seemed likely, a contrast to the house impeachment of president clinton. republicans insisted at the time they had evidence of a cover-up. unlike nixon, the underlying problem was that clinton argued however deeply he betrayed his oaths to family or god, he said there wasn't evidence of a public betrayal of his office. >> now this matter is between me, the two people i love most, my wife and our daughter, and our god. nothing is more important to me personally, but it is private. and i intend to reclaim my family life for my family. it's nobody's business but ours. >> many condemned clinton's actions including some prominent democrats at the time. and many argue that those kind of actions should be relevant to whether an official is promoted or confirmed or re-elected but that the constitution's high bar

for removing a president for abuse of office is something else. and the senate vote on that wasn't close. ten republicans crossed the aisle to vote not guilty for clin son on the article of impeachment about perjury regarding his conduct. that tally is a reminder that trump does face different dynamics now. few would argue that using military aid to pressure a foreign leader to investigate your rival is somehow out-of-bounds or personal. many argue it is textbook violations of the office of the presidency and it's something that the founders warned about. remember, james madison talked explicitly about a president that might betray his trust to foreign powers being impeached. while another founder said impeachment would be necessary to respond to danger to see the mag strait in foreign pay. we turn now to two expert panelists. a presidential his ttorianhisto.

thank you both for kicking off our special. michael, what do you see as history's lesson here? >> here history's lesson is that the founders came up with the idea of impeachment because if you look at the constitution, ari, it is very vague about what a president should do and how a president should behave. much later, as you know, gerald ford said that grounds for impeachment are anything that a majority of the house wants it to be. he was being a little bit cavalier, but he wasn't entirely wrong. >> eleanor? >> well, the obstruction of justice article that was filed against both president nixon and president clinton, there were nine counts in the nixon article and there were seven counts in the clinton article. robert mueller's report listed ten counts of obstruction of justice, and that's even before we got to ukraine. so i think if there is any question whether impeachment is

a legitimate tool to hold this president accountable, you have to look at history and you have to come away and say, yes. one of the big differences between then and now is that both nixon and clinton had already been re-elected. this president is going into his re-election. and if the predictions are that the senate fails to convict, he would go in to his re-election campaign as likely an impeached president. now, how are republicans maybe sop republicans, not his base, and independents, they really want to reinstall a president that's been impeached? it is a terrible black mark on your legacy. bill clinton was a successful president but the first paragraph of his obituary will be that he was impeached. he paid a big price and the country paid a big price. this is something that the president with all his chest beating, bring it on, he is doing everything now to avoid

this and run away from it and run out the clock. and congress is just as determined to hold him accountable. so we have a -- you know, whatever is better than shakespearean, that's what this is. trumpian, maybe that will be a new term of art. >> but the shakespearean part would be that history is always animated by how people act, what moves them, what consumes them, powerful people making mistakes and trying to hold on to power. what do you think is the significance in the nixon example that it was designed for his re-election and the trump example as admitted by the president is a similar motivation. >> in nixon's case, that nixon did all this and he didn't really have to. you know, that's the shakespearean part, ari because in june of 1972 nixon was doing this because he was worried that he might be defeated by, of all people, george mcgovern, who was the democratic obvious to be the

democratic nominee very shortly and was running way behind. so, you know, nixon was running very scared in an election campaign which by then he didn't really need to. >> do you see parallels there in the lengths that the president admits to have gone along with ru rudy giuliani, who has been in the news to get dirt on mr. biden who may or may not be the nominee? >> absolutely. if biden turns out not to be the nominee or not a formidable front runner, there would be that parallel, for sure. >> and in that parallel and obviously no one in this panel or any of our panels tonight is p prejudging what will happen, but i do wonder michael and then eleanor about the significance of what we always call tapes, an echo that the president and his attract ters have played with. threatens there may be tapes and there weren't. yet, michael, unlike the nixon example, some of the most scandalous and concerning

material is what has been said on tape in public. take a look. >> it is largely the fact that we don't want our people, like vice president biden and his son, creating the corruption already in the ukraine. >> very important. i want other countries to put up money. i think it is unfair that we put up the money, that people called me and said let it go and i let it go. >> what exactly did you hope he would do after your phone call? >> well, i would think that if they were honest about it, they would start a major investigation into the bidens. >> michael, as our in-house historian, where does that rate on the scale of 0 to smoking gun? >> well, it raises the question that in nixon had sate in public let's say in june of 1972, i think this break-in in the watergate headquarters should not be investigated because it might get involved in some area

of national security, it raises the question what, in retro spect, maybe that is something that nixon would have been benefitted by. >> eleanor? >> one is the secret server and whatever that may hold of the transcripts of phone calls. and then the second one is the charges of the president has spoken to other leaders and that there is still more out there to be found. and we see it in the public polling, that the number of people who think this president should be impeached and removed from office is going in one direction. i don't see that turning around and going the other way. >> but it appears to be a pattern. >> yeah, exactly. but a lot has to do with if the senate fails to convict, how this president plays it. and will the public believe that he was exonerated and this was a witch hunt? or will he be taking himself and

the republican party to one of the biggest landslides that could not only destroy his re-election but also the republican party, which really doesn't seem to have anything that it really stands for besides just dropping off this president. so i don't know what the outcome is. i think there is political risk for both parties. but i think the democrats have to go forward with this. they have begun the process. i think nancy pelosi is reluctant to hold that house vote because she doesn't -- it's not bipartisan yet. if the polls continue that trend, there will be some defections. that's when you have the full house vote. and that's why the president is pushing to have it now. >> and a very big difference from the nixon time was that nixon was not all that popular with the republican party in the senate, which was a minority and didn't like him very much and had liberals in it and

conservatives and different from the situation we have with donald trump right now which according to the polls he's popular within his own party. >> anyone watching this now would see several minutes into our special, we have discussed a lot of material, both historical and current, that is bad for the president, that looks bad for the office of the presidency and suggests problems here on this road to impeachment. michael, i want to ask you now about something that tends to go to the benefit of presidents, whoever they may be and perhaps even this controversial president. and that is when we look at history, at the end of the day when the senate is pressed into a vote, there seems to be something in an undertone beyond party where senators are very resistant to cast that final vote to remove the sitting president. it's never happened. the acrimony, things for at a ten, but it didn't ultimately go down that way. in the clinton example, very

different facts, but the notion that every single republican would throw the back at him wouldn't hold let alone get to 67. could you educate us on that history, that there is something else even in part son times where it seems like the senate, which is a very, very traditional body, doesn't even love the idea of going over that line? >> sure. and i'm probably the only human being that would say this, ari, but it really goes back to 1868. >> preach. >> that was the andrew johnson impeachment and conviction was foiled by the vote of one kansas senator who could not bring himself to convict because he thought that if a president was convicted and thrown out of office, then from that moment forward the presidency would be a very weak office. it would be sort of like in england that congress could just vote no confidence every time they didn't like something a president did. >> you're saying one vote shy and your view of the history is that his concern was not

defending this particular po politici politician, but something larger. >> that's what he said. what you have to hope always in history is if there is ever a senate trial and it always has to be done with a sense of great gravity and hesitation that the senators will, you know, take their responsibility in a trial very seriously rather than just say we'll vote for our guy. >> you know, democrats were relieved not to have to cast that vote to impeach richard nixon and senator bennett johnson sent the petition with 40,000 names on it supporting nixon. he was not eager to take that vote against nixon. the other thing i failed to mention earlier is the president's tax returns. the rosetta stone we have been after for years, and they're likely to surface over the next weeks and months. >> fascinating. history has so much to offer and so do both of you. i appreciate you being part of

our sunday night special. eleanor, michael. we'll call you o.g. as our in-house historian. i appreciate both of you. thank you so much. >> thank you. we have a lot more ahead, including other special guests and an exclusive interview with a federal judge. we have it as part of this special, as well as a senator who actually cast one of these votes. then we will look at how the house might write these exact articles of impeachment. and we will preview what a trial of a president in this case a trial of donald trump could look like in the senate, drawing on the president and what lawmakers are saying now in this wild news environment. you are watching an msnbc special. trump and ukraine impeachment crisis. granted. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

hendless shrimp even hotter?s you bring back nashville hot! oh yeah - it's back. crispy shrimp... ...tossed in a spicy rub... ...and drizzled with sweet amber honey. more shrimp more ways. endless shrimp's just fifteen ninety nine. hurry in. you have the support of a probiotic and the gastroenterologists who developed it. align helps to soothe your occasional digestive upsets, 24/7 with a strain of bacteria you can't get anywhere else. you could say align puts the pro in probiotic. so, where you go, the pro goes. go with align, the pros in digestive health. and try align gummies, with prebiotics and probiotics to help support digestive health.

going back to the doctor just for a shot. with neulasta onpro... ...patients get their day back... ...to be with... ... family... ...or just to sleep in. strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study... ...neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17%... ...to 1%... ...a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver... ...neulasta the day after chemo... ...and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome... ...have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing...

... or allergic reactions to your doctor right away in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes... ...fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect... is bone and muscle ache. ask your doctor... ...about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card. pain happens. saturdays happen. aleve it. aleve is proven better on pain than tylenol. when pain happens, aleve it. all day strong. i need all the breaks i can get. line? liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. that's a lot of words. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

we turn to one of the most significant questions facing this congress, how does the house decide on impeachment charges? speaker pelosi says you jump right in. >> i'm announcing the house of representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. i'm directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry. the president must be held accountable. no one is above the law. >> trump and his allies have been arguing for something different. they say there should be an official house floor vote to trigger the formal impeachment probe. now, that is what the house did to begin the nixon and clinton impeachment, so it has happened before. the constitution does not require anything like that. the house intelligence committee is leading the probe into

whistleblower accusations against donald trump. pelosi has said the judiciary committee would be responsible for writing any articles of impeachment. that's what happened in 1974. >> the program normally seen at this time will not be shown so that we may bring you the following nbc news special report. impeachment: the committee votes. >> last night the house judiciary committee approved and article of impeachment against the president of the united states. the charge was obstruction of justice. >> the judiciary committee there had two months of impeachment hearings on richard nixon. you hear that discussion about the charge of obstruction of justice. when they voted it was two months later and every democrat and six republicans on the committee voted yes. >> if we are to be faithful to our goals to support the constitution, we must sign this. >> i cannot in good conscious

turn away from the evidence of evil that is to me so clear and compelling. >> he repeatedly and knowingly deceived the american people who trusted him and wanted to trust him. >> my faith in the constitution is whole. it is complete. it is total. and i am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the subversion, the destruction of the constitution. >> as the saying goes, this is what democracy looks like. a judiciary committee passed three articles of impeachment against nixon. one on obstruction, a broader abuse of power and the third interestingly when you think about today on defiance of congressional subpoenas. here is something else that macon tras wimay contrast today. that president resigned.

now as another judiciary committee considering impeaching a president, no surprise, nixon on their minds. >> the day richard nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day that he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from congress. >> that's republican lindsey graham using the nixon precedent about congress alone to find congress alone as a reason to have articles of impeachment. well, things do change. mr. graham is one of donald trump's chief defenders. he knows, he's in congress still, there is major defiance of congressional subpoenas. the clinton impeachment hearings lasted roughly two months. the judiciary committee also heard, and this would be in the trump example, you would imagine the president's lawyers stepping forward. at the time it was clinton's lawyer who stepped forward. >> by the close of tomorrow, all the world will see one simple and undeniable fact. whatever there is in the record that shows that what the president did was wrong and

blameworthy, there is nothing in the record in either the law or the facts that would justify his impeachment and removal from office. >> that was part of the fair process, letting the president's lawyer state that view. but the committee at the time led by republicans did not agree. they approved impeachment articles within days, which led to another historic vote in the full house of representatives. >> william jefferson clinton is now the first elected president to be impeached by the house. the second president in all of history. he says he will stay on the job while his fate is already lying before the u.s. senate. >> these are heavy decisions. in a moment i'm joined by two experts if what comes next hits this white house. that's when we come back. ck you ever wish you weren't a motaur? sure. sometimes i wish i had legs like you. yeah, like a regular person. no. still half bike/half man, just the opposite.

oh, so the legs on the bottom and motorcycle on the top? yeah. yeah, i could see that. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. (honk!) i hear you sister. that's why i'm partnering with cigna to remind you to go in for your annual check-up, and be open with your doctor about anything you feel - physically and emotionally. but now cigna has a plan that can help everyone see stress differently. just find a period of time to unwind. a location to de-stress. an activity to enjoy. or the name of someone to talk to. to create a plan that works for you, visit cigna.com/mystressplan. cigna. together, all the way.

visit cigna.com/mystressplan. ♪ applebee's new pasta and grill combos. choose from up to 12 combinations starting at $9.99.

there areand the best.s... which egg tastes more farm-fresh and delicious? only eggland's best. with more vitamins d and e and 25% less saturated fat? only eggland's best. better taste, better nutrition, better eggs. [phone ringing] how are we doing? fabulous. ♪ i wonder how the firm's doing without its fearless leader. ♪ you sure you want to leave that all behind? yeah. stay restless, with the icon that does the same. the new rx crafted by lexus. lease the 2020 rx 350 all wheel drive for $439/month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.

democrats scouring history to plan the next move on any potential impeachment of donald trump. i have two special experts on this who have been covering

every expect of these investigations from the criminal to the congressional at the daily beast and the executive director of the center for constitutional rights. you look at this in history, how strong is the democrats case now based on everything we have just heard in our special tonight? >> oh, i think the democrats' case is quite strong for a number of reasons. the first one that was eluded to earlier is that congress has a solemn obligation here. on the one hand, they can't lower the bar for impeachment offenses so that the congress can just impeach anybody. and then it becomes a parliamentary system. but on the other hand, congress also has to say are we going to allow this behavior to become the norm for future presidents. i think they're in that latter category. >> we have had democrats on this channel and across the board people have heard other things that some congressional democrats think are impeachable.

the house declared the president's comments racist recently. before that there was a program over charlottesville, questions around russia. do you see this as one among many, but is this somehow worse? >> well, as we know constitutionally the constitution gives us no road map on what constitutes impeachable offense. but what we do know is that there are some offenses that are criminal but may not be impeachable and some that are impeachable but may not be criminal. and, so, what i think is important here is that trump's behavior, his statements, how he comports and conducts himself, particularly with respect to the american democratic experiment becomes important. so, yes, it is significant when a president lies. and it is significant if he declares a segment of the population as subhuman or less worthy of constitutional consideration. of course it's important. they may not be the most strong arguments. i think the one the democrats

are focussed on now is quite strong. >> do you think this is worse than that? >> i think there is a -- we are in a sea of craziness, and it is all bad. >> i thought i detected you not quite answering that question, counselor. >> it is all crazy. >> i see that's where you are. >> and problematic. >> betsy, you have covered so much of this. i wonder your view of that both reporting what you are hearing from your sources as well as any wider analysis because we do know speaker pelosi thinks this is somehow worse. >> this particular story and part of the reason that the ukraine revelations had an impact on congressional democrats that was different even from the way the mueller report impacted them is that it was very simple to understand. the mueller report was hundreds of pages long, involved complex and lengthy legal arguments and in the story sprawled in a way that was challenging, especially for some of these democrats who recently won districts that used to be controlled by republicans.

it was challenging for them to explain to their constituents why they thought it made sense. the ukraine story is really simp simple. and all the facts are the facts that are currently available to democrats. they find it compelling. there is not a lot of factual debate. everybody agrees the whistleblower document is authentic. they all agree it is authentic. everyone agrees that the memo documents the president's conversation with the president of ukraine is an authentic memo and everyone agrees that it is a real document and that it says what the white house claims it to say. democrats believe that that's enough to justify moving forward. this also speaks to part of the reason why they don't want to move forward with an impeachment inquiry vote. i had a conversation earlier today with a source who is really plugged in in these conversations who said part of this is because congressional democrats in these trump districts, districts that voted for trump in 16 and the

democrats flipped in 2018 don't want to feel like they're voting for a black box. they don't want to go home and tell their constituents they voted to open pandora's box or to raise questions but rather they want to be able to say they voted based on the facts that were available. >> that's striking and you are speaking to what we were covering earlier in the special about whether you have that full floor vote to kick this thing off or as speaker pelosi says we're already there. with the point you make about clarity, take a look also at the speaker here. >> this is about the constitution of the united states and we have many other, shall we say, candidates from impeachable offense in terms of the constitution. but this one is the most understandable by the public. >> betsy? >> that's right. what pelosi is saying and what democrats will say privately is ultimately this was a political decision. the nightmare scenario for democrats is that they move forward with impeachment but

that they get whiplash and republicans end up being able to capitalize on the proceedings that go forward. is that likely? it is impossible to tell. most democrats think it's not likely. however, they don't have a 100% guarantee that this is going to end the way they want it to. at the same time, within the trump campaign, trump campaign officials will quietly say that they're enjoying this impeachment process for one reason, and that is fund-raising. they have seen a dramatic spike in small dollar donations coming in because the hard core cohort of trump space is activated and enthusiastic about supporting him through this. so the politics of this are perhaps not as simple as they might appear to be on their face. >> or they may shift over time depending on how it looks. >> no question. >> vince, what is the best evidence for the house democrats if they hold the floor vote and they are trying to prove to the country, hey, this is what made it different. >> they have a number of things

we know about and some things that will come later. so the transcripts or the notes of the phone call, it's fantastic evidence. the whistleblower report and the connected testimony is great evidence. there are going to be things that will be coming up like the server. and whether we know what's on the server or not is going to be really key in this situation because the white house has already signalled they are going to not cooperate with the investigation. i have to imagine that means exerting something like executive privilege for almost everything. >> now, are you excited about the server because, like me, you are a huge evidence nerd or because you think it will bring truth? >> you know, it probably -- i'm more excited about the server for what it represents than what it is. i don't know if that makes me a nerd or not. >> i think it's inner nerdy, bu does it represent? >> this is the equivalent of saying, by the way, we have been taping all of these oval office

conversations. and what is on that server, just like what was on those tapes become key. and i think the administration's willingness to turn it over and be transparent about it will have as much to do with how the nation feels about impeachable offenses as almost anything else. >> it really dove tails with what michael was reminding us earlier in the hour, which is how these things come out and what is incriminating is so crucial. that's even more true where a lot of things can get parsed and confused. but if the whole country focuses, what do they learn about what's on that server? what do they learn about the abuse or potential abuse of government power. vince, thank you. and thank you as always. good to see you both. >> thanks. >> appreciate it. up next, something you don't usually see in any of these debates because most of these judges don't do it. but a retired federal appeals court judge joins me in our special to discuss the constitutional and legal issues when you put a president on trial. and we're also joined by a

former u.s. senator who has actually voted on this when we come back.

great weather, great friends. you just saved a bunch of money by switching your boat insurance to geico. it was easy. folks, can it get any better than this? is that what i think it is? that is an armada of tiny sushi boats. awesome! i forgot to pack lunch. you had one job... chopsticks wasabi and soy! comin' in a little hot. it only gets better when you switch and save with geico.

ithere's my career...'s more to me than hiv. it only gets better my cause... and creating my dream home. i'm a work in progress. so much goes into who i am. hiv medicine is one part of it. prescription dovato is for adults who are starting hiv-1 treatment and who aren't resistant to either of the medicines dolutegravir or lamivudine. dovato has 2 medicines in 1 pill to help you reach and then stay undetectable. so your hiv can be controlled with fewer medicines

while taking dovato. you can take dovato anytime of day with food or without. don't take dovato if you're allergic to any of its ingredients or if you take dofetilide. if you have hepatitis b, it can change during treatment with dovato and become harder to treat. your hepatitis b may get worse or become life-threatening if you stop taking dovato. so do not stop dovato without talking to your doctor. serious side effects can occur, including allergic reactions, liver problems, and liver failure. life-threatening side effects include lactic acid buildup and severe liver problems. if you have a rash and other symptoms of an allergic reaction, stop taking dovato and get medical help right away. tell your doctor if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis b or c. don't use dovato if you plan to become pregnant or during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy since one of its ingredients may harm your unborn baby. your doctor should do a pregnancy test before starting dovato. use effective birth control while taking dovato. the most common side effects are headache, diarrhea, nausea, trouble sleeping, and tiredness. so much goes into who i am and hope to be.

ask your doctor if starting hiv treatment with dovato is right for you. welcome back to our special. now we turn to the action in congress. if the house does impeach president trump tharks is of course only the beginning of this process, then the senate holds a trial. and the big question everyone in the nation would wonder then is could you really get a conviction? the constitution requires a very high two-thirds majority vote to get conviction. translation, today that would be 67 senators voting yes. so if every single democrat and independent voted yes, they would still need to swing 20 republicans to get a conviction of donald trump. the senate has actually held 19 different types of impeachment trialing in history. those are mostly for tenured

judges. 73% of the judges who were impeached went on to be removed from office. numbers are different, though, when you look at politicians. only one out of four politicians removed through the process, a senator in the 1790s who was technically expelled in a complicated decision. the senate has never of course, never convicted a sitting president. the two were impeached. did not ever reach that super majority, meaning a 0 percent conviction rate in those two instances. now that's the history. majority leader mcconnell says the senate would have to take up impeachment and hold a trial. he has hinted that trial could be any length which he also stressed potential speed ahead of the clinton trial. >> i think we could be through with this if the majority leader said from three days to three weeks. it is no, ma't a complicated ca. i believe it can end very, very quickly. the one thing both the opponents

of president clinton and his friends agree with is we would like to have it offer quickly. >> speed as a goal there. well, it wasn't three days. it was just over a month for clinton. about halfway through there was a vote to also dismiss those charges. >> a surprise twist today that could bring a quick end to a senate trial that has paralyzed congress. the influential unpredictable senior democrat says the trial should end, that the senate will never have the votes to convict the president. >> that was a major move. in a few days there was a vote on the motion to dismiss and it failed. >> on this vote the yeahs are 44. the nahs are 56. the motion is not agreed to. >> that senate case was managed or prosecuted by 13 house members that included lindsey graham. he argued the president does not have to commit a formal statutory crime to merit it

being kicked out of office. >> you don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitution republican. if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out-of-bounds in your role, impeachment is about cleansing the office. impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office. >> i could tell you in both parties, we know from our reporting today's senators looking back to see the less sons and mistakes, to see the preceden precedence, to see what's expected of them. that's not all. the people in our system of government that look back for a living who interpret precedence, well, they're doing it too, including, i can bet you, chief justice john roberts because he will preside over any senate trial of trump, if there is a trial, just like his predecessor

willi william did. >> for your notice for the purpose of joining with you for the trial of the president of the united states. and i am now ready to take the oath. >> i'm joined now by judge tim lewis, appointed to the federal bench by george h.w. bush and former senator from north dak a dakota. he voted not guilty on both counts at the clinton impeachment trial. very special and rare to have a federal appeals judge and a senator here together in this discussion. thanks to both of you. >> thank you. >> thank you, ari. happy to be here. >> appreciate it. judge, let's begin with you. what would define a fair trial of a president in the senate? >> that's a good question. there have been so few that we really -- we really kind of have to look at history and look

forward, as you mentioned earlier, to the legacy that might be left to determine how best to perform i think as both senators and as the chief justice presiding. i think that primarily we are looking for a decorum that rises above partisan politics to the extent possible in order to ensure that the american people get what they deserve, which is a fair look at whatever the charges are that are brought by the congress in the form of an impeachment might be. we don't know what those are at this point. i think that in addition the chief justice is going to have to adjust to a different environment. i'm not sure he's exactly relishing presiding at an impeachment trial. as you know, the supreme court has no cameras. it's a very different culture in a different environment. and, so, his presence and how he conducts business is going to

also lend some definition to fairness and how things unfold. >> let me ask you about that as a fellow judge, do you think that could become one of the most important things chief justice john roberts ever does? >> well, as you know, the supreme court takes up the seminoll issues in cases that we have to address as a society. so i'm not sure that i would go quite that far. but it certainly is a solemn responsibility and it's, as i said, it's in a forum with which he does not have direct familiarity. so i think that learning about the rules of the senate, the rules of -- there are specific rules governing the senate impeachment process, relying for some insight and advice and really letting the senators take center stage as opposed to the chief justice to do what they must do hoping that they will

rise to the occasion. the whole world is watching. the whole country is watching. and it's only charges against the president of the united states that could very well result in his removal. >> let me bring in the senator on that point. senator, what everyone's views of the case which by that time -- by the time they reach the senator the clinton scandals had been well debated in american life. did you, did your colleagues, did you see anyone walk out to the senator floor as the trial commenced and felt the gravity. we showed some of the clips where they said, this is a big one. >> i think everybody understood this is a sober moment. there is no joy in a united states senate that convenes as a trial for prosecution of impeachment resolution. it is a tough situation. let me just tell you that as we began, there is not much of a template for how we provide.

all 100 of us met in the old senate chambers and had an off the record discussion of how do we do this? some, for example, wanted to call witnesses into the chamber of the senate, bring monica bring monica lewinsky in, some of them said, so she can be a witness. well, the fact is that was discarded, and ultimately we got videotapes and they were able to have videotapes. as a trial, and we had to be sworn in separately as jurors, we had to sign an oath. as you saw on the video, the chief justice was there in his black robe with his gold stripes on the arms. and we started. and it was very difficult. i mean, it went for -- it started on january 7th, 20 years ago, and completed i think on february 12th, 20 years ago. >> did that private room meeting you're referencing, did it have, by the end, a consensus? >> it did. and interestingly enough, the

consensus was reached, as i recall, principally by ted kennedy and phil graham. very different people with very different political perspectives. and so we came out of that whole senate chamber with an understanding of how we should proceed. and not everyone -- it was a very sober time because we understood the gravity of it. >> it's hard to imagine in this pitched era, when basic facts underlying evidence, u.s. senator dorgan, we have video from the day of the' quittal, take a look. >> every member of the senate feels strongly about the president's conduct is but i think that the constitution worked today.

the united states senate decided not to nullify the last election in this country as a result of the charges brought against this president. >> the issues may be very different but eagle-eyed viewers will note your reference to not nullifying the past election is what the president's lawyers have said this week about this effort. >> but especially not nullifying elections in personal behavior. that was about personal behavior, abhorrent as it was. but that's vastly different than behavior in which a president is asking a foreign government to the intervene and involve themselves in an election in this country. that is criminal. there's a lot of evidence that really bad things have been happening and have happened. and i think this senate will have to deal with those questions. and they are not questions about personal behavior. >> judge lewis, a question i have for you, i've been waiting

to ask all week since i had the opportunity to interview the president's lawyer, jay sekulow. he's taken the position it would be unfair as a matter of due process to try to convict a president on anonymous testimony, people who can't be confronted. most people know the rules are different, there's no constitutional requirement what was merits due process. what do you think about the substance of that argument? do you think there's fairness there? would it concern you to remove any president if it was primarily on anonymous testimony? >> look. the constitution vests the authority to remove a president exclusively in the united states senate. and other than that, it does not spell out any specific guarantees of due process or some amorphous notion of fairness, although we do hope that it is a fair process and procedure. it's a political process by nature. that argument does not work. and it will not work. no. the country really deserves a

full airing of all of the charges that may be brought, whatever they might be, wherever they might lead. and we have reposed in our representatives the solemn responsibility to rise above politics to the extent possible and to do what they must do, what they've taken an oath to, do uphold the constitution. you had an earlier clip in which you played that segment from the water date hearings when barbara jordan spoke. and her words give me chills every time i hear them. my faith in the constitution is complete. my faith in the constitution is complete too, but it is only as good and it will only rise to the level that we hope and expect to the extent that our representatives are able to do their job and to assume their oaths. and so no, it's not an argument that is recognized in the constitution. as you know, there are no rules of criminal procedure, civil

procedure. this is a very unique proceeding. when the senate is convened for this proceeding, it is convened as a court. it is a court of impeachment. and so they will determine what the rules are and how things unfold. >> clarity, expertise, wisdom. i can't say we get that all day, every day from washington, but we've certainly got it from both of you. thanks to both of you. really appreciate it. when we come back, one more fact you may want to know on impeachment. first, richard engel has this preview of his special coming next hour. we went to ukraine to follow the trail. follow what rudy guiliani was doing there. who he was meeting with, what their motivations were. and it turns out this was a not that organized campaign that brought in government officials, private individuals, all with the goal of digging up dirt on the bidens. >> thank you, richard.

richard engel's "trump and ukraine: fact and fiction" comes up after this hour. i have moderate to severe pnow, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer, yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin ♪ yeah that's all me. ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin ♪ that's my new plan. ♪ nothing is everything. keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. of those, nearly 9 out of 10 sustained it through 1 year. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ i see nothing in a different way ♪ ♪ and it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs,

or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ask your dermatologist about skyrizi. ♪ introducing new vicks vapopatch easy to wear with soothing vicks vapors for her, for you, for the whole family. new vicks vapopatch. breathe easy. the doctor's office might mejust for a shot.o but why go back there when you can stay home with neulasta® onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta® reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1% a 94% decrease. neulasta® onpro is designed to deliver neulasta® the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta® is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta® if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim).

an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. if you'd rather be home ask your doctor about neulasta® onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card. (burke) at fso we know how to we'vcover almost anything.ng, (bert) even an accident brought to you by the number one! (count) i know i left it in here somewhere...ah ha! my monocle. ah, that's one. one lens! ah, ah, ah! [thunder crashing] oo! my mower! hm, well thatone chore i can cross off my list! ah, ah, ah! (burke) seen it, covered it. at farmers insurance, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. (bert) mmm. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

i want to thank you for watching our msnbc special. find me weeknights 6:00 p.m. eastern on "the beat." next a special presentation of richard engel's "trump and ukraine: fact and fiction." it started a as a 30-minute phone call between two presidents. it erupted into a full-scale scandal that now threatens to bring down donald trump. >> today i'm announcing the house of representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. >> our president sacrificed our national security and our constitution for his personal political benefit. >> they've been trying to impeach me from the day i got elected. and you know what? they