"impeachment: white house in crisis." for now, good night from new york. good evening. i'm ari melber and welcome back to our special series: "impeachment: white house in crisis"ment tonight's program is the first since speaker pelosi has made it official. democrats have begun drafting the articles of impeachment against president trump. tonight we look at how they could draw on the findings. and the work ahead for chairman nadler's judiciary committee which holds its next hearing tomorrow. we'll be joined by political and legal experts and the biggest findings in that impeachment report we are all still digesting. we have big other precedents where politicians were caught up in bribery schemes.

we begin right now at a time where we are the closest we have ever been to an impeachment of donald trump. >> today i am asking our chairman to proceed with articles of impeachment. democrats, too, are prayerful and we'll proceed in a manner worthy of the oath of office to support and defend the constitution of the united states. >> we are weeki ins out until t end of the year. democrats will hold a full house vote on the impeachment of president donald trump. there is no full answer yet on how many articles of impeachment trump would face, but at least one would appear to focus on the abuse of power chairman schiff outlined in that new report. it was not confined to one phone call with a foreign leader.

it was according to this report a multistep intricate conspiracy that lasted months. you could see much of it laid out right here. this is the section where house democrats focus on donald trump's, quote, "misconduct." the first step was get rid of the ambassador and tell on any plots. step two was of course put giuliani in charge. democrats outlining what you have heard about, freezing the military aid to ukraine in order to get leverage to extrt help with the re-election. you have steps four and five of this report, executing the plot by showing ukraine to get the money, military help or a meeting. reports showing more detail than we have ever seen in how donald trump's white house did all of this, how they conditioned this funding and that meeting to get the help they wanted and it was in exchange for those political investigations targeting the bide bidens. this is all in the new report. it is still sinking in here a few days later.

the process continuing long after the infamous call demands that those investigations must be of course announced publically. right there, that is a lot backed up by the evidence. if this were a shadow or reeg plot, the white house could stop it when exposed. but that's where the cover-up is so key. this plays into the hearing we will see tomorrow, the evidence and the news that shows congress is moving towards impeaching donald trump on that and other grounds. the report detailing that as the plot raised alarm within the government, the white house didn't try to stop it. they didn't have people say don't abuse power this way. but instead the evidence in this report that's going to be presented tomorrow is covering it all up. what democrats say could be an article of obstruction. prosecutors call that consciousness of guilt. in watergate, it was, we all know, considered an impeachable offense. what will congress do about it? >> what we have produced in remarkable short order is so overwhelming that it ought to be

presented to the judiciary committee now without further delay. >> if it is true that president trump has committed an impeachment offense or multiple impeachable offenses, then we must move swiftly to do our duty and charge him accordingly. >> well, for one don't think we should get over this. >> i am joined now by bob frank and a veteran of covering the clinton impeachment. and melissa murray, a former clerk to then judge sew dotomas. what we have seen in this past week? it's been busy. what will we see in tomorrow's hearing presented the evidence? >> it is a busy week. yesterday was the star turn for the law professors. we have never had a day in the sun like this. we saw three law professors saying this was clearly evidence on impeachable evidence. more to the point, that was indeed the remedy the framers contemplated for abuse of public

office of this sort. >> let me draw you on that. wednesday you had these hearings with the experts saying the law says this is impeachable. that stitches together. and tomorrow the evidence that would fit in to that long case. >> and just to go back to the week before, the week before were the fact witnesses. so they laid out the facts which allowed the intelligence committee to compose this report laying out the factual narrative. yesterday's testimony from the four law professors were like jury instructions, basically providing over the law and giving enunciation of what the law required and the constitution required in order to impeach the president. all four, even the republican law professor, was really clear. if this were proven, the conduct alleged here would constitute an impeachable offense. where are the four law professors is that the three democratic witnesses thought there was ample factual evidence to make out a case.

whereas professor turly thought more proof would be needed because impeachment was such a grave offense. >> this is a little different than the clinton impeachable that you covered partly because of just the sheer scale of this plot in government. it being a government action, not a personal action. >> yeah. this is with all deference to the law professors who lectured us and really did a fine job, this is not a legal process. this is a political process. it will be determined by the politics and it looks like trump, president trump, has the upper hand right now. >> well, i don't think you know that. >> well, we know that because he's probably right when he says he could shoot somebody on fifth avenue and he wouldn't be removed from office. >> i don't think you know that either. this is one of the things that's so important is we have to follow the facts. i could have had any number of

washington experts come on this show six months ago, and they say there would be no impeachment because everyone seems to think they could predict. also there would be no president trump because a lot of folks, the media including didn't see that coming. but what i want to do is zero in on what we know. professor, i see you want to get in. let me play more of adam schiff making his case and then i'll have both of you react. >> the uncontested facts show this president solicited something of value, these political investigations and offered official acts. a meeting, $400 million of military aid, in order to get those political favors. that is exactly what the founders had in mind when they talked about bribery as a breach of the public trust to obtain something of value, particularly from a foreign power. >> first to the professor and then back to bob. how does the evidence on that accrue in a way that will ultimately shape not only the minds of those members of congress but the entire country because we may be headed, the

speaker says we are basically headed for a trial of this. >> well, let me address bob's point. it is discreptive matter that this may be the political show. but impeachment is not supposed to be solely political. it is a hybrid of political matters and legal issues. what the congress was trying to do here was to wed those fact witnesses with the law, the professors, to come up with not just a political reality, but one that fit into the legal requirements of the constitution. and the evidence that the house intelligence committee solicited and then wrote up in this report that they passed on to the judiciary committee makes clear and it was undisputed by almost all of the witnesses yesterday, that if this kind of conduct were alleged to be true and there was facts to support it and three people said there were, this would constitute exactly the kind of offense, an abuse of the office, the public trust of the presidency, that would warrant and indeed require

impeachment. >> bob? >> well, the only thing i would say is that the republicans, the republican defenders of president trump, have been quite persuasive with the body politic in arguing that this impeachment is really just an effort to overturn the will of the people in 2016. and i think that that has resonated with many, many of the people out there who would probably would love to have donald trump removed from office. >> do you have any evidence for that? support for impeachment in the country has increased beyond the support that donald trump had. in other words, there are those who want this to happen and those who don't. as an observer or reporter, i would observe the share of americans supporting the impeachment removal of donald trump is higher than the share that voted for him, which is to say -- or voted for hillary, which is to say you have people now, according to the numbers supporting the removal who may

have been initially been more favorable to him. >> but not the republicans, and they are probably the key since they control the senate. >> but you're talking about the public, and you're saying out in the public this is working. and i'm pointing to you the evidence that it's not, that the impeachment process has increased support for impeachment to include people who used to be more supportive of donald trump. >> but not -- not among the republicans. those same polls show that by a large margin the republicans who control the senate, by the way, are in favor of president trump continuing in office. >> yeah. and melissa, your response to that? i mean, i think it is pretty typical the people ralry around the party's president. but the shift seems to be going away, not towards trump. >> as these proceedings go away, there is building support for impeachment. bob is right. it will require a super majority of the senate in order to

convict and remove the president, which will require some republican senators to peel off and depart from the path. but i think the really important thing that bob has mentioned here is this idea ta the republicans are tauting that impeachment is a back end effort to basically subvert the will of the people. i think the testimony that was presented yesterday makes clear that that claim is specious. the founding fathers, the framers of the constitution, thought that the perversion of the election process with foreign intervention was so grave an offense that it had to be subject to some kind of check. and the only rational check would be impeachment. they made that case. this was a quid pro quo intended to solicit aid in the re-election of the president. >> before i lose you, bob, that's my final question to you. do you think the evidence suggests donald trump did anything wrong? >> certainly yes. but i go back to my original point that this is a political exercise and that he is not with

anything that has been presented so far not going to be removed from office. >> bob franklin, melissa murray, thanks to both of you. how the impeachment is putting pressure on rudy giuliani, including those call logs. also, we'll be joined by a legal powerhouse for a preview of what to expect in this impeachment trial. and our special report on bribery precedent that many people around donald trump should be worried about and what it has to do with, yes, these benjamins caught by the fbi in a freezer. we'll explain all that on impeachment white house in crisis. peachment white house in crisis we chose eleanor. it was great-grandma's name. so apparently, we come from a long line of haberdashers, which is a fancy word for... they left everyone, and everything so they could get here. and start this family. every family has a unique story. this holiday season,

help your family discover theirs. creais back at red lobster.ast with new creations to choose from; like rich, butter-poached maine lobster and crispy crab-stuffed shrimp rangoon. how will you pick just 4 of 10? it won't be easy. better hurry in.

(burke) at farmers insurance, we've seen almost everything, so we know how to cover almost anything. even a "three-ring fender bender." (clown 1) sorry about that... (clown 2) apologies. (clown 1) ...didn't mean it. (clown 3) whoops. (stilts) sorry! (clowns) we're sorry! (scary) hey, we're sorry! [man screams] [scary screams] (burke) quite the circus. but we covered it. at farmers, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ i'm finding it hard to stay on a faster laptop could help. plus, tech support to stay worry free. worry free...boom boom! get free next business day shipping or ...1 hour in-store pick up shopping season solved at office depot officemax or officedepot.com. 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.

this impeachment probe is creating all kinds of headaches for donald trump's lawyer rudy giuliani mentioned by name in the report over 500 times. plus those call records that show contexts between giuliani, government officials, state department, the budget office, white house, congress, the right wing media, indicted associates and that mysterious number.

he's also arranged to have incriminating words added to this official ukrainian documents advocating investigation into the b word, which means biden in the 2016 elections. on the military aid, the call logs, giuliani repeatedly talking to officials multiple times right on the same day in april. this week donald trump tried to toss the hot potato back to his lawyer. >> mr. trump, can you explain why your personal attorney rudy giuliani had to talk to the office? >> i don't know. you have to ask him. sounds like something that's not so complicated. you would have to ask him. no big deal. >> no big deal. well, giuliani has a big deal in new york where he's under investigation by federal prosecutors. all of that is heat. if they didn't have all the information i just read out to you by the report, they're going to get it now. subpoenas associated with this case touching everything, as well as whether or not rudy giuliani should literally have

registered as a foreign agent while working for the u.s. president. i'm joined by a special guest to get all that. one of the most esteemed trial lawyers in the nation. he's also beaten large corporations in court, including a national price fixing case for a $550 million verdict, the largest jury verdict of its time. quite a record. and he's joined by someone in the same club of former clerks to major judges. i i'm thrilled to have back at the table melissa murray, two legal eagles. what happened to rudy? >> i think he went crazy. i know people used to respect him. he was america's mayor. and i think my theory is that when men get to be over 75 or 75, they do crazy -- their in fear of becoming irrelevant. his was he's not going to be on

any more afternoon talk shows. he was not going to be important anymore. so you're looking for a way, how can you become relevant? and he became, i say -- trump talks about a deep state. there is a shadow state. he was a shadow secretary of state, rudy. we have a shadow attorney general. we have a lot of -- maybe rudy was a shadow attorney general. >> you're speaking, i want to be clear, not in every respect but in some respects about people who are your legal peers. >> yes. >> and your cohort, your age group and if i may big shots. some of them have not aged well in the sense of the service they're doing. >> they do -- their risk -- they are taking risk. risking their reputations that they have worked so hard to build up because they want to remain -- they're worried about not getting another phone call, not being part of something and

important. that's the only thing i can figure out happened to him because he's totally -- no one can explain it, people who know him. >> mwhat mr. sussman is talking about is something that's very relevant in criminal cases. i love this time we set aside because we get to go deeper. you're talking about what is the intent. if there was a crime, what was the intent. as both of you know and i think our viewers know from watching these cases unfold, people who are not desperate, who are not out of money, who have a lot of power and a lot to lose, you have to come up with what is the intent, what is the reason, what was the motive to take such risks or in the case of a crime to do it. he outlines a motive here. do you buy it? >> i'm not a psychologist, but i do think it is a really compelling argument. we did have a man in 2001 that was at the high of his powers, america's mayor presiding over

one of the biggest counter terrorism movements in history and now he's a failed presidential candidate. he's working for the man that bested him as the republican nominee for president and he's eager to stay in the inner circle. i think it is a plausible theory. >> the other part of this is, steve, watching people who were doing law enforcement join with people who sound like criminals. we had congressman omar on recently, and she said, look, donald trump acts like a gangster and rudy giuliani is his fixer. take a look. >> right. i think -- >> i have used examples where you have had mob bosses who have committed atrocity after atrocity, have violated our criminal codes of conduct and we got them on one narrow case. >> right. >> but they get to serve time and what's important right now is that for this particular

president that we know has many cases where we could impeach him on, that we focus on the one that the public is paying attention to and impeach him on that. >> yeah. i mean, i do think that there is something to it. he's just -- he loves flying around first class around the world, going to capitals. he's treated like a government official. and that's the problem. he's not a government official. i mean, it is like trump allowing me to be secretary of state or someone without being confirmed by the senate. >> right. >> who would want their government turned over? >> you say he's not a government official. that's right. and the president sending him out here or not. ask rudy. he's off on his own. no, the evidence that will be presented again tomorrow in the hearing is the president telling foreign officials rudy and barr,

they're going to help execute this plot. here you have this week giuliani travels to europe to interview you yan kr ukrainians this past week. it is all about the same plot. >> well, i think he's -- i think he's trying to talk to potential witnesses against him, frankly. see what problems he's really having. who is going to -- who is going to turn on him. that's what i think. >> you think -- >> yes. >> a lot of people thought he was pushing for it. you think this is a defense maneuver. >> yes, i do. >> would that be appropriate? >> no, but -- it wouldn't be appropriate. not really. >> not really. while i have you, as i mention to viewers, you win trials against corporations that we're told never lose. you have been quite a trial lawyer. what do you expect and what is important to keep an eye on if there is a trial of trump in the senate? >> well, my hope is that we

don't push forward with the trial. this speed is wrong in my view, totally wrong. >> and you say that as a critic of the president? >> i'm a total critic of the president. but as a trial lawyer you learn you win cases in courts where you have a judge and a jury that are predisposed to you or favorable. that's the house of representatives. if they go -- if he goes -- that's what he's pushing for today. i'm ready for a trial. i want to go to the senate. they'll exonerate me. sure. that's why nancy pelosi should not be pushing it to the senate. as long as he is in the house, they control everything, the press cycles, when things are going to -- and they might find out some more information. even the guy, the law professor. >> turley. >> he was saying, listen, what's -- trump, he may have obstructed justice, but it's too quick. it's happening too quick. and my view is that keep it in

the house. have some more hearings. tell trump and his lawyers, you are welcome. you have the entire month of january to call whomever you want as witnesses. >> you're raising a strategic point that overlaps with what jerry garcia said. do you remember jerry garcia. >> uh-huh. >> you remember him? >> yes, i do. >> maybe you had too much too fast. >> yep. i would slow it up. i would have -- have hearings. invite him to call hearings. who is he going to call? you want to call witnesses, bring him in. giuliani hasn't been subpoenaed, has he? what privilege does he have not to appear? >> steve, i'm with you on the speed point. i was even with professor turley like you could build a more robust case with more time and more witnesses. but the fact of the matter is there have been subpoenas. there have been requests for witnesses and this president will not let those closest to him testify. so at some point, how is

congress to do what it is supposed to do? >> real quick because i have to take a break. >> by telling him you bring the witnesses you want. we're not subpoenaing people. >> they've done that. >> whoever you want and we will give you the month of january. >> you're saying just because they have control, you're saying more time to educate the public and the rest of congress while they're in control. it's an interesting point and a point i haven't heard from most of the folks i check with. but you're an original thinking. >> well, i'm a trial lawyer. and i like to win. you can win in the house of representatives. if you go and try the case in the senate, the way things look now there is no way the senate will convict. >> i love it. i love seeing you two former clerks together. of course, you have gone on to a lot more than clerking. my thanks to both the professor and the trial lawyer. we have a special report when we come back you will want to see with some bad news for trump. we'll be back. d news for trump we'll be back. lf a million preowned vehicles,

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. i feelbusiness cards...new logo...outdoor sign. you always get me. get free next business day shipping or ...1 hour in-store pick up. shopping season solved at office depot officemax ...or officedepot.com. same time next week. yes!

but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections,

cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™". i need all the breaks as athat i can get.or, 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. ♪

the amount of student loan debt i have, i'm embarrassed to even say. we just decided we didn't want debt any longer. ♪ i didn't realize how easy investing could be. i'm picking companies that i believe in. ♪ i think sofi money is amazing. ♪ thank you sofi. sofi thank you, we love you. ♪

bribery, we're hearing that word more and more. in law, lawyers always look to the precedence first. what have we learned before? do past scandals show if something was, say, typical political horse trading or show if it was a crime. asking for a bribe is a crime. let's go through some of the key precedence that could haunt trump. seven different senators implicated. the bribery that made for a block buster movie played by bradley cooper going up against bribery in washington in the wake of watergate. >> you're going to do this because you got no choice. you work for me. >> you keep changing the rules. you're getting a little power drunk, richard. you want to tell me this? do you want to wake him up? >> i said we shouldn't do any of

that. now i support richey. >> he's the one ruining america, not me. >> how? >> people just got over watergate and vietnam. because you want to be a big shot and get the pro motion. >> the dialogue pretty realistic because the plot was realown to the tense moments where the handlers get into place where everyone knows something legally dangerous is happening. >> excuse me. excuse me. i'll handle that for the mayor. >> no. it's for the mayor. it would be a sign of disrespect. it's for you. >> in real life, those exact kind of sing operations have led to a series of these indictments. >> five members of the house have within implicated in the fbi's scam bribery investigation. >> today another trial got underway involving another congressman. >> the fbi's investigation today

resulted in the indictment of a member of the united states congress. >> justice department rules allow for indicting members of congress while in office. that's different than the president. there is no first step of impeachment. bribery can get you indicted pretty quickly. and in this case there were fbi tapes showing the congressman taking bribes, which is what that scene was literally based off of. mike myers, a democratic congressman from pennsylvania taking a $50,000 from an fbi informa informant. >> let me say this to you. you are going about it the right way. i'm going to tell you something really simple. money talking in this business and bullshit walks. it works the same way in washington. >> worry about it. spend it well. pleasure. >> myers was the first congressman convicted over

abscam. there was little doubt what he did and facts showed what he did. he still implored his colleagues in the house to standby him and even talked about a, quote lynch mob. >> i hope they will not let the pressures force them into joining a lunch mob because that's exactly what i think it is. i know what it feels like now to sit on death row when you vote to expel. it will have the same effect as hitting the button if i was strapped in an electric chair in this well. >> here is why that moment in congress matters tonight as congress prepares for this hearing tomorrow. when those facts came out, when myers made that plea, his colleagues didn't deny the facts. they voted to expel him. they made him the first congressman expelled since the civil war. >> guilty, that's the verdict in the first abscam trial. the jury found pennsylvania congressman michael myers and three co-defendants guilty of

bribery and conspiracy. >> the house voted overwhelmingly and myers was expelled. >> the house voted overwhelmingly, bipartisan, including myers fellow democrats saying, yeah, you're caught using your office like that, abusing it to get money and bribes. you're out. and republicans joined them. they had their own problem with someone named richard kelly, a florida republican. >> there is only two people involved, you and i. >> okay. >> if that's all right with you, that's the way we'll do it. it's up to you. >> okay. i'll tell you what, let's put that one there. i guess you could stick those in

your other pockets, in your back jacket or something like that. just leave your jacket open and you'll be in good shape. >> just leave your jacket open. i mean, that's why they call it pocketing a bribe. those were some sting tapes. and that guy, kelly, got prison time along with five other represents and one senator incarcerated for that bribery scheme. most of them were elected democrats. it was a big deal. it was no doubt in court or in those congressional votes i told you about or in public trading your office for personal benefit cash or political help is wrong. it was not like a little bit wrong. it was get kicked out of office and go to prison wrong. these precedence, they're not ancient history. consider the more recent case of congressman jefferson indicted by the obama justice department for bribery again caught on tape in one of these stings. here he was accepting $100,000 from a woman who was an

informant. >> my hands are full if you don't mind grabbing it. >> jefferson stuffs the briefcase into a bag. but he declined her offer to take a quick look at the money. >> would you like to take a peek at it or whatever? >> no, i would not. >> you may remember jefferson's cover-up because he took that cold cash and made it colder stuffing $10,000 in bundles into his freezer. the fbi found what you are looking at there. if jefferson was hoping democrats would make apologies it was wrong. it was under the obama justice department that they found those dollars in that scheme. he claimed it was a rigged deal. this is one of the rare times where mr. jefferson sounds a little bit like mr. trump. >> in this case, there was purely political. she believes that it gives her political advantage in the set of elections. she hopes out of this she will be speaker of the house one day. >> nancy pelosi she's blocking the vote. she doesn't want the vote to

take place because they would rather hurt their political opponent than help their black constituents. that's what it is. >> the bribery evidence there required removing jefferson, that's the house's version of impeachment. take a look. >> i intend to hold our colleagues to a higher standard. and when we talk about the standard here, we all know that bringing dishonor on this house is a standard that all of us attempt to meet. and make sure that there is in dishonor brought. >> the allegations that have been made are extraordinarily serious. they, if proven true, should lead to the expulsion of the member in question. >> congressman jefferson's wads of cash aren't the same as this ukraine plot. the evidence against trump is way worse. think about this. jefferson went to prison for trading a smaller office for those tens of thousands of dollars. trump facing evidence of trading

his larger office for hundreds of millions of dollars. put it another way, you couldn't fit all the money in the ukraine plot in the largest freezer in the world. and i'm telling you this tonight because there was a time that selling your office wrong. some of those people are still in office today. consider roy's approach to the evidence of jefferson's bribery. this republican is taking up the view even if that democrat's action didn't violate the law, it brought enough disrepute on the house that he might have to go. and compare this to his approach to his fellow republican trump. take a look. >> you don't have to necessarily have violated a law to violate those standards. you certainly don't have to violate a law to have brought disrepute on the house. it is high time, mr. speaker, that we did start this investigation. >> one way or another, you are going to decide is what the president says he said an impeachable problem or not?

the president says he thinks he was on solid ground and we'll see what other facts might come to the floor that have an impact on that. >> if bribery is bad enough to expel a less important politician, logically it is more concerning when it happens at a higher level. when it happens by a president, they operate in secret, that's a big deal. we only know about trump trading this money with ukraine's president because of the whistleblower. trump allies also have one other defense, right, that trump was seeking investigations, not money. well, precedence doesn't help him there either. consider dean skelos. he went to an inmate serving four years in prison right now for bribery, trading his office for bribes and to get his son a job. his lawyers failed to say maybe there was no quid pro quo and there was no money. he was investigated by the famed sdny gathering crucial wiretaps

of father-son phone calls. >> i'm going to be president in the senate. i'm going to be majority leader. i'm going to control everything. everybody's going to know who calls the shots, adam. believe me. >> the courts ruled that the evidence supported bribery even though the jury only had to infer the quid pro quo because it wasn't formally stated. his star witness said they never said they would trade votes to get the son a job. that's a pretty familiar defense. when the sentencing came it was in 2018 under the trump justice department. as a state official, he went directly to prison because these cases show how bribery is a serious offense. it's also one of the few impeachable offenses that's listed in the constitution. the last time the senate actually had an impeachment for anyone it was about kick-backs. take a look. >> this morning a special senate committee opened its first impeachment trial since the 199 case against former president bill clinton. it is the trial of thomas jr.,

the new orleans judge is facing four charges involving pay-off kickbacks and lying under oath. >> he was impeached including a charge of a pattern of conduct incompatible with the confidence placed in him and kicked off the bench. >> the senate, u.s. district judge for the east district of louisiana, having found him guilty of charges contained in articles one, two, three and four of the articles of impeachment, he is hereby removed from office and that he will and is hereby forever disqualified to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the united states. >> that senate trial was led by adam schiff. he presented the case for impeachment to the senate. >> the house recognizes what an extraordinary proceeding this is

and how seldom an impeachment is undertaken. the judge has committed a serious violation of the public trust, that in the phraseology of governor morris, one of the framers that the judge has so misdemeaned himself by violating the public trust that it necessitates his removal from the bench. >> necessitates his removal from the bench. adam shaf machiff saying this i bigger than politics. but that this is about what the senate must decide when faced with wrongdoing. >> today's testimony, it is among the most significant evidence to date. it goes right to the heart of the issue of bribery, as well as other potential high crimes or misdemeanors. a very important moment in the history of this inquiry. >> and as we have shown you for many politicians in congress or state houses, basically anywhere but the white house, evidence of bribery can get you out of office and straight into jail.

and that's true even if there isn't money involved and even if the quid pro quo that is proven is not literally spelled out while the crime is done. that should weigh on the mind of any politician caught up in a bribery plot, whether it is successful or not. what congress does with all of these findings they're going to start reviewing tomorrow is of course as always up to them. what should we do? we have the perfect guest to get into all of this. legendary journalist elizabeth drew when we come back. cologuard:

colon cancer screening for people 50 plus at average risk. some things are harder than you thought. and others are easier. like screening for colon cancer with me, cologuard. i'm noninvasive and you use me at home. i'm also effective. i find 92% of colon cancers using dna in your stool. so why wait? cologuard is not for those at high risk for colon cancer. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your healthcare provider

if cologuard is right for you. most insured patients pay $0. i'm finding it hard to stay on a faster laptop could help. plus, tech support to stay worry free. worry free...boom boom! get free next business day shipping or ...1 hour in-store pick up shopping season solved at office depot officemax or officedepot.com. [fa♪mers bell] (burke) a "rock and wreck." seen it. covered it. at farmers insurance, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

we're joined by veteran washington journalist elizabeth drew who has covered decades of washington scandals. thanks for being here tonight. >> glad to be here, ari. >> what do you think the past cases of bribery in watergate show? >> well, i'm really rather sad that this whole i guess we'll call it ukraine issue has come down to one crime. the whole point about impeachment is really more abuse

of power. but clearly the great brains on capitol hill sat around and said, how do we get this across to the american people? we better tell them something they could understand. they could understand a crime and bribery because it is in the impeachment clause in the constitution. but impeachment is about so much more than crimes on the books. it is really about abuse of power, misuse of the office of the presidency. and in the nixon impeachment, there were three articles of impeachment. the main one had a whole collection of abuses of power. and by the way, the watergate break-in was just one of many. it wasn't even the centerpiece of that impeachment. people get that confused. >> it's a great point. does it make a difference, in other words, was there something physical and real for people then and perhaps even more exaggerated over the course of history about these sort of thugs bumbling their way into a

building when, as you say, if you review as we have done the articles of impeachment against nixon and what the final case was being used to obstruct, the irs being used. >> yes, exactly. >> to do things that we really wouldn't know about. how many people, civil rights leaders, critics, journalists were silenced in a way through his awbuse of power, as you say. did the break-in make it clear >> yes, the break-in made for a good movie, didn't it? >> we like movies around here. >> i'm in "all the president's men," movie career. the reason they covered up the watergate break-in, they had done something nixon understood was worse. these goons, the plumbers, they were supposed to be plumbing leaks, ha ha.

so they raided the psychiatrist's office, daniel ellsberg, who had leaked the pentagon papers. when nixon and haldeman, his chief of staff, met a few days after the watergate break-in, they said, we have to worry about these guys because of the other stuff that they had done. >> hm. >> what>> nixon was really afra of was the break-in of daniel ellsberg, psychiatrist, dr. fielder, was going to be discovered. >> great point. you talk about why cover-ups are seen as so indicative. of course i suppose it's a little different here because the only thing that donald trump has ever done that's raised any questions of propriety or legality is this one phone call? >> only thing, there'sing in else that's ever happened. >> and his intention to cover up is only because of that one thing? >> that's caright, just a littl teenie weenie thing. this is the problem i've been

banging on about this.pr i think it's a big mistake -- >> you do? >> yes, to narrow it to just this one thing. it will get over in the senate and they'll say,ov you're goingo throw him out of office over a phone call? it's not just a phone call, obviously. it's a major abuse of power -- >> let me push you as you pushed people as a journalist, i'll push you a little bit. isn't that part of the process? in other words, whatever sparks it, however you get it started, isn't it incumbent on, isn't it the job of this congress, if they go forward with this weighty decision, to impeach the sitting president, to make that case through their process, ultimately in the t senate tria of the american public? >> to make which case? >> to make your case that this ukraine plot, this abuse of power, the associated activities, obstruction, alleged bribery, that it's all much broader? whether or not they start with this one thing, isn't that what you're saying, partly their job, to fill in? >> also i think it's their job to look atin other things. now can't have ten items. you can't handle that.

but if write writing it, if i were queen and i were writing it, i would have one on emoluments. he's clearly flouted the constitution and the law on enriching himself through the presidency. i think people could understand that pretty well too. and i'm a little perplexed as to why they didn't -- i do know why they didn't go that way, they said it would be so hard to prove exactly how much money got into the president's pocket. i don't think you have to answer that. it's obvious that he's using the office to get money for his businesses. so i would have put that in there too. two or three things i think would more, you know -- this is about history, ari, this is about precedent. and we're going to say all these other things were okay? >> well, and they may yet put them in. tomorrow, hearing evidence on the intelligence report. you were outlining a position that, a a not insignificant numr of housea democrats hold, whic is there are other issues that come up.

house speaker pelosi, who has proved so nimble and thoughtful in dealing with her caucus, it will be interesting. you said you're notr a queen, t to us, you're a queen to us, elizabeth drew, thank you for coming on the show. motor? nope. not motor? it's pronounced "motaur."

for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. for those who were born to ride, i feelbusiness cards...new logo...outdoor sign. you always get me. get free next business day shipping or ...1 hour in-store pick up. shopping season solved at office depot officemax ...or officedepot.com. same time next week. yes! a lot of folks ask me why their dishwasher doesn't get everything clean. i tell them, it may be your detergent... that's why more dishwasher brands recommend cascade platinum... ...with the soaking, scrubbing and rinsing built right in. for sparkling-clean dishes, the first time. cascade platinum. - [woman] with my shark, i deep clean messes like this, this, and even this. but i don't have to clean this, because the self-cleaning brush roll removes hair while i clean. - [announcer] shark, the vacuum that deep cleans now cleans itself.

thouwhich is breast cancer metastthat has spreadcer, to other parts of the body, are living in the moment and taking ibrance. ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+/her2- metastatic breast cancer, as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole significantly delayed disease progression versus letrozole, and shrank tumors in over half of patients. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. ibrance may cause severe inflammation of the lungs that can lead to death. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including trouble breathing, shortness of breath, cough, or chest pain. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests,

diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. be in your moment. ask your doctor about ibrance.

now we turn to something else special we get to do, questions from all of you about this process. we've been getting them, we've been reading them, and we're picking a few as we go. don asking, why not wait for the court to decide on mulvaney, bolton, pompeo? is there any value to not knocking down every talking point about the process? great question, this is one i hear a lot. it is about the calendar because democrats can try to force testimony, but that could take months or years. the kind of delay that as a strategic matter some people think is exactly what the white house wants. one more point, there was a court battle over bush aides that cook so many years, some of the issues had basically been mooted by the time they were

forced to testify. shar writes, can you discuss what the procedure is for the senate trial? i heard someone say mcconnell and schumer will not be speaking, please explain. let me try. number one, we don't have the entire procedure yet because it hasn't been released. what we have is precedent. in the clinton impeachment the senators did not speak on the floor at all, they had to submit any questions to the chief justice who presided, then when they spoke about these issues it was not a trial but this closed session. we don't have these rules yet but there's a lot of expectation similar, including because senator mcconnell said senators will not be talking. then finally this one from quote bentley's dad. what's the most relatable verse to those lawyers who were testifying in the judiciary committee hearing? i love getting a question like that, obviously. when you think about what that hearing was mostly about, particularly the opening fireworks over who really knew the facts and what the truth was, made we think of a warning

from 50 cent. hate a liar more than i hate a thief. a thieves only after my salary, a liar is after my reality. that's the last word. thanks for watching our special. see you tomorrow night at 6:00 p.m. eastern on "the beat." this program includes violent and disturbing content. viewer discretion is advised. >> where is an agreement that said we have to stay in the middle east for the rest of humanity? for the rest ofsivization? never said that. we never agreed to protect the kurds. we've worked with them for 3 1/2, 4 years. we never agreed to protect the kurds for the rest of their lives.