7:00 to 9:00 p.m. eastern. up next, ari hosts a special hour of trump and ukraine: impeachment crisis. where does it stand now and where it is going next. for now, good night from new york. good evening to you this sunday. welcome to our special msnbc series, trump and ukraine: the impeachment crisis. tonight we have for you a new special report on what are clearly these extraordinary developments in the impeachment probe, including the parade of witnesses with damning testimony. now key aids admitting on live national tv to the bribery at the center of the ukraine plot. we have special experts joining us with experience in the justice department running trials on the federal bench and in the u.s. senate, the only place that holds trials for a sitting president. also tonight we have a special look at when a president was

impeached for bringing, quote, disgrace to the office. i'm excited to tell you about that history. but how does congress assemble evidence against the president? >> impeachment, i never thought i'd see or hear that word with regard to me. >> the president is not above the law. >> it is a serious meltdown on the part of the president. >> we do that all the time. >> this is not a game for us. this is deadly serious. we do it all the time. well, tonight donald trump is closer to impeachment than ever before, remarkable considering that right now this weekend we're actually less than a month out from when house democrats formally announced the impeachment probe. what began as a single whistleblower has exploded into

a full investigation with dozens of hours of under oath testimony from ambassadors and diplomats and a former top aid to donald trump himself. all of it revealing multiple accounts corroborating this controversial and potentially illegal shadow foreign policy run by, yes, rudy giuliani, focussed on helping donald trump smear his political opponents and potentially business build profits for mr. giuliani. the investigation, i can tell you, it's been not only moving fast but also getting results. it's almost as if the two years of the mueller probe have been condensed on an investigative time line here in a few weeks. while mueller did outline what he called substantial evidence of donald trump's obstruction of justice, this is a totally separate inquiry. and unlike the impeachment probes of, say, nixon or clinton, congress there had a lot of help. here it is not. they say they're finding the facts themselves.

>> there is no special counsel investigation going on of the president's conduct vis-a-vis ukraine, none. congress has to do it. and the reason there is none is because bill barr's justice department when a referral was made to the justice department said there is nothing to see here. it has forced the congress to do the initial investigative work that normally a special counsel would do. >> and that investigative work is obviously happening. i want to bring in our panel, former federal rjudge, former u.s. senator and former federal prosecutor who served at the sdny, the same unit that rudy giuliani once ran and where he is now facing investigation. good evening to each of you. >> good evening. >> we could start anywhere. i just explained why each of you has such special expertise. senator, i go to you first having actually adjudicated this. what do you see is important about the evidence that congress has been gathering here in just

these few weeks and how will the senate look at it if they get this case? >> i can't predict what my republican friends will do in the senate, but i only hope they listen to the evidence. this is very different than the impeachment trial i sat in on, which had to do with lying about, you know, indiscretions, sexual indiscretion. and many people thought that was totally wrong, including me, that that whole thing happened. but it didn't rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. >> you're saying -- >> we're talking about -- >> you're saying your criticism of the underlying conduct was separate from your view as a senate as to whether it was a high crime. >> exactly. it is not what i think was meant by the founders. i think what they were talking about is someone like donald trump who seizes power and doesn't understand the balance of power, the separation of

power. and in this case, he has really self-impeached as has been said before. it's really different. i think they could come back with four articles here, very, very different. and i would say that they would be obstruction of justice. i think mueller laid that out. i would see obstruction of congress where they stopped funds going to ukraine for some nefarious political purpose. campaign law violations. i mean, it goes on and on. the emoluments clause just recently we heard the president is proudly, proudly bringing the whole world of the g-7 to where? doral country club? there is no other place in the country we could do than his country club where he's going to make a ton of money? that's a violation of the emoluments clause. the house may stick to one or

two articles, but it's quite different than the trial i sat through. >> very interesting to hear you lay that out and also your very well-informed thoughts about what the articles could be. as a prosecutor, all the people the house has been gathering. congress schiff saying and we'll put this up here, you have the whistleblowers. you have the ambassador of ukraine, bill taylor, you have fiona hill, george kent, john bolton who has been quoted for his rhetoric and criticism and the people who have yet to seek mike pompeo and giuliani. when you look at all that together, how hard is it for the house to decide what to prioritize without, as mr. schiff says, a special counsel adjoining this, which is different from those other presidents? >> well, the central question of the entire inquiry here is, was the president abusing the office of the presidency when he made these inquiries to ukraine?

was he trying to solicit help from a foreign country in our elections? we learned about all this from that whistleblower initially. every witness has just corroborated what that whistleblower has said. and these are not political people. these are career diplomats, public servants who don't come to this with any sort of political agenda, who have some voluntarily and testified and almost to a word added things to what that whistleblower said. these are exactly what whistleblowers want. >> so you don't think they need that much more time. >> these are each, you know, little pieces of a puzzle. we don't know everything they have said. they have been in closed sessions, so we haven't seen the full report of their testimony. i can't say when enough is enough without having the benefit of seeing everything they have said. what i do think you have is a lot of building blocks here putting the democrats in a strong position to put their best case forward to the senate.

>> you mentioned the closed session, which is an interesting part of this. judge, i want you to say with me as we get deeper into that, which is that notable aspect of how little of this impeachment so far we've seen. take a look. >> george kent testified about the three amigos meeting in his deposition. >> in a closed door hearing. >> she is supposed to be appearing any minute for a closed door deposition. >> closed door, but some republicans said that's a problem. they want everything public immediately. chairman schiff will release most depositions as well as holding opening hearing, but for this opening round he's explaining why they're keeping it out of the public eye. >> there is a profound investigative not only interest but need to make sure that one witness does not have an opportunity to read another witness' testimony and either hide the truth or color the truth. >> i'm sure the white house would love nothing more than to be able to get their stories straight by hearing what these

witnesses have to say. >> a strategy laid out to avoid people participating in a coordinated cover-up. sometimes a lot of these committees are, of course, not as effective. remember the house benghazi committee? boy, it was a lot of public hearings, but nobody thinking even they don't claim they got a lot done when it came to changing government policy. the quiet approach has other precedence. in american history, the only impeachment process that led to a president's ousting, we all know, was nixon. the house judiciary committee worked on the articles of impeachment, but those hearings were closed for months. >> we bring you the following nbc news special report. the house judiciary committee hearings on impeachment begin today. >> and by 31-6, the committee voted that the first session be closed. >> and the chair will now announce that the committee will go into recess until the television cameras and equipment

that is not allowed -- >> with the impeachment about to close, it appears there will be no television coverage of any of the proceeding. >> get the cameras out of here, whatever those of us who work with cameras think about it, the judiciary committee did ultimately bring tv cameras back in to cover the final days of the debate, but it wasn't until the supreme court had forced nixon's hand turning over the watergate tapes and after key republicans on the committee decided and said they were going to push forward that you had this action. the closed door private hearings are clearly one effective way to do an impeachment probe. judge, i want to bring you in on that and ask you about the precedent and what you think is effective. >> well, i mean, it is making it look more like a grand jury, which is sort of what the house process is, you know. within a grand jury is not just a question of keeping each witness from copying the other witness' testimony. we've seen enough hearings that

have become political grand standing to understand that this may well be, we hope, a workman-like way of addressing this. in addition, you are trenching on national security issues. i know that the republicans have criticized this process, but under the constitution, frankly, the house makes its own rules. and it's anticipated that when there are articles of impeachment that come out of the committee, then everything will become public. but i actually this this is an impressive way to proceed, so you don't have people grand standing, as we have seen. >> we have seen some of that. i think viewers remember some hearings. >> i think that there is no doubt of that. the july 25th call really on its

own suggests that the soliciting of a foreign government to help in an election. there is no question about that. and then in addition there is certainly circumstantial evidence and even in the four corners of that call to suggest a quid pro quo. the president's comments about a quid pro quo really reminded me of the trials i sat in where drug dealers believed if he didn't say crack on the phone he couldn't be prosecuted. there is what the president said. there is the reference to the election and the, i have a favor, though, a favor from the president of ukraine, comma, though, and then there is circumstantial evidence. he didn't have to say, do this or i'm going to break your arm. what is also ironic here is that i think rudy giuliani who prosecuted many people in the southern district of new york for like conduct understands that these kinds of things are rarely explicit. i surely think there is enough. >> it strikes me to hear you say that as a federal judge. you brought up crack.

i wonder whether there is something here about people being too close to the alleged infraction to realize how bad it is. you said, oh, maybe someone who deals crack thinks they could avoid the keyword and be okay. judge and senator, i'm curious. when you look at the president's own chief of staff who deals with the money of the united states as budget director and who then comes out late in the week and admits, yes, we conditioned the money on getting a political probe, admitting the core of the bribe, judge and then senator, how do you make sense of that kind of public confession? >> well, it is a public confession. i think there is a brazenness about it. if you read the rest of what he said was elections have consequences. and, gee, we condition aid on all sorts of things. it is different to condition aid on you cleaning up your atmosphere or you dealing with this national policy and saying, i'm going to condition aid on you doing something for me personally, you doing something for my campaign.

it was almost as if he didn't understand that there was a difference between the two. >> it is fascinating to hear you analyze that. senator, your view? >> yes. well, number one, i don't think we should forget that you cannot get anything of value from a foreigner, let alone a foreign country. that in itself is against campaign law. so i agree. it was a quid pro quo. he said i have a favor, though, the president said to zelinski. and, so, we have to know on its face. look, i ran many campaigns, 12. and i paid a lot for opposition research. you want to know what's in the background of your opponent. but you can't take 50 cents from any foreign person or someone who isn't a citizen. so on its face. and obviously, this is an abuse of power to turn to this president of a country that is in desperate need of help

because russia's attacking his country. last point i'd make here, we also can't forget that the inspector general who looked at the whistleblower report said, this is urgent. >> right. >> this is serious. and he was a trump appointee. this thing is inexerable. sitting through the impeachment trial of clinton was the most painful thing, honestly, for so many, including myself. it went on and on and on. it's very difficult. it is very serious. it's very old-fashioned because really most of the rules were set way back in 1868 when andrew johnson was impeached and then he was not convicted. so it's a very somber thing, as nancy pelosi has said. she didn't want to do it, but she has to do it. >> you mentioned we pulled a bit of you in that last impeachment

hearing. johnson, we have more on that in a story later this hour. but here you were talking about how important it was after the evidence was gathered to have a public reckoning in the senate. take a look. >> it may be by anybody's account the most important vote any senator here will cast. after all, we're talking about the possible overturning of an election. i feel the people have a right to hear our reasoning. >> a right to hear the senate's reasoning. how do you view that applying in the obligations of the senate, of mitch mcconnell, if they get this impeachment, if it does go there, how they get the case. >> it is absolutely critical. and under the rules the way we did it, you know, it was very, very professionally done. i'm sure the judge would agree with this. you have the supreme court justice. he's the head of the supreme court. he is the chief. and he is presiding over this whole thing. and then you have the house

managers, and they march, literal lly march in and they te their seats. then you have the defense counsel. and senators can raise points of order. but really senators have to be pretty quiet, which is also very hard for senators. >> i hear you on that. >> i can tell you that. so it's a very, very serious somber time. >> yeah. >> and, yes, the senator's judgment is critical here because we are going to decide, they are going to decide whether or not the president should leave office. >> as you say, there is no joy in that no matter what people want to see happen, which brings me to the final question. take a look at the republican talking about -- who is managing the nixon impeachment talking about what he felt he had to do to the president and his own party. >> the misuse of power is the very essence of tyranny.

i would be less than candid if i did not now say that my president support articles obstruction of justice and abuse of power. but there will be no joy in it for me. >> no joy. how pivotal is it that the house clearly enunciate if they do this why they're doing it. you heard the congressman there talk about abuse of power and structure. >> i think it's critical. just like any juror will tell you who sat on a criminal case, there is no joy in having to pass that sort of condemnation. i can imagine that the senators would feel no joy in having to sit through this process. that is why it is critical for the house to really show this not as a one off phone call. if this is about one phone call, i don't think they're going to get very far. what they have to do is show this phone call as part of a greater pattern of an abuse of power. that would be the key to convincie ining senators to tak

action they want to do, but they could only be convinced if they could see this as a broader picture. >> thank you. really great to have so much expertise on this important topic. we have a lot more on this special tonight, uncovering new tape from the old days of rudy gull y giuliani. he wanted to play a role on the outside. also a historian touching on the johnson impeachment and what constitutes a high crime. that's all ahead on trump and ukraine: impeachment crisis. eac. we'll inform them that liberty mutual customizes home insurance, so they'll only pay for what they need. your turn to keep watch, limu. wake me up if you see anything. [ snoring ] [ loud squawking and siren blaring ]

only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

♪ work so hard ♪ give it everything you got ♪ strength of a lioness ♪ tough as a knot ♪ rocking the stage ♪ and we never gonna stop ♪ all strength, no sweat. ♪ just in case you forgot ♪ all strength. ♪ no sweat secret. all strength. no sweat. i felt i couldn't be at my best for my family. in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured and left those doubts behind. i faced reminders of my hep c every day. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. even hanging with friends i worried about my hep c. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. mavyret is the only 8-week cure

for all common types of hep c. before starting mavyret your doctor will test if you've had hepatitis b which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b, a liver or kidney transplant, other liver problems, hiv-1, or other medical conditions, and all medicines you take including herbal supplements. don't take mavyret with atazanavir or rifampin, or if you've had certain liver problems. common side effects include headache and tiredness. with hep c behind me, i feel free... ...fearless... ...and there's no looking back, because i am cured. talk to your doctor about mavyret.

welcome back to our impeachment special. we turn to the focus that has zeros in on a man in the middle of the whole impeachment probe. we're talking of course about

rudy giuliani. witness after witness has revealed that donald trump outsourced key aspects of american power on ukraine to his lawyer, giuliani. which makes it appear that donald trump wanted something more like a fixer dictating foreign policy. it is quite the turn for a public servant who made his career as quote tough on the law. >> if you violate the law, the ov general rule is you go to prison. let me tell you that i know about the crime that you have to deal with. i understand the fear that you have. >> there really isn't a tough mayor on crime. the mayor opposes the death penalty. >> he said he knew about crime. now his associates have been charged with crimes, indicted by the feds. prosecutors looking at giuliani as well. that means he is under

investigation. but why would he even get involved in this? donald trump hasn't always been the biggest public fan of giuliani. and he has been desperate to prove his value. remember after even candidate trump ridiculed gull y ed giuli campaign trial, he still went out to defend donald trul when few other people would after the releasing of that damning access hollywood tape. and trump wouldn't even access that as a loyal move. instead, look at this, top trump said says that trump said rudy, you sucked. you were weak. low energy. instead of moving on, no, when donald trump won, rudy was all about it. he rarely campaigned and would jockey to sit next to trump at dinner or on the plane.

rudy never wanted to be left out. if you were ever between rudy and the president, look out. you were going to get trampled. one thing that we do know -- again, this is from him -- is that he desperately wanted a big international role. he wanted to be secretary of state. he openly campaigned for that job. do you remember this? he was fanning media coverage, getting article coverage about being a favorite. when john bolton's name was floated, do you remember this? check out what giuliani did. he offered a compliment and then a plug for himself. >> john would be a very good choice. >> is there anybody better? >> maybe me. i don't know. >> maybe me. but there was skrutny of, guess what, giuliani's business ties. a red flag. and then giuliani said he was out. >> the whole thing was becoming kind of very confusing and very

difficult for the president-elect and my desire to be in the cabinet was great, but it wasn't that great. and he had a lot of terrific candidates, and i thought i could play a better role being on the outside and continuing to be his close friend and adviser. >> a better role on the outside in continuing to be an adviser. that was public, obviously. those words now foreshadowing what was to come. not unlike a former trump lawyer who reportedly also wanted a top job in washington and didn't get one. >> i'm going to be the personal attorney to mr. trump. i'm not going to be in government, but i'm going to remain technically in the same role for mr. trump for president trump as i was when he was president of the trump organization. >> can i assume in that role, not being a government role, that you would have attorney-client privilege with

president trump? >> yes. yes, of course. >> that wasn't the only privilege they shared. michael cohen is no longer donald trump's lawyer or, quote, fixer. he's incarcerated in part for crimes he did on the outside that he ultimately pled to. the question for giuliani now is what does it mean to be helping donald trump on the outside. in a moment, i could tell you we have two very difficult guests to talk all about giuliani, diplomacy and this impeachment probe when we come back. mpeachmt probe when we come back. a...or . should we franchise? is the market ready for that? can we franchise? how do you do that? meg! oh meg! we should do that thing where you put the business cards in the fishbowl and somebody wins something. -meg: hi. i'm here for... i'm here for the evans' wedding. -we've got the cake in the back, so, yeah. -meg: thank you. -progressive knows small business makes big demands. -you're not gonna make it, you're not gonna make it! ask her if we can do her next wedding too! -so we'll design the insurance solution that fits your business. -on second thought, don't...ask that.

that fits your business. aleve it. with aleve pm. pain happens. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid. and the 12-hour pain relieving strength of aleve. so...magic mornings happen. there's a better choice. aleve pm.

at outback, steak & oh no, it's gone.ck. phew, it's back with lobster mac & cheese. it's gone again. oh, it's back with shrimp now! steak & lobster starting at only $15.99. hurry in before these three are gone again. outback steakhouse.

in the human brain, billions of nefor people with parkinson's, some neurons change their tune, causing uncontrollable tremors. now, abbott technology can target those exact neurons. restoring control and harmony, once thought to belost forever. the most personal technology is technology with the power to change your life.

welcome back to our impeachment special. we now turn to the man at the center of the probe and under investigation, rudy giuliani. i have the perfect guest to talk about. ken was the press secretary or rudy. for years he was a supporter. you see them together here. but he has in the current

climate become a substantive critic, writing a much read new york times piece, what happened to rudy giuliani. the man i worked for in '93 is not the man who now lies for donald trump. thanks for coming in for our special here. you are a striking voice because you do believe in some of what rudy giuliani has done with his public career. >> absolutely. >> but you oppose the role he's played now. >> yes. >> do you think that he has exercised such poor judgment, that he may have put the trump presidency in pearl? >> yes, i do. and so do a lot of other people. i think he's as responsible as anyone for threatening the president with possible impeachment. >> and when you look at what he's accused of, whether or not it went over the criminal line, we'll see where the investigation goes, but do you think that he is, at his stage in his career, doing something that doesn't make a lot of sense for him? he's had a lot of achievements.

he's also made a lot of money. some of what he did with these individuals that stand indicted is take money from them in an access play. >> he has. money is a seductive object. and a lot of people can't make enough of it. and he apparently is one of them. and he's not being as discriminating, apparently about his clients as he should be. it shows poor judgment on his part, to take $500,000 from these two gentlemen without doing any legal work is highly questionable. >> do you have a theory as to why he seemed so bent on winning over donald trump, something we reported on a little bit before introducing me? >> he wanted to be president at one time, which is as close as he could get to being president. you referred to his lobbying to be secretary of state. that's something rudy could have hated. you don't float yourself, and

you don't turn down a job you weren't offered. he turned down the attorney general job without having been offered it. and i can imagine rudy saying that guy is never going to be my secretary of state, which is what trump did. >> and does that mean you think he's also lost his fastball. >> he lost something off the fastball. that's for sure. it's not '93 anywhere. >> ken, stay with me. i want to come back to you in a moment. but because this is a special, we have some different angels. the whole impeachment probe centers on the efforts to hijack foreign policy to go after foreign rivaling. the chief of staff admitting that was the whole point, asking for a dnc server investigation. the person in charge of foreign policy has been dodging many, including many reporters on this scandal in his year and a half. one of the people we've seen press him quite a bit for the truth is my next guest, andrea mitchell. >> do you think you can really

get the state department back on track? >> mr. secretary, what do you think iran is up to with the election? what do you think they're up to? are you going to see -- >> sir, why are you targeting e-mails? why target routine e-mails of veteran diplomats? >> andrea mitchell has reported on presidents and foreign policy for decades and covered everything up and down in the trump state department. i know how busy you are. thank you so much for making time for this special. >> you bet. great to be with you. >> let's start with the foreign policy, your expertise. when did you first see the signs that there were these shifts and tensions within the state department and what are the foreign policy implications in your view of what we're learning here from the impeachment probe? >> we have seen a downgrading of the state department, a

demoralization, a hallowing out. but it wasn't until this whole ukraine issue came to the forefront that we realized the extent of rudy giuliani's role on the ukraine issue. and now as the testimonies come and as these valiant state department ambassadors come forward, we're really learning so much more about it. learning that mike pompeo was in on the call. it was, you know, ten days before he acknowledged it and questions thrown to him overseas from correspondents when he was in italy. the fact that he ducked that and wasn't forthcoming about it and now it's just increasingly clear that mike pompeo was very deeply involved in what happened and that it was his refusal to come to her defense that got mike mckinley, his closest aid and adviser and three-time ambassador to quit last week or a week ago friday and then to be

testifying in this past week, another critical witness fiona hill who had previously been on the national intelligence council. so these are very brave people speaking out about how demoralizing it is for the foreign service and how deeply mike mom ppompeo is invested in defending this president. >> and reasonable disagreements on policy that go through the chain of command are completely different from what may have been lobbed in for political or business interests from the, as some would call him, shadow secretary of state. we were digging through your reporting on this because you are all over this stuff. you have also interviewed the quote, unquote shadow during the trump era. i want to play a little bit of that where he claimed he is not as involved as other people say he is. take a look. >> do you think the administration's goal is to topple the regime? >> administration has to speak

for itself. i don't speak for the administration. i spoke for myself and my client. but the administration's goal is a little different but not terribly different. it is policy change in iran. >> i speak for myself and my client, andrea. how does that echo if his clients have agendas against the united states diplomatic core? >> first of all, the testimony to the hill from former ambassadors and current ambassadors is that rudy giuliani is speaking for the president but was taking over ukraine policy. and, so, it was through rudy giuliani that the president was getting his way or trying to get his way on ukraine. now, that interview was done in warsaw. mike pence, the secretary of state mike pompeo were all in warsaw last friday at an anti-iran summit. what about ukraine? who is paying expenses? a lot of questions about this shadow diplomat who was denied

that opportunity on that cabinet post and it is so irregular for someone like the president's personal lawyer to be advocating all over the world, as well on turkey, trying to get this clerk in pennsylvania released or extradited back. >> which is a case that people may remember also isn't one of the things -- not the same plot but the same goal that mr. flynn pled guilty to lying to the feds about. i want to bring back in ken who has, as i mentioned, served for rudy giuliani, but has been critical lately. what do you see here? >> well, i think he needs a lawyer. even though he claims he's done nothing wrong, until he hires a lawyer, he has a fool for a client. and until trump and giuliani unlock the oval office and allow

someone else in to reign them in, they will continue to hatch these harebrain and possibly illegal plots together. >> yeah. and that goes to -- you say they've got these plots. that goes to the political strategy of this. i have to ask you to put on your other hat, whi. you were out covering the democratic side of the hillary clinton campaign, also the republican side at previous conventions because rudy giuliani isn't just the mayor that ken tried to make him. he really wants to be presidential timber. here was your exchange with him in the obama era. take a look. >> barack obama has 18 million votes and has survived a very tough democratic primary test of 20 months. did you have any pause at all in going after him this hard and belittling him the way you did? >> the reality is he had 18 million votes and hillary clinton had 18 million votes and he did not win his primary the way john mccain beat all of us.

>> that's when he was sallying up to the nominee. your view of him on that presidential stage that he clearly thirsts to stay on? >> you know, he's been denied that stage. he was a failed candidate. we know how that worked out when he tried to run. but i think the closest he can get to the oval office right now is through donald trump. and for him to be pursuing foreign policy is so extraordinary given his political background, given his influence in past campaigns. i actually covered him in 2000 when he was toying with the idea with running for the senate and was with him, in fact, live on msnbc for a town hall meeting one-on-one. he was still the mayor and it was the night before he dropped out of that race. so my track record with rudy giuliani goes back a long way. but i would agree with ken. he's not the same rudy giuliani we saw even in 2008. >> and that's striking from both of you from a very careful eye.

objective reporter and from someone who by your own admission, ken, is a long-time supporter and friend. so that fits into all of this because he's such a key witness and the subject of the probe in new york. thank you so much. let me mention everybody knows where to be nine eastern every day weekday andrea reports. what could be a fascinating parallel for any impeachment. i'm talking about in history when a president was impeached partly under accusations he brought disgrace to the office. that's next up on our impeachment special. as a struggling actor,

i need all the breaks that i can get. at liberty butchemel... cut. liberty mu... line? cut. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty biberty... cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need.

♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ enterprise car sales and you'll take any trade-in?rom that's right! great! here you go... well, it does need to be a vehicle. but - i need this out of my house. (vo) with fair, transparent value for every trade-in... enterprise makes it easy. ♪ do you recall, not long ago ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪ ♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪

(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. you should be mad they gave this guy a promotion. you should be mad at forced camaraderie. and you should be mad at tech that makes things worse. but you're not mad, because you have e*trade, who's tech makes life easier by automatically adding technical patterns on charts and helping you understand what they mean. don't get mad.

get e*trade's simplified technical analysis. an international watergate, worse than nixon, smoking gun tapes, discussing trump's impeachment scandal brings many parallels to nixon. but nixon wasn't impeached

because an expectation of conviction forced him to resign. there is another historical example that offers clues and parallels, a president facing challenges to his legitimacy because he became president without winning a majority of the votes. these are the parallels to president johnson, who was the first president ever impeached in american history. he assumed the office after lincoln was assassinated and governed in ways that undercut lincoln's work. he doubled down on racist structures in the south and d y denied congress. there is no doubt johnson was seen as a terrible and unethical leader. so johnson's harshest critics in congress didn't wait. they it mediately wanted to impeach him. they had their goal. they looked for reasons and they faulted three times before he gave them the constitutional

ammunition they needed with this big battle over something that would look quaint today, a fight over the president's ability to pick and replace his own cabinet. but the stakes were higher than that. that's how the story of john meachum puts it. mostly about johnson denying a law limiting his power, which teed audiotape senate trial on three of those. one of them might not even read like a high crime today. it was all about his character, the congress saying he brought the high office of the president into contempt, ridicule and disgrace, undercutting two branches of government. they said he also brought, quote, into disgrace ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach the congress of the united states. that was a time of pearl for america. congress barrelling towards removing a president in part

because of a subjective view of who is disgraceful. you know, there are many, many americans who believe this current president right now has brought overwhelming disgrace to his office. there are others who other pasts who have never come close to party. why are we talking about this tonight? this history raises the question, what is the proper precedent for impeachment and remov removal? people can debate that, we certainly are in the nation. this was all real for johnson. here's what happens when a president ends up in that bull's-eye once impeached. it was the senate's sergeant at arms who went to johnson in person and handed him that piece of paper serving him with a formal trial summons. while this cheerful-looking group of gentlemen, they acted as the prosecutors, the house impeachment managers. this was back in a time when there wasn't any immediate national news available. most people didn't see and read the same daily paper or watch the same events live on a box.

or click on the same websites. this was a different way and time to process developments. and yet when we look back on this trial of this president, it was seen as a matter for the whole nation to follow. however they could. those with means we know, some traveled to see it, going so look at this man who had so deeply divided the nation, brought out the crowds. people came dressed in their finest clothes. historians recount as that trial unfolded raucous moments of cheering and booing and clapping by those witnesses. and there was even a veritable celebrity appearance for the era, walt whitman showing up, which would be like carol king or beyonce coming to watch a trump senate trial today. clearly president johnson's trial was the who hottest ticket in town. here you go, admit the bearer, this is what an impeachment trial ticket looked like. that ticket entitled people to

see that the senate edged close to the first-ever conviction of on sitting president, so close johnson's presidency was hanging by the thread of a single vote in the senate. but he wasn't convicted of any of those three articles. he didn't serve another term as president. that trial did not resolve once and for all what a high crime is. though johnson's case serves as an example for many possibilities that are relevant to any senate trial of donald trump. relevant to what people in the white house are very worried about right now tonight, which is why we're going to apply this history going forward with the perfect expert when we come back right after the break. why can't we just get in the running car? are you crazy? let's hide behind the chainsaws. smart. yeah. ok. if you're in a horror movie, you make poor decisions. it's what you do. this was a good idea. shhhh. i'm being quiet. you're breathing on me! if you want to save fifteen percent or more on car insurance, you switch to geico. it's what you do.

let's go to the cemetery! 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.

wayfair's got your perfect mattress. whether you're looking for a top-brand at a great price. ready to upgrade. moving in. moving on up. or making big moves. deliveries ship free and come with a 100-night free trial. no matter your budget. or your sleep style. we have quality options for everyone. so search and shop. save and snooze. and rest easy, knowing that we've got your back. literally. that's what you get, when you've got wayfair.

so shop now.

welcome back and welcome to the impeachment special. historian brenda wineapple, author of "the impeachers: the trial of andrew johnson and the dream of a just nation." the perfect book for right now. thanks for doing this. >> thank you for having me. >> why did johnson come so close

to being convicted in the senate? >> he lost by one vote. some people said the impeachment in the vote wouldn't have been if the republicans, who were the party impeaching him, didn't think they had the votes in the senate. it came very, very close. and one is not a lot. although there was scuttlebutt afterwards saying that there were probably more votes if they had to be bought at the last minute. >> bought at the last minute. buying votes, something that itself might be impeachable. >> dark money was always with us when you look at the articles that he faced, which we just discussed, did they seem more or less serious than what trump is accused of? >> they're both. they're both -- i mean, the first, as you mentioned, the first nine articles have to do with something called the tenure of office act, which is as one of the wannabe impeachers said, stepping on the statutes, violating a law of congress. the other two, the 10 and 11, had to do with larger crimes. crimes for which there isn't a

specific statute or law that you can say that johnson violated, but rather, for his abuse of congress, his obstruction of justice, his denial of the political legitimacy of his enemies who were in congress at the time, for his fomenting and encouraging violence, for his restoring basically many people who had fought in the confederacy and who were still believing in the confederacy, restoring them to office. so those were 10 and 11, the 10th and 11th articles. >> as you put it, some little stuff, some big stuff. >> yeah. >> what do you find from your view of history makes a more effective impeachment case? >> i think in the long run, i understand why the first eight or nine articles dealt with the tenure of office. because it seemed that people would understand that and it was a very clear-cut case. there's nothing clear-cut when

lawyers start arguing, as you probably know. in that particular case the broader, the 10th and 11th, the broader violations of johnson and his abuse of presidential power is something i think that goes on and is lasting. and in fact, you know, because -- even though the constitution stipulates treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, it's also in the federalist papers as you probably know, a president, sitting president, can be removed for malfeasance, or abuse of the public trust. i think that's what the 10th and 11th were going for. >> yeah, and it's fascinating to hear you lay out what those precedents are. there's no one universal agreement on what the abuse or the high crime is. as you say, it can go with everything from dividing the nation, which is a bit of a matter of debate, to a statute which, yes, lawyers can debate, but you know what statutes say. i want to thank you because we're at the end of our special. brenda, thank you so much for

staying with us. i hope you'll rejoin our coverage as well. thanks to everyone who's joined me for this msnbc special. you can find me on weeknights on "the beat" at 6:00 p.m. eastern. this program includes violent and disturbing content. viewer discretion is advised. they came out of the desert promising death and destruction to all those who opposed them. they established a caliphate that ruled over millions of people. but their five-year reign of terror was short lived. >> isis is a death cult. it's a death cult. >> we are the victorious group. >> now the caliphate is destroyed. their leader has sworn to fight