you obviously had turkey this thanksgiving. >> and cranberries as well. >> that was the kasie dvr. that does it for us tonight on kasie. we'll be back tomorrow from 7:00 to 9:00 eastern time. for now good night from new york. welcome back to our special series, "impeachment: white house in crisis." we join you at obviously an inflection point of this inquiry. the public hearings are done and the impeachment hearings are about to begin. tonight we will big in to exactly what this means. first a new report from adam schiff, the chairman of the house intelligence committee on the findings of those hearings that so many of you watch. then the judiciary committee begins the most momentum hearings that it can really hold. beginning after thanksgiving break, these are the hearings on whether and how to impeach the sitting president that can lead to a formal vote on articles of impeachment. tonight i ask you how did we get here to the brink of

impeachment? the scandal has been in the works for month. it exploded. we can see by two critical events that happened on the same day. on september 9th, democrats announced they would go forward to investigate giuliani's suspicious dealings with ukraine. a top intelligence official told schiff a whistleblower filed this mysterious complaint. they would not reveal what it was about and it was not at that time chaired with congress. >> the director has said essentially that he is answering to a higher authority and refusing to turn over the whistleblower complaint. >> he or she has evidence of serious misconduct. >> i think it is fair to involves this involves either the president or people around him or both. >> so watch this space, as they say. >> americans have been watching ever since. and the reporting has been filling in the blanks fast. soon there were these clues that the complaint involved trump's quote communications with a

foreign leader. okay. that was interesting. the very next day that foreign country was named. ukraine and then the alleged trump promise. now, considering what we have come to know, it is pretty interesting that it was right in the middle of that whirlwind that i'm giving you a couple highlights on that john bolton suddenly resigned and many of the typical explanations were offered along to disagreements between him and trump. fine. policy disagreements with common really. they're fine to have as a reason to believe. but now we know bolton and others have testified that he didn't just object on policy but on alleged crime. objecting in real-time to his now famous phrase, quote, drug deal, that sondland and mulvaney were cooking up. he released the military aid and could haved up something that very few precedents release,

which is the private read-out of that incriminating call with the president of ukraine. all of it leading less than a month after the reports we just showed you speaker pelosi announcing an official probe. >> i'm announcing the house of representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. the president must be held accountable. no one is above the law. >> a historic day in washington. >> the resolution is adopted without objection. the motion to reconsider the laid upon the table. that is what power sounds like, the speaker acts. the resolution is adopted. and then, boy, do the wheels start turning fast. subpoenas, depositions, public hearings. and then because of those rules, because of how that power was deployed, the bombshell testimony. >> i was concerned by the column. what i heard was inappropriate.

mr. giuliani side channels, quid pro quos, corruption. >> efforts to gin up motivations. >> did you feel threatened? >> i did. >> was there a quid pro quo? the answer is question. we followed the president's orders. >> i'm joined by the mayor of new york city and a former civil prosecutor. u.s. attorney joyce vance. good evening to both of you. joyce, taking the wider view that we get to do sometimes, what strikes you as an investigator at just how quick all of that happened and what it sets up as the judiciary prepares for these future hearings? >> i think that the speed with which this unfolded is one of the most interesting features of this entire process in front of the intelligence committee. you know, typically the president is quick to come up with aacy theory or

a reason he should be held accountable. but here the pace of testimony was so quick, the drop of news every day of expanding detail was so fast that the president literally couldn't keep up. and i think that that's one of the smart parts of the process in front of the house intelligence committee, is that speed of process. >> yeah. you mentioned he couldn't keep up. a lot of us in news rooms and those of you who report with us were just amazed, mia, when the president was literally at the un. so we know from what he was doing that day he was too busy to confer, think through or hear all the judgments about whether or not to release the call transcript and he just decided to release the whistleblower complaint was required to release to congress, but the call wasn't. i wonder how fateful that looks in setting up the conditions for what i'm about to show you, which was the bombshells from gordon sondland in the fact finding part of this probe.

take a look. >> was there a quid pro quo? the answer is yes. i followed the directions of the president. we did not want to work with mr. giuliani. simply put, we were playing the hand we were dealt. mr. giuliani's requests for a quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for president zelensky. he had to announce the investigations. he didn't actually have to do them, as i understood it. everyone was in the loop. it was no secret. >> mia, would we have learned all this and would we be on the precipice of impeachment hearings for drafting the articles if those fateful things hadn't happened? >> yeah. i think you're absolutely right, ari, as is joyce. the speed of this in part is thanks to that whistleblower complaint which has proved so accurate. every witness who has come forward in the house has really

said exactly what the whistleblower said was reported to the whistleblower and the whistleblower complaint itself was so detailed that it in and of itself would have resulted with where we are now. but that call summary being released on the heels of the whistleblower complaint just reinforced everything that the whistleblower complaint was alle alleging. it was a real double whammy that goes to what joyce was saying about the speed of this process. it really put it on steroids. >> if it's been a steroids process of fact finding, that is what speaker pelosi has empowered adam shaf to do. we don't know what history will ultimately judge as these different phases. but for democrats at least, they have seen a shift phase and they are about to enter the nadler phase. take a look.

>> there is more work to be done, but at the same time we have already accumulated quite overwhelming evidence. there was no plausible explanation but one, and that was the president wanted this leverage to get ukraine to do his political dirty work. >> that's how he summarizes all the work he's done. here was for a comparison, joyce, chairman nadler of the judiciary committee just days before ukraine took flight. have a listen. >> the investigation also extends beyond the four corners of the mueller report. we are looking at corruption and abuse of power more broadly, so we will inquire about other subjects as well. we intend to secure accountability for any wrongdoing because no one is above the law, not even the president of the united states. >> what do you expect, joyce, in this nadler phase. >> so it's really incredible to think about the gap of just a

couple of months between that original nadler statement and what we heard from chairman sti schiff. and schiff cues on that the president has essentially had no substantive answer to this narrative of wrongdoing by the president and those close to him and also schiff was able to lay it at the president's doorstep. so that's the legal part of this process. now we know that chairman nadler and the judiciary committee will open with at least one day of hearings designed to lay out the legal pontiffs. what is an abuse of trust that warrants impeachment of a president? i expect that they will dip back to the wisdom of the founding fathers, give the country an overlaw of the law so that we can understand what the legal analysis looks like that we bring and that we fold those facts into. >> mia? >> i agree. and i think one of the things that's going to be so important with this one day that we know

so far, we never know what else is going to pop and whether more days get added between now and the fourth. but one thing that is going to be so important for the democrats to do is to decide how tailered is this story, how many counts are there? right now we're seeing a ream of potential counts from bribery to extortion, obstruction and all the various abuses of power that can be added to this. and i think the discussion they are having, i imagine, is how much of this is a story that the american public can absorb when there is a trial in the senate because it's as much of a story for the public as it is for the politicians. >> and, joyce, both as a feather in your cap but also as full disclosure, we remind viewers you testified in those nadler hearings we discussed before. are there differences given the temperature? >> so, you know, when bart and i

testified this summer about the mueller report, congress was still using this process of bouncing back and forth five minutes aside between the republicans and the democrats. what we learned during the intelligence committee hearings was how effective the use of staff attorneys is in telling a cohesive narrative. these hearings are at least the first day that mia and i have talked about that is more the law. one would hope they use that process again so that the american people will understand the law. i would encourage them to use that approach. >> very interesting. process matters spoken by a lawyer. joyce vance, mia, thank you so much. >> we have new details of what it could look like to put trump literally on trial. a former judge and a senator who has actually cast an impeachment

vote on that. and the new pressure on the gop. damning details of trump's conduct. that's next on "impeachment: white house in crisis." as a struggling actor, i need all the breaks that i can get. at liberty butchumal- cut. 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. ♪ (man and woman) [burst of t♪lking to animals] (vo) it feels good to give back. (attendant) thank you so much. (woman) oh, you are so welcome. (vo) you can choose the aspca to get two hundred and fifty dollars from subaru when you get a new subaru,

like the all new outback. (vo 2) get 0.9% during the subaru share the love event. [sneeare you ok?fles] yah, it's just a cold. it's not just a cold if you have high blood pressure. most cold medicines may raise blood pressure. coricidin hbp is the... ...#1 brand that gives... powerful cold relief without raising your blood pressure. i'm a verizon engineer, and i'm part of the team building the most powerful 5g experience for america. it's 5g ultra wideband-- --for massive capacity-- --and ultra-fast speeds. almost 2 gigs here in minneapolis. that's 25 times faster than today's network in new york city. so people from midtown manhattan-- --to downtown denver-- --can experience what our 5g can deliver. (woman) and if verizon 5g can deliver performance like this in these places... it's pretty crazy.

...just imagine what it can do for you. ♪ when you take align, you have the support of a probiotic and the gastroenterologists who developed it. align naturally helps to soothe your occasional digestive upsets, 24/7. so, where you go, the pro goes. go with align, the pros in digestive health. of millions of americans during the recession. so, my wife kat and i took action. we started a non-profit community bank with a simple theory - give people a fair deal and real economic power. invest in the community, in businesses owned by women and people of color, in affordable housing. the difference between words and actions matters. that's a lesson politicians in washington could use right now. i'm tom steyer, and i approve this message. the best of pressure cooking and air frying now in one pot, and with tendercrisp technology, you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside

and juicy on the inside. the ninja foodi pressure cooker, the pressure cooker that crisps. yeah. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. con liberty mutual solo pagas lo que necesitas. only pay for what you need... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ here, it all starts withello! hi!... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! wifi up there? uhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help.

at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today. welcome back to our special. now we turn to the action in congress. if the house does impeach president trump, that 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.

today that would be 67 senators voting yes. so if every democrat and independent voted yes, they would still need to swing 20 republicans. the senate held 19 different types of impeachment trials in history, 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 1970s who was technically expelled in a complicated decision, the senate has never of course as we have emphasized throughout our special never convicted a sitting president. the two were impeached, did not ever reach that super majority, meaning a 0% conviction rate in those two instances. that's that's the history. they would have to take up impeachment and hold a trial. he hinted that trial could be any length, which he also

stressed potential speed ahead of the clinton trial. >> i think we can be through with this like the majority leader said from three days to three weeks. it is not a complicated case. i believe it can end very, very quickly. the one thing they agree with is that we'd like to have it over quickly. >> speed has 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 dismisthose charges. >> a surprise twist today that could bring a quick end to a senate trial that has paralyzed congress. 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 yahs are 44. the nahs are 56.

the motion is not agreed to. >> that senate case was effectively managed or prosecuted by 13 house republicans that included then congressman lindsey graham who argued the president does not have to commit a formal statutory crime to merit being kicked out of office. >> you don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic. 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 can tell you in both parties we know from our reporting today's senators looking back to see the less on and mistakes to see what is expected of them. that's not all. the people in our system of government who interpret

presidents, well, they're doing it, too, including one man in a different branch of government, chief justice john roberts because he will preside over any senate trial of trump, if there is a trial just like his predecessor did in the clinton trial. >> senators, 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 w.h. bush and senator byron. a very special and as i have emphasized rare to have a federal appeals judge and a senator here in this discussion. thanks to both of you. >> thank you. happy to be here. >> appreciate it. judge, let's begin with you.

what would define a fair trial of a president in the senate? >> well, it's a good question. there have been so few that we really -- we really 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 part son politics to the extent possible 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 in an impeachment trial. >> let me ask you about that. as a fellow judge, do you think this become one of the most things chief justice john roberts ever does? >> it certainly is a solemn responsibility. and as i said, it is 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 their -- there are specific rules governing the senate impeachment process. relying on the parliamentarian 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 they will rise to the occasion. i mean, 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 senate on

that point. what everyone's views of the case, by that time, by the time they have reached the senate, the clinton can dscandals had b debated in american life. did you see as the trial actually commenced and felt the gravity? we just showed some of the clips where they said, wait, this is a big one. >> yeah. i think everybody understood this is a very sober moment. there is no joy in a united states senate that convenes as a trial for the prosecution of impeachment resolutions. it is a tough situation. let me just tell you that as we began, there is not much of a template for how we proceed. as we began, all 100 of us met in the old senate chambers and had an off the record conversation of how do we do this? some, for example, wanted to call witnesses into the chamber of senate, bring monica lewinsky

in. the fact is that was discarded and ultimately we got videotapes and they were able to present videotapes. so we went to the senate floor as a trial, and we had to be sworn in separately as jurors. we had to sign an oath. and 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. >> did that private room meeting you are 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 gram very different people with different political perspectives. so we came out of that old senate chamber with an understanding of how we should

proceed. and not everything went smoothly, but by and large it was a very sober time because we understood the gravity of it. >> and it's hard to imagine in this era when the basic facts and underlying evidence is not in much agreement whether they could come to that. we will be reporting out whatever comes. senator, we pulled some of the then u.s. senator on the day of the acquittal. take a look. >> every member of the senate feels strongly about the president's conduct, 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 that were brought against this president. >> the issues maybe very different. >> you know, ari -- >> but eagle eyed viewers will note your reference to not nullifying the past election is

what the president -- the president's lawyers have said this week about this effort. >> but especially not nullifying the election over personal behavior. that's what this was about. this was about personal behavior as important as it was. but that's vastly different than behavior in which a president is asking a foreign government to intervene and to involve themselves in an election here in this country. that, by the way, is criminal. there is a lot of evidence that some really bad things have been happening and have happened. and i think this senate will have to deal with those questions. >> yeah. >> and they are not questions about personal behavior. >> judge lewis, as a question i have been waiting for you, i have been waiting to ask all week. i interviewed the president's lawyer earlier this week. he is taking the public position that it would be unfair as a matter of general due process to try to convict a president on anonymous testimony, people who can't be confronted. we all know, i think most people we all know, the rules are different.

there is no constitutional requirement. what do you think of the substance of the argument? 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 notion of fairness. although, we do hope that it is a fair process and procedure. it is 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 and wherever they might lead. and we have reposed in our representatives the sol lemn responsibility to rise above politics to whatever extent possible and do what they must

do to take an oath and uphold the constitution. you had an earlier clip in which you played that segment from the watergate hearings from 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. so, no, it's not an -- 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. >> yeah. >> when the senate is convened for this proceeding, it is convened for a court, as a court of impeachment. 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 have certainly gotten it from you. thanks to both of you. >> thanks, ari. >> thank you, sir. coming up, why did rudy do it? our report on his role in the bribery plot and the new exposure he faces. we take a look at whether there are cracks in trump's republican fire wall. are cracks in trump's republican fire wall. cut. 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. ♪ ♪ ♪ applebee's new sizzlin' entrées. now starting at $9.99.

now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. you wanna see something thatamazing?ing. go to hilton instead of a travel site and you'll experience a whole new range of emotions like... the relaxing feeling of knowing you're getting the best price. these'll work. the utter delight of free wi-fi... . oh man this is the best part. isn't that you? yeah. and the magic power of unlocking your room with your phone. i can read minds too. really? book at hilton.com. if you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25% off that stay. expect better. expect hilton. make family-sized meals fast, and because it's a ninja foodi, it can do things no other oven can, like flip away. the ninja foodi air fry oven,

the oven that crisps and flips away.

yeah. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. con liberty mutual solo pagas lo que necesitas. only pay for what you need... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

welcome back to our impeachment special. now we turn to the focus that has zeroed in on a man in the middle of the whole impeachment probe. we're talking of course about rudy giuliani. witness after witness has shown that donald trump outsourced to his lawyer, giuliani. which makes it appear that donald trump wanted something more like a fixer dictating foreign policy. it is quite the term for a

long-time public servant who made his time as a quote tough on crime prosecutor. >> if you violate the law, whether insider trading or tax evasion or fraud or bribery, the overwhelming general rule is that you go to prison. >> this case charges more mafia bosses in one indictment than any before. >> let me tell you i know about the crime that you have to deal with. i understand the fear that you have. >> the mayor opposes the death penalty. >> he said he knew about crime. well, now some of his associates have been charged with crimes, indicted by the feds. prosecutors looking at giuliani as well. that means he's under investigation. doesn't mean we know yet he did anything wrong. why would he get involved in this? donald trump hasn't always been the biggest public fan of giuliani and giuliani has been desperate to prove his value. even after trump ridiculed gull yanny for little things like

falling on asleep on flights, giuliani still went out to publically defend donald trump when very few people would after the release of that access hollywood tape. trump didn't accept that as a loyal move. instead, trump told ghoiuliangi rue sucked. you were weak. low energy. no, when donald trump won, rudy was all about it. he reportedly rarely complained and would jockey with other aids to sit next to trump at dinner or on the plane. other aids saying rudy never wanted to be left out. if you were between rudy and the president, look out. you were going to get trampled. one thing 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. he was fanning media coverage getting article headlines about being a, quote, favorite. then 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 scrutiny of giuliani's business ties, a red flag for the secretary of state job. 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 and 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 that in that role, not being a government role, that you 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 that 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? ken freeman was press secretary for rudy giuliani in the 1993 ma'am i don't recall campaign. but he has in the current climate become a substantive critic, writing 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. >> sure. thanks for having me again. >> you're 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 playing 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 with threatening the president with possible impeachment. >> 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 he is at his stage in his career doing something that doesn't make a lot of sense for him. he had made a lot of money. and some of what he did with these individuals who now stand indicted is just take money from them for an access play. >> right, he had. money is a very 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 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 apparently 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 you. >> well, we wanted to be president, as you remember, at one time.

this ises a close as he could get to being president. you referred to his lobbying for secretary of state. that's something rudy would have hated. you don't float yourself, and you don't turn down a job you weren't offered. 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's lost something off the fastball, that's for sure. it's not '93 anymore. you know. still ahead, will there be any cracks in trump's gop fire wall after all the evidence? that's next. wall after all the evidence? that's next.

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. yeah, i could see that. steven could only imaginem 24hr to trenjoying a spicy taco.burn, now, his world explodes with flavor. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day all-night protection. can you imagine 24-hours without heartburn? (employee) half a millionar sales preowned vehicles,er most with tech features like blind spot detection,

back up camera... [kristen gasps] (employee) because you never know what might be behind you. (kristen bell) does the sloth come standard? (kristen bell vo) looking to buy? enterprise makes it easy. the best of pressure cooking and air frying now in one pot, and with tendercrisp technology, you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. the ninja foodi pressure cooker, the pressure cooker that crisps. we're portuguese? i thought we were hungarian. can you tell me that story again? behind every question is a story waiting to be discovered. this holiday, start the journey with a dna kit from ancestry. this holiday, start the journey with a dna kit i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424.

welcome back to our special on impeachment. chairman schiff's committee preparing to sentence evidence and a written report to to judiciary committee, also bringing america closer to a

potential trial in the senate. but republicans who even criticized the president have faced their own consequences. another republican congressman described as being open to the process of impeach. drew such heat that he quickly walked it back. but when members of the president's parties do turn, it could change everything. when the house of representatives turned and made a public case against him in the impeachment probe, it was devastating. >> the misuse of power is the very essence of tyranny. but the evidence is clear and direct and convincing to me. my president i support articles as to the charges of obstruction of justice and abuse of power. but there will be no joy if n i for me. >> i cannot turn away from the evidence of evil that is to me so clear and compelling. >> impeachment is of course a yes or no vote. but there is also a spectrum between, say, total defense,

criticism and then impeaching. bill clinton found his own party was very critical of his construct even as most did not say it was an impeachable high crime. he was rebuked, condemned. >> the transgressions p president has admitted to are too consequential for us to walk away. it is immoral. and it is harmful. >> we do not condone the shame that he has brought on the white house. although stained and tainted and, if you will, rebuked, which will be forever with his legacy, it will be memorialized in history. >> these actions weren't condemnation. >> those were democrats on the president's political team, and the impeachment process moved many to draw a line against that conduct even as most did not endorse impeachment. that was a political climate that ultimately drew more public

admissions from president clinton. >> indeed i did have a relationship with ms. lewinski that was not appropriate. in fact, it was wrong. i must put it right, and i am prepared to do whatever it takes to do so. nothing is more important to me personally, but it is private. and i intend to reclaim my family life for my family. it is nobody's business but ours. >> the senate acquitted clinton by a wide margin. it was after 31 house democrats backed his impeachment inquiry. today republicans remain more united around trump. the question is whether public hearings will change that as they did for nixon. and partisan ship is not the only driver here. some republicans say their vote for impeachment was ultimately a mistake. and the serious evidence against trump nowadays put the contrast

from the clinton era in relief. >> in retro spect, it was a mistake to impeach bill clinton because, you know, the substance of the matter really wasn't all that essential to the nation. the allegations are really far more serious. they involved abuse of power, abuse of the office. >> experts agree the constitution treats the abuse of the office rather than other perhaps serious transgressions as the strongest rational to impeach. you remove from office the person abusing the office. and someone has to go first if you are ever going to make that argument against your own party, against the powerful person in office. so we want to tell you tonight as we dig in here the first republican to do that against nixon, do you remember who it was? congressman larry hogan sr. he was punished for it. nixon left office. but hogan's political career ended just a month later. not in a general election where

most people agreed with him but in a part sisan republican primary. all these years later, it is hog hogan's son carries on the tradition. >> i think we do need an inquiry because we have to get to the bottom of it. i'm not ready to say i support impeachment in the removal of the president. i do think we have to have an impeachment inquiry. i don't see any other way to get to the facts. >> senator jeff flake served in the senate in the time of the trump era as a republican. he says his colleagues already do want to impeach, if they could do so without the public blowback we have just been documenting. >> somebody mentioned yesterday if there were a private vote there would be 30 republican votes. that's not true. there would be at least 35. or maybe more if it were a

private vote. but that's not possible. so they have to come out and many of them are up for re-election in tough seats, and i know that feeling. >> where is the point where those re-election politics might change, if they do change? we turn to two very special gues guests. under half a point many warned that vote could cost his seat he says it did but he's never regretted it both former representatives are from virginia, the other is tom davis who voted to impeach thanks to both of you for joining us. >> thanks for having us. >> congressman perielo, what to say it mean for people to go to the floor, knowing it might end

their house career to vote for impeachment? >> this is a very serious event. any time you're talking about impeachment it's serious. this involves national security and the abuse of power. this is something members on both sides will live with for the rest their life and i hope they all take it with that level of seriousness. >> you must have given more thought to a vote that could end your political career than other votes. >> being a former member is a much better life than being a member. >> tokay. >> if you stood up for the constitution and the country and did your duty, i think that's a vote people will be happy to live with. i know a lot of the republican senators, particularly those under the age of 50, are not excited to have to take this vote and answer for it for years. but we're still at the trial stage. it's important for people tori take the evidence with the seriousness it deserves and cast a vote they can live with.

>> congressman davis, what are the lessons learned in your view? >> i was in the leadership and advised against bringing impeachment up. we suffered setbacks in the 1998 midterm elections because we raised impeachment and ginned the democratic base out in an off a year and at that point th president's party picked up seats. i thought it waspi not a good political strategy, but once faced with it, to me, i was very light in deciding. my district was overwhelmingly against impeachment. i felt that lying under oath, albeit a civil proceeding, was a standard that whether you're a ceo, a janitor, a baseball player, this was a standard we needed to make our mark on. >> to be clear, both of you in what might be called at times swing districts in virginia. you're making the point that whatever oneth thinks of the underlyingof issue, it wasn't necessarily an easy vote for you either. >> i don't think this is an easy vote for anybody. removing a president is a very, very serious thing. it's never pleasant, having to face that.

i give democrats on that, i don't think it's come easy. their base may like it but for members this is a tough vote. >> congressman perielo? >> 100% of the independents in the house voted to proceed. a lot of americans started to tune out the noise months ago. i think they're going to tune back in, understanding that this is something serious, whether you agree with itom or not. and some of it is going to actually depend on facts and depend on the evidence presented. whether people see this as an abuse of power and a national security issue or do they see this as partisan bickering. and i think with the way it's proceeded so far which has been with a great deal of seriousness and professionalism, i think we'll see that case play out. the american people certainly are more inclined in that direction than they were a few weeks ago. but this is -- we got a few weeks ahead. >> congressman davis, what do you see as important, having been in those rooms that move us never go into, when the house presents these hearings?

people can go into their corners, treat him like he's guilty, or there's no evidence, if you're on the right. >> you have everybody watching.b most of these members are from absolutely safe partisan districts and theirly biggest fr if they want to come back is their primary election and not their general election. if you'rer a democratic and you're not rabid about removing donald trump, you're going to have a tough primary. and if you're a republican, as we saw with justin amash, he couldn't win reelection after he came out of that. i think that's in the back of everybody's mind.n >> congressman perielo? >> in the senate in particular, all the senators have to run statewide, you really are going to have to have a choice in some cases between where the base may be and where moderate and independent voters may be. but this has only happened a few times in history for a reason. that'sto because it's serious. we've seen, you've got to meet a

high threshold. it appears that's been met to proceed with the inquiry. these are serious charges. obstruction of justice is a very serious charge. we don't even exactly what the articles will be. and acagain, when you're talking about using the leverage of the presidency in national security situations, as a formal diplomat, i can tell you that's something presidents use on a regular basis to advance the interests of the country. >> do you see any conviction? >> we're a long way from there. i would guess yes. >> we're just too far away. with the facts developed to date, no. but there's long way to go. >> you're both former politicians, but you both have a little politician in your answer, not a full answer but you answered the other questions thoughtfully which we appreciate given your experience. we'll be right back with one more thing on the trump impeachment probe. e

i wish i could shake your hand. granted. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ the best of pressure cooking and air frying now in one pot, and with tendercrisp technology, you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. the ninja foodi pressure cooker, the pressure cooker that crisps. (employee) half a millionar sales preowned vehicles,er most with tech features like blind spot detection, back up camera... [kristen gasps] (employee) because you never know what might be behind you. (kristen bell) does the sloth come standard? (kristen bell vo) looking to buy? enterprise makes it easy. there's a company that's talked than me: jd power.people 448,134 to be exact. they answered 410 questions in 8 categories about vehicle quality. and when they were done, chevy earned more j.d. power quality awards across cars, trucks and suvs than any other brand

over the last four years. so on behalf of chevrolet, i want to say "thank you, real people." you're welcome. we're gonna need a bigger room. when you take align, you have the support of a probiotic and the gastroenterologists who developed it. align naturally helps to soothe your occasional digestive upsets, 24/7. so, where you go, the pro goes. go with align, the pros in digestive health.

most people think of verizon as a reliable phone company. (woman) but to businesses, we're a reliable partner. we keep companies ready for what's next. (man) we weave security into their business. virtualize their operations. (woman) and build ai customer experiences. we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. like 5g. almost all the fortune 500 partner with us. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation... verizon keeps business ready. ♪ i need all the breaks, that i can get. at liberty butchumal- cut. 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. ♪

and thank you for watching this msnbc special. i'll see you weeknights on "the beat" at 6:00 p.m. eastern. these next few weeks will be extraordinary and, we think, historic. leaks. secret tapes. special prosecutors and presidential paranoia. when i hear those words today, they have a familiar echo to me. 40 years ago i made the movie "all the president's men" about how "washington post" reporters bob woodward and carl bernstein chased the watergate story from break-in to cover-up to the first president to resign his office. the story of the scandal stayed with me. and a few years ago i produced a documentary about woodward and bernstein's detective story to uncover the truth. and it struck me as prophetic and worth repeating today. we thought watergate changed america and our political process.