pointed out frank figliuzzi has been on the air since before the sun came up. he will walk out of this building when it goes down. thank you so much, my friend. my thanks to eugene, elise, matt. that does it for our hour. "mtp daily" with the aforementioned chuck todd starts now. welcome to wednesday. it's hard to believe it's only wednesday, right? it's "meet the press daily" and good evening. i am chuck todd here in new york city. we are hearing about the origins of the russia investigation has just wrapped up. and we are just two hours from a

key house judiciary committee meeting to consider articles of impeachment against president trump over the ukraine situation. that upcoming public meeting where the committee will formally mark up the text of those two articles of impeachment. just sort of like a bill, believe it or not. it gets marked up. it was described by one democratic source, though, as basically their last appeal to the nation before an impeachment vote. today, one of the president's impeachment counternarratives took center stage in a dramatic hearing. i'm talking of course about the president's attacks on the fbi and his efforts to discredit the russia investigation completely. trying to paint it as a politically-motivated coo attempt against him. except the justice department's inspector general michael horowitz, an independent watchdog, said he didn't find evidence that political bias influenced the fbi's decision to launch the inquiry into the trump campaign. and they didn't find evidence of bias when the fbi opened investigation into the four individuals associated with that campaign. they didn't find evidence of bias when it used informants. and they said there was no

evidence of bias when it decided to initially seek a fisa warrant on trump campaign advisor carter page. but let's be crystal clear here. the ig did find some alarming instances of fbi misconduct related to its applications to secretly monitor carter page. and he could not say whether political bias did or did not influence some of those specific decisions down the road. and, by the way, it's not -- it's not only political bias that could have influenced. it's possible confirmation bias. prosecutorial bias. not all bias is red and blue in america. especially, for investigations of this magnitude. and, yes, the facts in this report are important. but once again, the facts are being distorted more by spin, and in some cases, conspiracy theories. >> what has been described as a few irregularities becomes a massive criminal conspiracy. they couldn't believe trump

didn't want him to believe -- didn't want him to win. and when he won, couldn't tolerate the thafact that he wo >> this was an attempted overthrow. and a lot of people were in on it and they got caught. they got caught red handed. >> i think when you step back here and say, what was this all based on? it -- it's not sufficient. the question really is, what was the agenda after the election that kept 'em pressing ahead after their case collapsed? >> now, the facts have been warped to defend the president here. counter narratives have been pushed and presidential conspiracy theories taken hold as part of this broader information war. frankly, that's helped the president in his fight against the facts of this impeachment investigation. joining me now, nbc news capitol hill correspondent garrett haake. justice correspondent pete williams. also, msnbc legal analyst. garrett, let me start with you and some nuts and bolts. so we're going to have this markup tonight. and, again, markup is washington

speak for sort of i guess editing a bill. except this isn't any ordinary bill coming out of judiciary committee. it is an indictment of the president of the united states. >> yeah. that's right. and i wouldn't expect to see any edits actually taking place. yeah. you had the matinee today of the ig hearing. tonight, starting around 7:00, you'll have the start of this markup. it'll stretch over two days. and, yeah, democrats, ultimately, whose resolution this is, don't anticipate there being any substantive changes to the document that was released yesterday. but what a markup process does allow for is an almost unlimited offering of amendmentsme. and i suspect you'll hear from republicans tonight offering tons of amendments some relating substantively to the ukraine scandal. some perhaps not relating to it at all because this is meant to be a free-flowing process by which a normal bill would be improved before it heads to the floor. this will be a fairly

free-flowing process. and i suspect whether it's late tonight or some point tomorrow, this is going to get kind of nasty. >> i was just going to say. is it going to get ugly? are we going to see crazy roberts rules of order arguments? and points of order here and points of order there. and trying to disrupt this process. >> i've had my head in my parliamentary procedure playbook all day, chuck, trying to prepare for this. yeah, i do. i think you're going to see every -- every variety of parliamentary trickeration used here to try to slow this process down, gum it up. and again, you know, for republicans, i've said this a couple times in different context. they don't necessarily have to win the arguments in these public hearings. they have to try to get people to turn off the television. and so if they can bog down this process and make it seem very dense and not interesting to people who might otherwise care about the impeachment of a sitting president. they can kind of call that a win. >> all right. let's -- from what you could

glean from senators as they left the horowitz hearing today, garrett, what do they feel was accomplished with this hearing? both the republican side of the argument and the democratic side of the argument. >> i'm going to try to take a really positive view here, chuck, and say if there's one big legislative takeaway. one thing that could actually change for the future based on this hearing. it was a bipartisan agreement that there are problems with the fisa process here. problems with the way it was followed by the fbi and perhaps with the way the system is set up at all. that there was some bipartisan agreement, perhaps not on the specific solutions, that those need to be addressed to protect civil liberties. not of future presidential campaigns necessarily but americans of all stripes going forward. the political machinations from all of this will not surprise you. i mean, republicans saw this largely as a, you know, the -- there was a largely defense of the spying language used by the president. the ig was absolutely resolute

in not using that kind of language. and democrats, again, kept pointing back to the defending that none of this puts any doubt on the mueller report's findings. and that there was no political bias at the start of this investigation. defending it as -- as a legitimate, necessary probe. >> garrett haake starting us off there on capitol hill. garrett, thanks very much. let me turn now to pete and ben. and i want to get at something here with both of you, which is having to do -- and, pete, you had it in your interview yesterday with bill barr. this dispute over was there a proper predicate here to open this investigation? i'm going to play some clips here from mr. horowitz, senator graham, and senator coons. take a listen. >> it was opened with the proper predicate, sufficient predication, by a person who was not one of the text message persons. and senior to those people. the confidential human source operations, while permitted by fbi policy, should cause

everybody to give pause as to whether that policy's sufficient to provide accountability over decisions. and finally, that the fisa process here was not used appropriately, properly. and the rules were not followed. >> for a moment, let's assume that there was a lawful predicate to open up a counterintelligence investigation. what has been described as a few irregularities becomes a massive criminal conspiracy. >> president trump has called the entire russia investigation a witch hunt and a hoax. but your report found that the fbi had an authorized purpose when it opened its investigation into whether individuals associated with that campaign were coordinating with the russian governments' broad efforts to interfere in our 2016 presidential election. which was grounded in protecting our national security. >> and i want to point one other thing up here. and it's a timeline that we put together of 60 days in 2016. before july 31st, pete. on june 9th, the trump tower meeting happened. on july 18th, the gop platform

mysteriously changed to somehow take away the lethal weapons to ukraine. july 22nd, wikileaks publishes hacked dnc e-mails. july 27th, fbi learns about papadopoulos intel. also the same day trump says, russia if you're listening. july 31st, opens investigation into the trump campaign. here's what i'm confused about. did the fbi share the rest of that timeline as part of the predicate? or was it just the papadopoulos thing that was used as the predicate? because i don't understand the attorney general's view given all of this that was taking place into the run-up of the opening of the investigation. >> it's just the papadopoulos statement from the australians. and as -- as the inspector general characterized it in his report, it was conveyed to the fbi as a suggestion of a suggestion that russia was going to be able to offer this. now, of course, it's in the context of the fbi's knowing

that the russians are hacking into the democratic computers. so that's the -- that's the two plus two here. i think what the attorney general is saying is -- and by the way, horowitz says in his report. followed the rules. question, he says, are the rules right? is the predicate -- should there be something different when you're looking at a first amendment activity like a presidential campaign? that's a question he raises. but he says, nonetheless, let's apply the rules that existed at the time. the fbi's decision to open the investigation met the admittedly very low bar for doing this. i think what the attorney general is saying is, well, shouldn't the fbi, given that it's an investigation of a presidential campaign, at least have gone back to the original australian source? and said, what did you hear? but that's -- that's his -- that's his view. >> ben wittes, how do you look at this? this idea that they're trying to single out just the one papadopoulos thing as saying that's the only reason. but, again, in context, you're

like, that became, like, the sixth dot. >> right. i have never understood the predication question as a close call to be honest. >> okay. >> to be the -- in the context of russian hacking of, you know, democratic committee servers. a trusted foreign government comes to you and says somebody associated with the trump campaign has been, you know, got drunk in london. and is boasting about their having, you know, a lot of -- of e-mails. >> right. >> and i -- i -- that is just something that calls out to be investigated. shame on the fbi if they had not opened an inquiry based on that. and that is essentially what horowitz says. he doesn't -- except for the shame on them part. but the -- the standards of predication is not a

particularly high standard. and, you know -- >> but this doesn't feel like it was a low bar that they met. they -- i mean -- >> correct. >> that's what i mean. it's not like they just had a, yes, you can -- there is a low bar. but they didn't -- but they more than met -- they more than cleared that bar. >> i agree. and i've always thought it was a very strange criticism that when given that group of circumstances, that there was even a question whether a counterintelligence issue is raised by that. but i will say, you know, the criticism has always been a little bit confused. because on the one hand, people criticized the opening of the investigation. and on the other hand, they also suggest, and the ig rejects this, that the -- in fact, the investigation started earlier than that. right? and the attorney general has both challenged the predication. but he's also cast doubt on whether this was really what triggered the investigation in

the first place. >> right. >> and so one of the significant ig findings here is, yes, the -- the investigation really did start at this time. >> the way they said it. yeah. >> and, number two, and it was adequate predication for the investigation. >> pete, can you clear up something? there's a clip that keeps going around from bill barr where he says the following. he says what i don't understand is why they kept pursuing it after their case collapsed. is he just referring to carter page here? >> yes. yes. >> okay. because that -- that -- that is being used, as you might realize, in general on social media as a way to somehow he was talking about everything. he was specifically talking about carter page in that moment, correct? >> right. and when he says it collapsed, what he means is -- and the ig goes through this. the ig says basically, first of all, the fbi didn't meet the standard for, you know, i can't remember what the phrase is. but, you know, extremely careful preparation for this. but as they kept going back and looking at claims that this

christopher steele was making in the dossier, they kept finding things that were inconsistent with that. went back to contribuhristopher steele's source. and as time went on, it became more and more clear to the fbi or should've been, the ig says, that this just wasn't going anywhere. i think that is he what he means by the case collapsing. >> and ben wittes, the irony to all this. it's my understanding, and speaking with people involved in the mueller report, that the steele dossier and carter page were tiny slices of what they were working on. >> you know, no aspect of any indictment that robert mueller brought depends on the steele dossier. and no aspect of any indictment that robert mueller brought depends on the surveillance of carter page. and so, you know, i don't want to diminish the ig's findings or be dismissive of the ig's findings on the fisa material because, frankly, they're very

upsetting. and this is not the way the process should work. but it is not a basis to discredit the work that robert mueller did or the substance of the presence in the 2016 election. these are threads of the investigation that the larger stream did not depend on at all. >> important context. i'm glad you put it in there. pete williams. ben wittes, thank you. it's pretty clear the fbi and some others are treating fisa applications as if they're any other government bureaucrat's paperwork and that is, clearly, is a problem. it's too loose. anyway, thank you both. up ahead, much more on today's testimony from the department of justice's inspector general. what impact could it have on the impeachment inquiry? i'll ask democratic senator sheldon. and the relentless fight over what's actually real in the trump era. less fight over what's actually real in the trump era. great riches will find you when liberty mutual

customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. wow. thanks, zoltar. how can i ever repay you? maybe you could free zoltar? thanks, lady. taxi! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

the ones that make a truebeen difference in people's lives. and mike's won them, which is important right this minute, because if he could beat america's biggest gun lobby, helping pass background check laws and defeat nra backed politicians across this country, beat big coal, helping shut down hundreds of polluting plants and beat big tobacco, helping pass laws to save the next generation from addiction. all against big odds you can beat him. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. idoprevagen is the number oneild apmempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

[ dramatic music ]ing ] ahhhh! -ahhhh! elliott. you came back!

our review identified significant concerns with how certain aspects of the investigation were conducted and supervised. particularly, the fbi's failure to adhere to its own standards of accuracy and completeness when filing applications with a foreign surveillance -- applications for foreign intelligence surveillance act authority, known as fisa, to surveil carter page, a u.s. person, who was connected to the trump for president campaign. >> welcome back. let's get right to democratic senator sheldon white house who is on the judiciary committee. was part of today's hearing. senator whitehouse. let me ask this. what do you think the public got out of today's hearing? >> well, i hope the first thing that they got was that a lot of the lies and spin that have been thrown at the fbi simply weren't true. the idea -- >> are you confident that they got that? >> i can't speak for the public.

but certainly, the evidence was there from which to get that. the claim that obama wiretapped the president through the fbi. no. blown up. the claim that there's a deep-state conspiracy that is going after him. no. wrong. blown up. the complaint that this was all started with the steele dossier and that it was funded by the clinton campaign. no. blown up. so i think those are the -- the key pieces. i think people can have some assurance that the fbi actually, by and large, went about doing a pretty responsible job in a very difficult situation, in which for the first time, you had a counterintelligence investigation had to be run into a presidential campaign because of the conduct of mike flynn and carter page and others. >> what are the lessons learned for you to say, okay, at the end of the day, it's clear this was an unusual circumstance. everybody was in unusual position. frankly, there was concern that the person you would warn that

they're going to be targeted for infiltration might have actually been somebody who was participating in the scheme. i'm referring to their campaign manager at the time. >> yep. >> so what did you learn from mr. horowitz? to say, you know what? maybe when it comes to presidential campaigns, we've got to do x. that's different from any other entity we deal with in the -- in -- in government. you see anything there? >> i think the thing that you have to be careful of is separating the support duties to a candidate and to a president. particularly, things like intelligence briefings from investigative matters. and a great deal was made in the hearing today of the fact that the fbi agent in the trump intelligence briefing was actually there as an investigator. and that was a lot of fuss. but really not about much because i think horowitz and everybody agrees that when the fbi goes into a briefing like that, and there is evidence

leading the fbi to conclude that people present in that briefing might actually be part of a counterintelligence conspiracy, then at least the fbi agent in the briefing needs to be debriefed afterwards. that evidence that might be gathered from that meeting can't just evaporate. and i think we need to make sure we get that right as we set the rules going forward. >> are you concerned, you know, it's funny. we -- we talk about the word bias. and it's always just used in a political context. there is such thing as prosecutorial bias. confirmation bias. it -- it happens, right? you know, you have blinders on. are you concerned that that is what happened with carter page? that there might've been a little bit of, you know, this is not about -- that basically prosecute -- well, jesus. this guy -- something's fishy here. we better not give this up. we don't know. >> yeah. i think, in any case, setting aside president trump, setting aside this particular investigation. in any case, once the investigative agents get

invested in the case proceeding, there comes a bias to protect the case. and you can see that in a whole variety of circumstances. i suspect that that was the motivation here. that until they understood what was going on, they wanted to maintain their surveillance. and try to understand was there an american national security risk we need to know about? remember, this is the same fbi that missed the 9/11 attack. so they're very sensitive to try to make sure that, in a national security context, they lean forward and they do their job as aggressively and thoroughly as they can. so they're not having to explain why they missed something. and i think that combination is what happened here. but the idea that there is a anti-trump deep-state conspiracy lurking in the fbi, i think, is just nonsense. and was proven to be just nonsense by michael horowitz, the inspector general. >> do you think that the attorney general's decision to characterize his take on this inspector general's report,

before he had a chance to present it publicly, was appropriate? >> well, it rings back to the presentation of the mueller report. which the attorney general also got out in front of. and also, provided administration's spin on before the public had a chance to review the report. i can't explain what is going on with attorney general barr. he came to the senate for confirmation on a very strong case that he was above politics. he didn't need this. all he wanted to do was get in there and do the right thing. and i don't think i've ever seen a more politicized attorney general since ed meese. and ed meese ended up convicted. >> senator sheldon whitehouse. democrat from rhode island. somebody who doesn't mince words. thanks for coming on, sir. >> good to be with you. take care. >> coming up, the judiciary committee is about to take a key step toward the full house vote on impeachment. plus, how a partisan lens is

coloring truth in these impeachment proceedings. what it means for the future of this democracy. tax-smart investing, what's new? -audrey's expecting... -twins! ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan. at chevy, we're all about bringing families together. this time of year, that's really important. so we're making it easier than ever to become part of our family. that's why our chevy employee discount is now available to everyone. the chevy price you pay is what we pay. not a cent more. family is important to us. and we want you to be part of ours. so happy holidays. and welcome to the family.

all: the chevy family! get the chevy employee discount for everyone today. why fingerstick when you can scan? with the freestyle libre 14 day system just scan the sensor with your reader, iphone or android and manage your diabetes. with the freestyle libre 14 day system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose levels any time, without fingersticks. ask your doctor to write a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. you can do it without fingersticks. learn more at freestylelibre.us

you can do it without fingersticks. this piece is talking yeah?. so what do you see? i see an unbelievable opportunity. i see best-in-class platforms and education. i see award-winning service, and a trade desk full of experts, available to answer your toughest questions. and i see it with zero commissions on online trades. i like what you're seeing. it's beautiful, isn't it? yeah. td ameritrade now offers zero commissions on online trades. ♪ undercover human spies to surveil and record people associated with our campaign. look how they've hurt people. they've destroyed the lives of people that were great people. that are still great people.

their lives have been destroyed by scum. okay? by scum. >> welcome back. there was president trump speaking at a campaign rally last night lashing out over impeachment. continuing his criticism of the fbi and the russia investigation. calling the fbi scum. which was at the center of today's senate hearing. with the justice department's inspector general. and when it comes to what exactly the i g concluded, apparently it's going to depend who you were listening to. ended up having influence in some of their conclusions, republicans focused on the conclusion that the fbi made serious mistakes. joining me now, beth fuey. republican strategist, steve schmidt. beth, you and i had a conversation about this earlier today. right? it is just -- this was today's hearing -- it is -- this is the world we live in. i thought the senate might be a little more -- little less partisan than the house these days but that's not the trump

era. >> no, especially when the committee is chaired by lindsey graham, who's gone all in politically with president trump. and he set the tone immediately. and, you know, framed the entire investigation, the entire russia hoax, as -- as -- as he and others and president want to call it. you know, he just reframed it that way. so we sort of knew where things were going right off the bat. yeah. the senate is broken. the house seems to have been broken along ago. >> entire information loop is broken. >> well, and that's the biggest problem. at this point, we feel leeg o like -- everybody feels like everybody is gas lighting. and there's no real truth anywhere. and there's nobody to believe. and there's no one to trust. it's the worst outcome of this presidency. >> steve schmidt, i got to -- jim edgar. i already did the jim edgar quote with beth earlier today. i know you're going to love the jim edgar quote. old-school republican from the ' '80s. it amazes me, jim ed guagar sai how trump uses whatever he can

to defend himself even if it strains or runs contrary to the truth. edgar also noted members of both parties are now being pushed by their bases. you got pretty smart people on both sides forced into taking the extreme position, whether hellbent on impeachment or impeachment never. >> for sure. we live in this polarized era where extremism is rewarded over and over again. we've seen the obliteration of the middle in american politics. and we've seen the obliteration of truth. and that's fundamental in a democracy. you can't have a functional democracy absent truth because if you can't establish truth, there can't be accountability. >> look, russia was a democracy. they're not now. turkey. they've been jailing i believe top five around the world in jailing journalists. suddenly, they're not a democracy. i just want to say it's not conjecture. >> and it's why going back now, it was such an ominous development. day one, when he comes out. sends the press secretary out to say this crowd size was bigger

than that crowd size. when you're looking at picture a versus picture b. >> right. >> because the -- the premise that they're advancing is what truth is, is what the leader says is true. >> right. >> and loyalty is believing the truth of the leader. regardless of what your eyes are clearly telling you or the facts of the matter. >> this president values loyalty over honesty. but, adrian, the democratic party has a messaging challenge now. this is unlike -- democratic party always has a messaging challenge. i would argue it's in the dna. but how do you -- i would argue you're not winning this one so far. >> well, you know, look. i -- i think it depends on, frankly, a lot of it depends on what the media wants to cover. i mean, democrats want to talk about the issues that matter to the american people. healthcare. jobs. economy. raising wages. but republicans are trying to continue to dissow chaos and discord because they want

impeachment. they want this to drive the news because they think it's going to help. >> okay. but i'm -- i mean, isn't that part of the problem? beth, is that republicans have accepted that there's an existential threat to trump. and so they're willing to do whatever it takes to do it. and part of the reason why this impeachment message isn't breaking through is that an existential threat? or do you cut a deal on nafta? >> well, isn't that amazing? >> let me ask it this way. you watch msnbc all day. and you see this -- you see all this happening on capitol hill. and you live in iowa and you go to an elizabeth warren event or pete buttigieg. you name it. they're not talking about impeachment. suddenly, wait a minute. i thought -- what's the existential threat here? >> yeah. well, the -- what's going on in washington and what's going on the campaign trail is, without question, very different. but in fact, what's going on in washington is sort of diminishing what's going on the campaign trail. nothing these candidates is talking

talking about or any of the discussions of healthcare, jobs, guns, anything voters care about is just being diminished. they don't seem as important because what's going on in washington really is sort of a test of the -- of the future of this president. the future of this democracy. >> by the way, it is. >> the future of this party. exactly. >> i mean, i hate to say it is that test. >> well, exactly. so what's going on -- on the campaign trail, by definition, feels smaller. and that means that whomever emerges from this nomination process could seem a little small in comparison to what the country is going through in d.c. >> but on that note, on beth's note, that's exactly why speaker pelosi wants to wrap this up quickly. why she wants the vote to take place in the house. why we want to get this taken care of in the senate so we can move on and this is not going to drive the news. we need to focus on the election. as long as impeachment's going on -- >> so hurry up faster? >> we just want to put this behind us. i mean, congress has an obligation to move forward on this issue. and to do thaeir job. but at the same time, candidates have a job to communicate the issues that matter to the american voters.

>> steve, what's interesting here is adrian is expressing where house democrats are. let's get through this. apparently, now senate republicans are on the, hey, can we get through this, too, bandwagon. they're not wanting a big, long trial. they're talking about a very small trial. present your case. present your defense. we're voting. >> it's a really complicated issue in the sense that impeachment, a partisan impeachment which this is, is terrible for the country. will further divide the country. it will further undermine faith in our institutions. >> but is that the democratic party's fault? or is that the republican party's fault? >> that is the republican party's fault and that is donald trump's fault. the only thing worse than a partisan impeachment is letting impeachable conduct go unchecked. i think the fundamental question is, if this does not meet the line, what conceivably could? in the eyes of these members. now, maybe there's a release valve in the senate where he is censured because he won't be, in

the end, removed from office through a trial. i don't know if the mitt romneys of the world, a couple of republican senators with reputations for probity will put something forward that condemns the conduct. but for the historical record, it must be marked that in this country, the president is not above the law. the president is not a king. the president is not a dictator. and that you, in fact, cannot do whatever you want to do. and every american should be deeply concerned not so much about the foreign interference, which is egregious. but he authored a criminal investigation in a foreign country against a u.s. citizen, who happened to be the former vice president. if you can do that to a former vice president, you can do that to anybody. >> but, you know, chuck, to steve's point. we were talking about this before. during the -- the clinton impeachment, as you recall, democrats in the house and senate were falling all over each other to -- to condemn the

conduct. you know, having a relationship with an intern in the oval office. but saying it didn't meet the grounds of impeachability. republicans won't even do that. they won't condemn the behavior. except for the people like mitt romney, who are very much, you know, alone in the wilderness. >> they made that decision anyway. beth, stephen, adrian. you guys have to stick around. coming up, just about 90 minutes from the start. you love hearings? now, we've got 'em at night. the hearings have gone primetime. the markup of the impeachment articles will begin tonight. we're going to hear from a member of the house judiciary committee who will be there to explain what they're marking up. o explain what they're marking up. ♪ do you recall, not long ago ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪ ♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪ ♪ we don't see who you're against, through or for,rs, whether tomorrow will be light or dark, all we see in you, is a spark we see your spark in each nod, each smile, we see sparks in every aisle. we see you find a hidden gem, and buying diapers at 3am. we see your kindness and humanity. the strength of each community.

we've seen more sparks than we can say. about 20 million just yesterday. the more we look the more we find, the sparks that make america shine. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

as we mentioned earlier, impeachment is going primetime tonight. just over an hour before the house judiciary committee will begin mark up of two articles of impeachment. we're expecting the process to go late into tonight and continue tomorrow morning.

before the committee even gets to debating each of these articles and offering amendments, every committee member gets to make an opening statement. so we do expect members on both sides of the aisle to use that time to make their views about impeachment known. or you might say congress will be at peak congress these days. all this leading up to a historic judiciary committee vote, that likely will be along party lines, on the articles of impeachment tomorrow. joining me now, eric swalwell, member of the house judiciary committee. will be participating in this markup. markup is a washington speak term. congressman, for basically editing a bill before you send it to the floor. what's there to edit? what's there to edit, sir? what -- what -- what words would you like to change? what do you expect to happen here? or do we kind of thing the -- you know, this first draft, maybe there's a period a a semicolon you're going to add and that's about it? >> let's hope that's not what's taking place, chuck. good evening. you're not going to see editing on the part of democrats.

we feel comfortable we've made the case. the president abused his office to cheat an election and jeopardized our national security and democracy while doing that. republicans have an opportunity, though, to offer amendments. the president would have an opportunity to also be a part of this inquiry. and he's chosen not to. but it's important that the facts not only be powerful. but the process behind it as far as fairness is powerful, too. >> in an op-ed back in july, you thought two days after mueller testified before congress, that impeachment proceedings needed to begin immediately. and now, these two articles are not -- mueller -- there's not an article solely dedicated to mueller. do you regret that? >> no. actually, i think it's appropriate that there's a call back to mueller in that we're telling the american people, this is what the president does. he asks foreign governments to help him. and then when investigations take place, he obstructs them. but, chuck, you know, that op-ed, i wrote that after the

interview between the president and george stef nop lis where the president said he was offered dirt again from a foreign government, he would take it. little did i know. little did you or the world know, the president was actually underway with the ukrainians trying to get them to investigate his political rival, joe biden. >> the -- you mention a few callbacks in the articles themselves. in article one, there's a sentence in there. these actions were consistent with president trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in the united states election. and then in article two, there's another callback that says this. these actions were consistent with president trump's previous everyda everyday efforts to undermine government investigations. i see the word government in there. a little birdie told me there is a reason you did government and not congressional in order to include mueller. fair? >> well, congress is a part of government. that's how we see it. >> i understand that. but if it were only congress, you would have said congress, right? >> well, we -- you know, are in

the courts right now. and that reflects that as it relates to the mueller obstructive acts the president took. we are hopeful that successful court rulings will allow us to introduce, as pattern evidence, the president's conduct at the senate trial. >> you were a presidential candidate. you're in the middle of this impeachment process. you may very well become an impeachment manager. do you believe the entire democratic party, whether those running for president, do you think this should be the priority of the democratic party right now? >> no, it's something we have to do. it's something we can't ignore. and thankfully, here in the house, you know, in the next couple weeks, we will pass prescription drug reform. today, we're passing a farm worker bill that affords more rights and allows more people, you know, to become, you know, citizens and work in america as farm workers. also, chuck, you know, we're going to fund the government and pass a trade deal with mexico. so it's not just walking and chewing gum. it's doing olympic hurdles and chewing gum. >> but do you believe -- let me

ask it this way. you're trying to make a case to the country. the reason you have to impeach him, basically, in a run-up to an election is because you don't trust him to play fair in an election as head of government. and, yet, you're basically, by saying, hey, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, you're sort of seeding the messaging field a bit here. i guess my point is, if he's an existential threat, can you also cut a daieal on nafta? >> yes, and the american people expect that while we hold him accountable, we still do our jobs. and he, you know, should also be doing his job. >> okay. so what message is sent if you lay a case that he's an existential threat and he's acquitted? >> that we did our duty of holding him accountable. and the senate, when offered to do their duty, you know, decided a president should be allowed to use their office to ask foreign governments to help them cheat.

i don't think that's the message we want any president to receive. this one or a future one. but we're going to do our job. with little regard to, you know, what the future may hold by doing it now. >> what do you make of the small group of moderates that have floated the idea of censure in the house? i know it seems -- is that -- is that a dead idea? and if that is what happens in the senate, how would you feel about that result? >> i don't think that would properly hold the president accountable for what he's done. but i will give credit to so many of the moderates and vulnerable members in our caucus who courageously came forward early on when the president was caught doing this in an op-ed they wrote. people who worked in national security and the military saying that no one's above the law. and they actually put us, in many ways, in this position to hold the president accountable. >> congressman eric swalwell, thank you for coming on. you're going to be part of probably the most watched markup since obama care i want to say. televised markup doesn't happen every day. obviously, there's a reason why

i think a lot of people are interested in this one. congressman, thank you very much. >> thanks, chuck. >> committee markup meeting will be tonight. making my friends over at cspan very happy. as americans get ready for the holidays, we're getting ready for the season of impeachment. g for the season of impeachment. i thought i was managing my moderate to severe crohn's disease. then i realized something was missing... me. my symptoms were keeping me from being there. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common,

and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. the ones that make a truebeen difference in people's lives. and mike's won them, which is important right this minute, because if he could beat america's biggest gun lobby, helping pass background check laws and defeat nra backed politicians across this country, beat big coal, helping shut down hundreds of polluting plants and beat big tobacco, helping pass laws to save the next generation from addiction. all against big odds you can beat him. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. i'm mibefore we talk about tax-s-audrey's expecting... new? -twins! ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan.

i was on the fence about changing from a manual to an electric toothbrush. but my hygienist said going electric could lead to way cleaner teeth. she said, get the one inspired by dentists, with a round brush head. go pro with oral-b. oral-b's gentle rounded brush head

removes more plaque along the gum line. for cleaner teeth and healthier gums. and unlike sonicare, oral-b is the first electric toothbrush brand accepted by the ada for its effectiveness and safety. what an amazing clean! i'll only use an oral-b! oral-b. brush like a pro. 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. ♪ i receivelize travel rewards. going new places! going out for a bite! going anytime. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com. you just heard congressman swalwell just tell me impeachment does not need impeao

be a priority of the democratic party but is something they can't ignore. adrienne, it sounded like you said, eric swalwell said the same thing, hey, we can do both things at the same time. does that, though, hinder their ability that you have to do something about this now, steve? >> when you look at policy, such as it is, that's coming out. put aside the trade deal for a second, the american people look at their government. they have no expectation that anything will be done and they have no evidence to suggest that anything can or will be done. >> they assume dysfunction now? is there this low-grade -- >> of course. >> we assume all dysfunction on both sides? >> no expectations for anything. and so the issue in the election at the core, what it's about -- i don't think the democratic candidates as a whole have centered this yet. the election is about one thing. trump and trumpism.

that's what it's about. that's the great question that the country has to face as we head into the 2020 election. so it's not about health care policy. it's not about any of these other things. >> buttigieg and biden are about the two that seem to be closest to your perspective on this. >> and the question that will play out over the course of the campaign which has just been lightly touched on in some of these debates is where do we go as a country from here? how do we recover from this? are we on a slope where we'll look back, that this will be the middle period, the good old days? one thing any reasonable observer in this period of american politics has to see the fragility of all of this. it's much more fragile than any of us thought as we see now going on three years of the shattering of every norm that

holds democracy together. >> and i would also -- to the point of can you talk about health care here and talk about impeachment there, in some ways democrats overlearned the lesson of 2018 where they gained 40 seats talking about health care, the economy, et cetera. donald trump was not on the ballot that time. they had a little more of a free lane to discuss issues. in 2019, the off-year election, when impeachment was very much in the air and republicans warned that democrats were going to pay the price for talking about impeachment, that wasn't the case. a democrat was elected governor in kentucky, virginia -- >> no electoral data that backs up anything that has been helpful to trump. >> exactly. >> not one. >> so the results of '19 would suggest that those democratic presidential candidates can lean forward a little more on impeachment but so far they've been relatively reluctant. >> senate candidates are having a difficult time messaging on this. they are number one trying to make the case to the american

voters, especially in those first four states why they should be the nominee, why they should be selected. on the flip side they have to come back here in january, back to washington, d.c. and participate in impeachment trial. so they are trying to sort of message both things. and i think if you are a voter on the campaign trail, if you're attending an amy klobuchar town hall or elizabeth warren town hall it's fair game to ask about impeachment and the candidates should know how to answer that. >> i have to say, what -- it seems a bit precarious. if i were elizabeth warren, bernie sanders and amy klobuchar, sitting senators -- there are others, michael bennet, but those three that feel like they're in this game still, it's a little risky if you try to be overly aggressive at the senate trial. is it not, steve? >> i think so. in the end the presidential campaign is the longest, toughest, hardest competition that exists on earth.

more so than any football or soccer. it's a brutal contest. it's a character test. none of these people know what's going to happen. we don't know if there will be an epic terrorist attack. we don't know if there will be economic collapse. >> tom brokaw likes to say, the unfor seen will occur. >> they are tested every day. what i would advise is do your duty. do your job. when i listen to congressmen talk about the courage of the moderate members, it just doesn't strike me as courage, right? no one is suggesting that they charge omaha beach. they took an oath, ran for public office. they are stewards for a period of time of the american experiment. which began in 1787. the oath they take is to defend the constitution of the united states. to assert their article one

responsibilities, keeping a check on the article two branches of government. that's what this is about. it's about the conduct. it's about the actions. and they are duty-bound to do their jobs. >> i think steve schmidt will become my new constitutional therapist. that was some good, wholesome reminders. steve and adrienne, beth. >> thank you. >> we'll be back. rienne, beth. >> thank you. >> we'll be back mory support br. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. plaque psoriasis uncoverth clearer skin that can last. in fact, tremfya® was proven superior to humira® in providing significantly clearer skin. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur.

tremfya®. uncover clearer skin that can last. janssen can help you explore cost support options. and you may know us from your very first sandwich,esh, your mammoth masterpiece, and whatever this was. oscar mayer is found in more fridges than anyone else, because it's the taste you count on. make every sandwich count. why fingerstick when you can scan? with the freestyle libre 14 day system just scan the sensor with your reader,

iphone or android and manage your diabetes. with the freestyle libre 14 day system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose levels any time, without fingersticks. ask your doctor to write a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. you can do it without fingersticks. learn more at freestylelibre.us

that is all for tonight but 24 hours of american politics continues. it will be news every moment this next 24 hours. we'll have more ""meet the press" daily tomorrow. chuck todd cast. >> i bet you think this song is about you. i don't think this day is about you or me. i will note for msnbc viewers our coverage started. >> together. >> at 9:00 a.m. with you, sir. we're handing off now. >> you had to work longer. you have to do at least an extra hour. >> what do you make now that all together we start the day with a hearing that is really rehashing 2016 and we're going into a night now that is looking at allegations that donald trump was trying to steal 2020? >> i have to say, ari, i think when we look back and we realized, i think the trump