chris matthews and don't go anywhere because "hardball" with chris matthews is up next. definite articles. let's play hardball. good evening. i'm chris matthews back in washington. for donald trump tonight is the night that history bites. any moment now the house judiciary committee is going to take up the solemn task of impeaching the president from his high elected office for his abuse of office and obstruction of the congress. you're looking live now at the first of the committee's two sessions over the next 24 hours to consider those two articles. for his part trump has remained relatively quiet in public today although he did have lunch with house republican leadership this afternoon as they prepare to mount their defense of him. tonight we'll hear from members on each side.

former chief of staff to nancy pelosi the speaker, joyce vance is former u.s. attorney and jeff bennett is nbc news correspondent. jeff, you've been carrying us and taking us all this way. take us now to the finish line. we assume tomorrow night in terms of the committee's work in actually writing these articles. >> well, the committee right now, chris, is opening a markup of these two tightly focused articles of impeachment. and so a markup for people who aren't familiar with it is a process by which a congressional committee debates or amends measures or legislation. so tonight there'll be a lot of debate. so each member gets his or her five minutes to make an opening statement. democrats i'm told are not planning to offer any amendments. they're not planning to make any change tuesday the two articles that have already gotten the blessing of the house speaker and house leadership.

republicans certainly will try to do that but democrats will likely shut that down. here is chairman nadler. >> today we need to gens articles of impeachment against president donald j. trump. although it is our custom to limit opening statement to the chair and ranking member of the committee as i informed the ranking member i believe for such an important and solemn so occasion as this it would be appropriate for all members to have an opportunity to make an opening statement. before we begin i want to note the absence of our colleague ted lou who required a medical procedure monday evening and will be unable to attend this markup. i understand he is in good spirits and plan tuesday be back at work next week. his statement will be made part of the record and i know all of my colleagues join me in wishing him a speedy recovery. i will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

today we begin consideration of two articles of impeachment against president donald j. trump. the first article charges that the president used the powers of his public office to demand that a foreign government attack his political rivals. the second article charges that the president obstructed the congressional investigation into his conduct. other presidents have resisted congressional oversight. president trump's stonewall was complete, absolute and without precedent in american history. taken together, the two articles charged president trump with placing his private, political interests above our national security, above our free and fair elections and above our ability to hold public officials accountable. this committee now owes it to the american people to give these articles close attention and to describe their factual

basis, meaning and importance. i believe that three questions should frame our debate. first, does the evidence show clearly that the president committed these acts? second, do they rise to the level of impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors? third, what are the consequences for our national security, for the integrity of our elections and for our country if we fail to act? to the first question there can be no serious debate about what president trump did. on july 25th of this year when he spoke to president zelensky of ukraine by telephone, president trump had the upper hand. ukraine had been invaded by russia. zelensky had only recently been elected. he badly needed our help. he needed it in the form of military aid already

appropriated by congress because of our national security interests in ukraine. and he needed help in the form of an oval office meeting so he could show the world the united states stands with him against russian aggression. president trump should have focused on america's national security and on the interests of the american people on that call. instead he completely ignored them in order to push his own personal, political interests. president trump asked for a favor. he wanted ukraine to announce two bogus investigations. one into former vice president biden, his leading opponent in a 2020 election and another to advance a conspiracy theory that ukraine, not russia attacked our elections in 2016. these were not legitimate requests. neither was supported by the evidence. one investigation was designed

to help president trump conseal the truth about the 2016 election. the other was designed to help him gain an advantage in the 2020 campaign. both were divorced from reality and from official u.s. policy. the evidence proves that these requests were not related to any real interests in rooting out corruption. president trump eagerly does business with corrupt governments every day. the evidence shows that president trump did not care if real investigations took place. a public announcement that the government of ukraine was investigating his rivals would have been enough for him to release the aid, whether or not an actual investigation ever took place. after the call president trump ratcheted up the pressure. he dangled the offer of an oval office meeting. he withheld $391 million in military aid.

his personal lawyer traveled to pressure the ukrainians directly. the president deployed other agents including outside the official channels of diplomacy to make his desires clear. by september president zelensky was ready to comply to announce the two fake investigations. then the scandal broke into the open. caught in the act the president was forced to release the aid. the house of representatives opened an inquiry into the president's actions, president trump did everything in his power to obstruct the investigation. he declared across the board resistance. he ordered every official in the federal government to defy all subpoenas related to the inquiry. at his command administration also refused to produce a single document relate today the inquiry, not one. to put this obstruction into

context, during the watergate hearings president nixon turned over recordings of his conversations in the oval office. later, president clinton handed over his dna. president trump's obstruction was by contrast, absolute. those are the facts. they're overwhelming. there's no denying them. having reviewed the evidence, we come to our second question. is the president's proven conduct impeachable? the answer is simply -- is simple. absolutely. under article i of the constitution the president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. the highest of high crimes is abuse of power. it occurs when a president uses his official powers to serve his own personal selfish interests at the expense of the public good. to the founding generation that had fought a king and won our freedom it was a specific

well-defined offense. the first article of impeachment charges president trump with abuse of power. the article describes president trump's conduct and lays out two aggravating factors that we must consider. in pressuring ukraine for a personal favor president trump both betrayed our national security and attempted to corrupt our elections. when the president weakens an ally who advances american security interests by fighting an american adversary, the president weakens america. and when the president demands that a foreign government investigate his domestic political rivals, he corrupts our elections. to the founders, this kind of corruption was especially pernicious. free and fair electionerize ts bedrock of our democracy. if our elections are corrupt, everything is corrupt. the president faces a second article of impeachment for his

ongoing efforts to obstruct a lawful investigation into his conduct. we have never in the history of our nation seen a president categorically defy congress in this manner. if the president can first abuse his power and then stonewall all congressional requests for information, congress cannot fulfill its duty to act as a check and balance against the executive and the president becomes a dictator. later tonight you will hear more about both articles and how they describe a pattern of behavior that president trump seems determined to repeat again and again. my colleagues will also address various procedural objections that had been raised in the president's defense. but there is one of those objections that i wish to address right away. some ask why not take more time? why is this necessary now? why do we need to impeach the

president? why not let the next election handle it? this brings us to the third and final question. what is the risk if we do not act? over the past 94 days since the house investigation began, indeed over the last three years, one the disputable truth has emerged. if we do not respond to president trump's abuses of power the abuses will continue. we cannot rely on an election to solve our problems when the president threatens the very integrity of that election. nor can we sit on our hands while the president undermines our national security. and while he allows his personal interests and the interests of our adversary russia to advance. the president's personal lawyer was in ukraine again just last week that was not three years ago. that was not three months ago.

that was saturday. president trump's continuing abuses of power jeopardizes our security and our elections. the threat is urgent. if we do not act now, what happens next will be our responsibility as well as his. i will close with a word to my republican colleagues. i know you. i have worked with many of you for years. i consider you to be good and decent public servants. i know this moment may be difficult, but you still have a choice. i hope every member of this committee will withstand the political pressures of the moment. i hope that none of us attempt to justify behavior that we know in our heart is wrong. i hope that we are able to work together to hold this president or any president accountable for breaking his most basic obligations to the country and to its citizens. while you think about that choice, please keep in mind that one way or the other, president trump will not be president

forever. when his time has passed, when his grip on our politics is gone, when our country returns as surely it will to calmer times and stronger leadership, history will look back on our actions here today. how will you be remembered? you have each taken an oath to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. i hope to be remembered for honoring that oath. i hope you feel the same. and so with a heavy heart i support these articles of impeachment. i urge my colleagues to support them as well. i yield back the balance of my time. i now recognize distinguished ranking member of the judiciary committee the gentleman from georgia mr. collins with his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i find it amazing at best, hilarious i guess at worst we

come to quote a solemn and amazing moment. we've been on this past since november 2016. this is not new. we've been trying this for almost three years as your majority member of this party. the only thing that has changed is the opportunity from last november when you became the majority. the only thing that changed in your desire to impeach this president was that you became the majority. and we have spent all year in this committee trying to impeach the president. we have occasionally had markups on bills, most of which so partisan they cannot even go forward in the senate. most of which that do not address any issue that we talked about. but it is amazing to me that we take it now as such a solemn oath that we've made up something to come to this point to say this is very solemn like it jump up and snuck up on you.

it's like the holiday season. it doesn't jump up and sneak up on you when you've been expecting it the whole time, and that's what we've been doing. what has been amazing to me was is some things we have seen. so let's take some perspective here for a little while. what has our committee, this great committee come to? that's the question for us. let's just take it for just a moment inside these impeachment hearings. this is our third -- i'll count it into tomorrow for three -- three hearings in this committee of impeachment, and that's all we're having. what do we get out of those three hearings? we had a bunch of law professors three of which who cannot stand the president, who cannot stand his voters and cannot stand the fact he's still in office telling us why he should be impeached and that inferences were okay to find impeachment. we had a hearing just two days ago from staff lecturing us on what's relevant and not relevant

and what they found in a report while a member that wrote the report hid in his closet somewhere i guess or in his office not wanting to come face the questions of this committee. that should be abhorrent to everyone here. so let's think about what we've seen and what we've not seen. and again, chairman schiff is nowhere to be found. when we understand this, we look forward, deny it has started again. we talk about tearing down our national institutions and we start talking about putting our security at risk when tonight even in the chairman's opening statement we start with one of the most amazing take downs i have ever seen. when they can't make their argument at the president pressured mr. zelensky, they then attack mr. zelensky and then say that he was pressured when mr. zelensky on numerous occasions he said i have not been pressured, i am not being used, i know the call was fine, i'm not being pressured to do

anything. and here what the majority is saying. the majority is saying mr. zelensky is a liar and we are tearing down a world leader in the eyes of those who don't like him as a country and russia who's attacking him. when we can't make our case we teardown, not only try to teardown the leader of the free world, president trump. we're tearing down the newly elected leader of the ukraine. this is amazing to me. you can't make your case against the president because nothing happened, and when president zelensky confirms nothing happened, we start tearing him down. i never thought we'd cross outside the ocean to try and basically impugn the integrity of a world leader like we have been for the last two hearings. we have also found other things we have found in our very minimal hearings here in this body, we have seen other political committees have used

political vendetta by putting phone records in, naming names. i mean, you talk about getting even. we put names. mr. nunes, mr. solomon, others on those four numbers that we looked at and nobody would own up to it. mr. goldman, mr. schiff of course wasn't here, but even mr. goldman wouldn't own up to who said would do that when they could simply put in the record congressman one, reporter two, no they got their drive by, they got their political smear. that's the record being built in judiciary committee. not a record of facts against this president. a party that's lost all -- we can have all the opening statements tonight we want, but they can't get away from that fact. what is the big lie being perpetrated here on us? the big lie is this? and one of the democrats have told the american people, they

have said this for three years, the big lie we're hearing perpetrated tonight is one the end justifies the means, the lie the sham impeachment is okay because the threat is so real and so urgent and so imminent. the big lies that political expediency is honorable and justifiable, and history has shown that to be untrue and dangerous. the big lie is that adam schiff had gained evidence in plain sight he said of president trump colluding with russia and special counsel mueller's report debunked that lie, but it continues to spread like a cancer every time we meet. the big lie is that the evidence of the impeachment is overwhelming and uncontested, the facts are undisputed. the very fact that people in this committee dispute the facts make them disputed facts, not undisputed facts. the problem that we're seeing here is even when you get to the ar articles themselves, abuse of power when you compare them to history, i'm glad the chairman

brought up history. because i will not write history. they will not always be the majority as he talked about this president not always being president. i do believe he'll be president for five more years. but at this time there will be a turn over at some point, and what have we had? this is the articles that we wrote, after all these hearings and grand pronouncements and all these thoughts of crimes in plain sight, we get abuse of power? with no rael dateal dates on th the abuse, it's just generic vague statements? the democrats can't come up with the arguments for it. all they have is here members we'll give you abuse of power, you go home pick something you don't like about the president, there's your abuse of power. this is as much about political expediency as it is about anything else and anybody defending that is treading on very thin ice. and then obstruction of congress. you know the only obstruction

we've seen here is obstruction from chairman schiff of this investigation. he did not turn over the documents as he was supposed to. we get those last saturday in a massive document after we've had a hearing, after we've had another hearing where we're supposed to lay out the report, and tonight he sends the letter of classified information that has been classified over to us tonight. don't think for a second, american public, that this majority wants you to find the truth. the obstruction has only occurred from adam schiff and the majority. keeping people from actually trying to find the truth, that's the only obstruction here, so why don't we just have that as an obstruction charge? but it would be against adam schiff and the majority, not the president. two articles like that? abuse of power and obstruction of congress in 70 something days? the only abuse of power here is the majority racing the fast s they've ever had the clock and the calendar determining what impeachment looks like.

that's the abuse of power as professor turley said. but before i finish i cannot stop without this. the real legacy of this impeachment hearing will not be the removal of donald trump as president. in fact if anything they see the majority for what they are, on a three-year vendetta to get somebody they couldn't beat and are desperate to do it if he beats them again next year. here's the damage it's the institutional damage to this body. it's the institutional damage to getting information after the hearing started for not having the rules followed, for having this committee as the chairman warned us about 20 years ago when he said this committee, the judiciary committee should never accept a report from someone else without verifying it having hearings to make sure it was there. unless as the chairman said we become a rupper stamp. i don't know about you but i'm not a rubber stamp and i don't like what i've been forced to do, sit here and be lectured to

by professors and a staff that does not wear a pin telling us what's rel vnevant or not. the minority hearing date which by the way get ready we'll talk about this more and we'll get it shot down tomorrow and rules committee will take care of it but for reporters and media and people who have watched this body and an institution i've loved all my life being an intern up here being destroyed day after day -- if the minority has no rights and one day this majority will be back in the minority, and they will be crying and screaming for minority points to be up held, and i will point back to 2019 and say this is the year you put a dagger in minority rights. justify the most basic obligations of this committee have been overrun, so tonight we've experienced -- we're in december. after a year of trashing this institution, a year of trying to trash this administration and this president, we come up with abuse of power and can't define

it? we come up with obstruction of congress after 72 days? i know they're desperate. you know how i know it? adam schiff's own words yesterday. we can't go to court. that would take too long, an election is coming. let me finish the last part of this sentence as he liked to put words in president trump's mouth when he faked the call transcript. no, adam, what you need to continue to say is we can't beat him next year. the only thing we need is a 30-second commercial saying we impeached him. that's the wrong reason to impeach somebody, and the american people are seeing through this. but the end of the day my heart breaks for a committee that has trashed this institution, and this is where we are now. with that i yield back. >> we're going to continue monitoring tonight's house judiciary committee meeting, and for more i'm joined by robert

costa, and the joyce vance of course former u.s. attorney and nbc correspondent jeff bennett and presidential historian john meacham. he's also available to us tonight. let's go around the room and as the chairman says i'm going to take five minutes for myself, actually about a minute. political know how meaning this is the dice that's has been cast, there'll be a vote probably next week, before christmas we know that, and it'll be what they say, beautifully written articles, very economically crisply almost constitutional language. the name of the game is i think -- nancy pelosi wants to come out with 230 votes she went into and 232, maybe one or two. but if she can bring an impeachment charge against the president, two of them, with strong democratic support, 232 is what the number she got when she started here with the resolution, she's a winner.

and that's why she wants just two and she wants overwhelming unity so it's clear, crystal, obvious that these guys believe that the other guy, the president is wrong. >> and this process was designed just for that, to come up with the best articles that will resonate with the american people that members could take home and say, look, i voted for articles of impeachment, and these are the two articles because the president of the united states decided to talk to another foreign entity to interfere in the election. and definitely this is something that's going to take place over the next two weeks, two months, six months until the election. >> i think the speaker separated in biblical language the weak from the chaff. the big here is we knew what he did with zelensky and it was compromising national security. and people read the paper, "the new york times," whatever it is, they know what's going on and our national security is what

counts when you're a congress person. she picked the right spot to beat trump with. >> i was with the president yesterday in pennsylvania. he's stoking that base in western pennsylvania but if the democrats want to hold onto philly suburbs they're trying to make this argument on national security. and you see speaker pelosi trying to arm her own members by giving them narrow focused articles of impeachment and giving them an economic point to talk about. this is not just speaker pelosi as the head of the democratic party but saying to her chairman i'm in control, we're going to keep this house majority. >> that's well said. let me go to joyce on this. it isn't just the law now. it's how the speaker calls it, and did she call it right and victoriously? >> you know, this is the real interception of the law and politics. and i think one of the truisms of the last couple of years in politics is that anyone who questions nancy pelosi ultimately comes to see that she

is strategically brilliant. i think she's very focused here. i listened to representative collins' complaints about these articles of impeachment, and i don't think they serve him very well. because there are specifics in article i, this is solicitation of a foreign country for help in an election, this is bribery and extortion and ultimately a conspiracy by the president to do both of those things. but the real telling point where nancy pelosi's strategy will come through is when collins and his colleagues begin to complain about the damage done to their body, done to congress by these proceedings, democrats need only refer to article ii which lays out that the president in unprecedented fashion has categorically declined to engage in a constitutionally mandated process in oversight of the presidency. it's going to be very difficult for republicans to simultaneously complain about

the process and avoid the impact that the american people will see from that second article. >> history is being made tonight, and, john, i want to talk to you about one idea about focus. the old line was don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes. it seems to me pulosely helosi figured out the center did not want to impeach, the left did. finally she found an opportunity for close engagement with trump on an issue he was questioning, well, you've got to argue he was betraying the national trust. >> yeah, this is lexington and concord for her. she made a very carefully calibrated decision. but i don't want to just talk about the speaker's decision in raw political terms. i think at some point we have to take people at their word. and i think the democrats, the ranking member made fun or attacked the chairman for

this -- but this is a solemn moment. it is difficult. we do this once every 60 years in this country. andrew johnson, richard nixon, bill clinton, and varying degrees of seriousness, varying degrees of political divisiveness. but it's an important moment, and it was the ultimate check put on the executive. one of the things that -- i think the speaker has done a wonderful job not simply tactically but strategically in defense of the constitution. because one of the things that i think republicans someday if they ever choose to have a reckoning ability this will have to figure out is how did they become the monarchical party? how did they become monarchists, because that's basically what they're arguing. that the president is acting in a kingly fashion and that's okay. this is as if the high

federalists are back somehow. one of thomas paine's most important insights in common sense, arguably one of the most important things originaty rendered in english in terms of our revolution, people asked where is the king of america? the king of america is above where the law is. and it is about the law not simply about the man. whether the members and senators are going to be able to hear that music, i don't know. but here's hoping they do. >> robert, i want to start with you. i think the language of the articles are beautifully done, as i said economically written and they get to the point. and i do think separating the weak from the chaffed is important. she did not go after emoluments. except for the far left, no one is going to kick this guy out of office because he made some money off the hotel down on pennsylvania avenue. i do think it's solemn, but it's also political. the right spot for max rose of staten island and madeleine dean of montgomery county,

pennsylvania, and all these people. and she may have even got brian fitzpatrick of bucks county to vote for this thing because you're voting to defend the interests of this country against a president who didn't defend those interests. >> you made the case that abuse of power helps people running in the suburbs and we're talk about the issue of national security. give some attention as well to this article of impeachment as obstruction of congress. as a reporter this is culmination of 2 1/2 years of frustrations among house democrats that this white house subpoena after subpoena says no. whether it's an agency, the department or an impeachment inquiry, they are so frustrated that their branch doesn't legislate anymore. and when comes to their other duty of oversight, they can't even do that. >> the problem there, joyce, it seems to me is the failure of the three branches of government to work together. back in nixon's day -- it wasn't his day but it was the end of his day, the courts delivered

the tapes, the incriminating june 23rd tapes to the congress in time for them to impeach the president. this time around it looks like the courts are working to slow the whole thing down to the point where they've almost become irrelevant. >> you know, that's been one of the real frustrations here. we heard that from congressman schiff yesterday, a little bit of an echo of that this evening, this notion that the courts have not done that clearly for anyone who reads the law sees the need to do, which is to force these witnesses to testify. maybe they have some limited executive privilege, but these folks that were around the president who are material fact witnesses all need to be in front of congress now. they should have been in front of bob mueller, and the courts are dragging their feet. >> and why? what is the motivation of these judges not to render expeditious decisions so they can be useful to the public?

why do they think they can wait eight months for the mcgahn decision? it's like they think they're on a death row decision where they've got to exhaust every potential appeal. is that what's going on here? >> you know, i think it's easy to cast blame here, but most of it blame just belongs with the process. we have rules involved in litigating that for instance give parties 30 days to respond and then another 30 days. and the courts for whatever reason have typically complied with those rules. we've seen some expedited proceedings. but as you point out, chris, there are some cases where courts render decisions very quickly. everybody saw this coming. these matters could have been briefed more quickly. the supreme court could have in essence sent the message it wanted it spread on the way. and in essence we're seeing this death by a thousand cuts with no decisions. >> and that's why i think the president's defenders are saying let's wait for the courts

because that means death of this whole operation. thank you so much. jeff bennett, of course and historian john meacham. coming up much more on tonight's impeachment debate in the house judiciary committee plus the doj's inspector general presents his report on the origins of the mueller probe to congress. senator richard bloomenthal is going to join us next. you're watching "hardball." g to. you're watching "hardball. [farmers 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 ♪

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. .'m mike bloomberg and i approve this message. but this, this is the future. the future of communicating of hearing and connecting with life. and this, is eargo. no appointments no waiting no hassles. and they are practically invisible in your ear. now you see it. now you don't. if you have hearing loss now is the time to do something about it. because denying you have hearing loss, well that's the old way

that's why xfinity mobile lets you design your own data. you can share 1, 3, or 10 gigs of data between lines, mix in lines of unlimited, and switch it up at any time. all with millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. it's a different kind of wireless network,

designed to save you money. switch and save up to $400 a year on your wireless bill. and save even more when you say "bring my own phone" into your voice remote. that's simple, easy, awesome. click, call or visit a store today. welcome back to "hardball." last night the president used the inspector general's report to slam his investigation into his 2016 campaign and calls fbi employees or officers scum. that's his word.

let's watch. >> the fbi also sent multiple 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. >> that crowd wasn't reacting to that and good for them. inspector general michael horowitz who appeared before the senate judiciary committee today was asked if any of that was true. here's what he said. >> was there any evidence that you found that the fbi tried to overthrow the presidency? >> no. >> did you find any evidence that the fbi tapped the phones at trump tower? >> no. >> did you find evidence that the fbi put spies in the trump campaign? >> we did not find evidence that the fbi sought to place

confidential human sources inside the campaign. >> for more i'm joined by senator richard blumenthal, democrat from connecticut. and i'm joined also by cynthia schneider, you're a good witness to have tonight. senator, the president -- i know you have to be particular in talking to people like mr. horowitz who's a good public servant, but this president's trashing of every american institution is just his pattern now. they're all scum including republicans who don't like him. >> that's absolutely right, chris. and i specifically asked mr. horowitz do you agree with the characterization of our courageous and dedicated fbi as scum, and he said no. but the point here is that the president has disparaged and demeaned law enforcement generally. and he is absolutely wrong when he says it's destroyed lives.

in fact, three of the four people who were involved in the investigation have been convicted. >> wow. let me go to cynthia on this because the question -- i watched the politics today and i watched republican members of the congress and senate mostly the senate today, just acting like a report said the absolute opposite of what it said. it said there was no conspiracy here by the fbi to bring down the trump campaign, to execute a coup. there was none of that, and yet they kept saying it over and over again as if they were speaking for the report of michael horowitz, the inspector general? >> tharts. and i think it's important why we have this function of the inspector general which is an independent entity to issue a report to call the shots like they are so that no matter what people call it you have the written words of the report that speak for itself and you have mr. horowitz's testimony.

>> what do you think is going on in the senate when we get over there? there's going to be a trial. it lookz like it it looks like it's to be in january. it looks like it's going to be the length of it month it looks like. >> first the inspector general report absolutely demolishes all of the conspiracy theories, the claims about a right wing state cabal, a deep state coup and overthrowing the president. and i think what's going to happen here is that we're going to continue to chip away and decimate these kinds of distractions and conspiracy theories that are the ultimate resort of the republicans, and they are dangerous, profoundly dangerous to our national security. one point that the article of impeachment makes so cogently and powerfully is that this president is a continuing threat to our democratic institution,

particularly our elections and to our national security around the globe and his willingness to give away our national interests to his personal benefit. >> so what do you think the senate will do when they try him? >> i think that a number of my colleagues, and i would put the number between 1 and 10 will side with us on the procedural issues, which will enable us to present additional witnesses and documents. and i think a number of them will look in the mirror and have some regards for the judgment of history, which will haunt them if they vote against impeachment and come our way. but first we need to win on the procedural issue, and that's where the fight will begin as soon as early january. >> would aiogive a high end of who would vote for a conviction of republicans?

>> i would give the high end probably 5 to 10. i think that's a realistic number. but and i want to emphasize the but, we need to keep in mind what's unpredictable here. remember the watergate case where the nixon tapes emerged seemingly by chance through alex butterfield whose testimony was completely unaccepted at the beginning. and the nixon wall cracked. and the tapes were produced, and that was the end of his presidency. so never underestimate the possibility of unpredicted evidence. and so i think that 1 to 10 number may increase as we see more of the evidence. it is a very, very fluid situation. >> do you think there's any reasonable hope that chief justice john roberts who will be the presiding judge in the senate trial might require the

presence of a decisive witness? >> i think there is a very good chance that chief justice john roberts who presides will delegate a lot of these decisions about the witnesses to a majority vote. so we will need some republicans to come our way on those procedural votes. but i think there are a number of colleagues, some facing tough re-election challenges in states where they won as republicans and others perhaps retiring and maybe some who actually demonstrate conscience and conviction and real patriotism, dedicated to country who will say this vote is for the history books. this one is where history will haunt us and the electorate will haunt us if we seem to be undoing partisan. and we should let none of them off the hook. >> we'll have more for you next time. coming up as the historic

impeachment investigation moves forward right now members of the judiciary committee as we're watching now are making the their final case for or against the impeachment of president trump. and that's next here on "hardball." you're watching it. next here o "hardball. you're watching it mom, why do we always come here for the holidays? how did you find great-grandma's recipe? we're related to them? we're portuguese? i thought we were hungarian? grandpa, can you tell me the story again? behind every question is a story waiting to be discovered.

sini wasn't sure...clot behind every question was another around the corner? or could things go a different way? i wanted to help protect myself. my doctor recommended eliquis. eliquis is proven to treat and help prevent another dvt or pe blood clot. almost 98 percent of patients on eliquis didn't experience another,

and eliquis has significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. what's around the corner could be worth waiting for. ask your doctor about eliquis. did you know that feeling sluggish or weighed down could be signs that your digestive system isn't working at its best? taking metamucil every day can help. metamucil supports your daily digestive health using a special plant-based fiber called psyllium. psyllium works by forming a gel in your digestive system to trap and remove the waste that weighs you down.

metamucil's gelling action also helps to lower cholesterol and slows sugar absorption to promote healthy blood sugar levels. so, start feeling lighter and more energetic by taking metamucil every day. i looitaly!avel. yaaaaass. with the united explorer card, i get rewarded wherever i go. going out for a bite. rewarded! going new places. rewarded! anytime. rewarded! getting more for getting away. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com. and get... rewarded! welcome back to "hardball." well, this hour the house judiciary committee as i said is officially beginning its debate of the articles of impeachment

against president trump. pretty historic stuff, which they could vote on we expect within the next 24 hours now. democratic congresswoman -- of california said rich rld nixon's impeachment in her call for republicans to consider the evidence over party loyalty. >> one of my most vivid memories of the 1974 impeachment was representative chuck wiggins, one of the most defenders of nixon when he realized nixon had been lying to him. i've been waiting for republicans here to have chair chuck wiggins moment but it seems we live in an alternate realty where one columnist said if it swims and quacks like a duck it's a piano. loyalty to our country and our constituti constitution must be greater. >> i'll joined by msnbc contributor howard fineman. let's take a look back at some

footage from the 1974 house judiciary committee hearings on impeachment. here's what they were writing back then. >> and i cannot in good conscience turn away from the evidence of evil that is to me so clear and compelling. >> watergate is a serious matter. many in and out of the white house have been involved in this tragic episode. >> we republicans have campaigned against corruption and misconduct in the administration of the government of the united states by the other party. but watergate is our shame. >> those are republicans on the house judiciary committee not a million years ago, 1974 volting articles of impeachment against their republican president. and look at what's happening tonight. >> it's a different political world. >> what about tonight? you watched doug collins tonight making fun -- i know the house rules. you're not supposed to make fun of the motivations of another member, whatever the party. making fun and just saying

you're a liar basically. >> yeah. and also not dealing with any issue of substance at all. smearing, calling names, creating scary figures -- who won't come out of hiding. you know, this is all childish stuff, and frankly i had just gotten out of journalism school at the time of watergate and i remember that and i know the solemnity of the clinton trial i covered and so on for news week. this was childish behavior on the part of the republicans. they've been made into children by donald trump. because of the tribalism of trump's theory of government and the fact that as you pointed out early in the show, the trump administration has stonewalled and sneered at every attempt at

subpoenas or investigation of his investigation. >> i always say to our producers always identify the witness. you know what his background is? he is a birther. he's a guy that only knew one thing about it, claimed obama was born somewhere in kenya and his white mother went over there to have him and he could run for president. >> this is an era of emotion and accusation. when the nixon trial -- when the nixon impeachment process was under way the members of congress who were proud at least to have a veneer if not a deep dedication to the processes of the constitution and to rule of law. >> yeah. >> donald trump has sneered his entire life at the rule of law. he views it as a fungible,

manipulatable thing and that has given cover -- >> how did he know that every one of these guys would act like wound up puppets? >> because here is donald trump's main gift. he smells weakness and fear in anybody in the room with him. he took one look at the republican establishment when he was busy kicking in the door and saw they were all weak and without moral compass. and he just kicked the door down, and he's ruled them ever since, and he's going to rule them with fear until the very end. >> yeah, he called them little marco, low energy jeb -- >> he looked and went i covered reagan, but by the time trump was knocking on the door it had completely lost its way and he boarded an empty ship. >> thank you. do you think when they have future republican conventions 10, 20 years from now they'll

have big pictures up on the wall? >> you have no idea if there is a republican party. up next what donald trump told me about impeachment 20 years ago on "hardball" when he was just a businessman. you're watching "hardball." was just a businessman you're watching "hardball. thousands of women with metastatic breast cancer, which is breast cancer that has spread 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.

wean air force veteran made of doing what's right,. not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa

itreat them all as if, they are hot and energized. stay away from any downed wire, call 911 and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe. in 1998 in the midst of the clinton impeachment i asked

businessman donald trump what his advice would be to president bill clinton on impeachment. his first answer was take the fifth. and the second answer he gave was go on offense. >> do you think he could have gotten away with a complete maya culpa in january when he decided to cover it up? i'm going to throw all my money on the table, the american people are going to like me. >> i don't think he could have done any worse. and particularly the lawyer i won't mention names but representing with respect to paula jones i think did a terrible job. he's after me, he's a republican, he's this and that and just taken the fifth amendment. that's a terrible thing for a president to take the fifth amendment, but he probably should have done it. they're after you, go after your enemies. i think clinton is probably too nice a guy in a certain respect. that's one of the things that happened.

>> do you think he wants too much? >> maybe but i don't think he's going after it the way he should. >> maybe he was telling us less about clinton than he was revealing about himself, donald trump. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. we're in the midst of the house judiciary committee markup of the two articles of the president of the united states. this is a standard part of the legislative process, that's the markup. it happens all the time. but tonight is obviously quite different in the stakes and import because it is the most serious constitutional undertaking this committee where are the judiciary committee can pursue. tonight the committee will be hearing different amendments and debating the two articles before them. and we expect them to be voted on by the full committee tomorrow. we've already heard