me. i am going to see you right back here. i'll see you tomorrow at the forum. but i will be back on monday at 1:00 p.m. eastern with stephanie and then again at 3:00 p.m. eastern. thank you for watching. "deadline: white house" with nicolle wallace begins now. ♪ hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york on an historic day. donald trump, the country's 45th president, making the kind of history he did not want to make. the house judiciary committee today voting to approve two articles of impeachment for the president. those articles, abuse of power, and obstruction of congress, passing out of the committee on a party line vote. here's that moment from committee chairman jerry nadler. >> the question now is on article 1:00 of the resolution, impeaching president donald j. trump for abusing his powers. >> mr. chairman, there are 23 ayes and 17 nos. >> the article is agreed to. the question now is on article

ii of the resolution, peaching president donald j. trump for obstructing congress. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. chairman there are 23 ayes and 17 nos. >> the article is agreed to. the resolution is amended as ordered reported to the house. >> if the full house votes on those two articles as it's expected to do next week, donald trump will become the third president in this country's history to be impeached. and don't let the gop spin fool you. donald trump loathes the notion of having another asterisk on his legacy. the "new york times" reports, quote, trump nurses resentment over the red mark about to be tattooed on his page in the history books as only the third president in american history to be impeached. no matter what some of his critics say, advisers said he genuinely does not want to be impeached. viewing it as a personal humiliation. even in private he accepts no blame and expresses no regret that he rails against the enemies he sees all around him.

as if seeking to conduct himself in a way that underscores that prescient reporting, here was donald trump this morning after the vote. >> it's a scam. it's something that shouldn't be allowed. and it's a very bad thing for our country. and you're trivializing impeachment. and i tell you what. some day there will be a democrat president and there will be a republican house, and i suspect they are going to remember it. >> the president, the vote to impeach him and the senate trial ahead is where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. phil rucker, politico senior writer jake sherman joins us. msnbc legal analyst who worked with the southern district of new york southern division, ma y of course -- maya wiley. and jonathan lemire. and president of the national action network, the rev al

sharpton. your body of reporting on this president's state of mind and his moods and how it affects the official conduct when he's in an official capacity but so dominated by anger and rage, stands in a league of itown. talk about his mood after today's vote and what you're hearing from your white house sources. >> well, nicole, today was an important vote. and it was in a way ore-ordained. the outcome is exactly what we all expected. but for president trump it made this very real. it was a reminder for him that next week he is almost certainly going to become the third president in history to be impeached. that, as you said in the opening is a distinction that he does not want, that he is fearful of, that he's agitated about, and it's the reason why he's been lashing out on twitter at a historic clip all week long. more tweets than at any other time in his presidency tweets and retweets, that is, because he's been following the minutia

of these hearings. he's been responding to individual members of congress. he's been urging his republican allies on that judiciary committee and we're probably going to see it again next week urging the republicans elsewhere in the house of representatives to take up arms and come to his defense and bring up the bidens and throw some mud around and really try to make this a spectacle and make the democrats pay for what they're about to do to president trump. but we know that these moods that the president has and determined the decisions that are made throughout the federal government. we've seen it at various other moments in the presidency. and we may be seeing it now. and it's really an open question at this point whether the president's anger over impeachment in the weeks to come is going to change the direction of the bureaucracy or have any sort of meaningful impact on the workings of government. >> jake sherman, i want you to pick up that thread about the president's moods because it strikes me that they were almost

transferred onto his allies. i mean, whatever you think of either side's arguments, the democrats had a strategy to stick to the fact pattern as revealed in the house intelligence committee's investigative process. they kept going back to the witness testimony, people like fiona hill who quoted john bolton describing the ukraine scandal as a drug deal. they went back to colonel vindman. they kept trying to bring this back to the most compelling moments of witness testimony. the republicans were acting almost the way phil rucker describes donald trump as feeling, angry, hot-headed and red-faced. your thoughts? >> yeah. i mean, the republicans decided early on they weren't going to engage in facts. this is not me saying it, this is what they say. they would engage in both process and muddying the waters. i had a republican tell me once if they could get people to change the channel that's a big enough victory for them and that

says a lot because they want to confuse the issue, which is why we are talking about all sorts of mud, as phil brought up. he is absolutely right. and the president, for all you could say about the president. phil knows this well. he is in constant contact, almost hourly contact with people on capitol hill. and not with one person, not with two people, with a dozen or so members of congress on capitol hill who he trusts and who channel his feelings and his emotions and his strategy and bring them into the halls of the capitol. there is good and bad with that obviously. there is some upside. there's a lot of downside when you have members of congress looking to police him and listen. phil is absolutely right, the result here is ore-ordained and the president has made a calculation and we will see if it's a good calculation or not. he has decided to not take the powers afforded to him, which is to defend himself. he was offered a route to defend himself. he declined. he said the process was terrible

and he would rather have members of congress. these members of congress are elected in deep red districts by 600,000 people, often times with voting turnout in the 30 and 40%. so take that for what you will. the president could've had trained attorneys who could deflect, who could offer very complex and well-honed messages on national tv in front of a live audience. he decided against that. we'll see how that works out for him. now he's going to go to the senate where mitch mcconnell has won the praise of sean hannity in saying that he's going to do a short trial with no witnesses. the president has set up this construct whereby people think he thinks he has said he wants hunter biden and joe biden and the whistle-blower to testify. i'd like to be a professional golfer. that's also not in the cards. >> i'd like to be tall. >> right. well, me too. so, these are the cards that not only he has been dealt. but he has dealt himself. he's had other opportunities to

change the course of this process. he has chosen a specific path and we will see how that works out for him and for his allies. but phil's right. he is going to be impeached last week. it's going to be every republican is going to stand with him. most democrats are going to stand with nancy pelosi. it's going to go to the senate where they will get rid of it in about two weeks with a short trial and no witnesses. and part of that is president donald trump's doing and part of that is just how the hands of the cards have been dealt to him. >> i don't know the best word, maybe his injury. he felt deep personal injury at being impeached. and when he was confronted by people around him with the reality of what phil and jake have said, he will be impeached next week in all likelihood. he felt injured. what do you think's going on right now? what is he like when he feels injured? >> you must understand the psychology of donald trump. donald trump all of his life and

his father fought for legitimacy. they were never accepted by the elite business circles in new york. they did not eat at the power spots. they were not invited to those kinds of things. that was the chip on his shoulder. and he was considered a successful but gaudy, illegitimate business person. that is why he took it so personally when people kept saying he didn't win the popular vote and that he had russian interference that helped him win. because again they were questioning the legitimacy of his presidency. now he has the alternate mark of illegitimacy. he is going to be an impeached president. children unborn will learn about the impeached president of donald trump. and this is the ultimate injury to him because now what made all well, would clean the slate, made him finally legitimate, showed the guys that the regency that eat breakfast at power spots that i am legit is forever

going once they impeach him. whether he is convicted or not, this little asterisk that will be put next to his name is going to live with him forever. and that has got to be driving him crazy. and on top of that they are overreacting and arrogant. can you imagine in the middle of the impeachment hearings he is going to bring the foreign minister of russia in the oval office on the day they vote in the judiciary committee? he is going to have rudy giuliani come to the white house after going to ukraine. they can't get out of their own way. but donald trump is going to have to live with you became president but you never became legitimate. >> you know, john heilemann, and people who covered trump know this to be true and the rev knows him personally. but there are sort of two things that make him the most dangerous to himself. one is questions about his legitimacy. the other is questions about the size of things as well, his victory, mar-a-lago, those sorts of things. this seems to be a moment.

and it's interesting because many presidents are at their most vulnerable after a big setback. for bush it was after the harriet myers nomination was pulled back after a disastrous attempt to get her confirmed. for trump not so. he seems to sink the lowest and represent the gravest threat to himself when he is humiliated or belittled. and impeachment is something that will likely do both. >> i think that's right. last fall for the circus i went over and talked to steve bannon. you can have a lot of views about bannon. you can certainly have a lot of views -- not even apart from his views of things, even his perspicasity. and he's been through some stuff with donald trump and i think he has a pretty good read on trump trump's psyche. bannon said this is going to have a long-term psychic cost. he was predicting at that point.

there will be a manic episode. there will be what we have seen with the tweets which really is a thing that's like a borderline kind of manic episode of someone sitting on their phone kind of lost from reality in some way to send that many tweets requires you to become absorbed in a different head space than the rest of us live in and that you live in normally. but the other thing that bannon said is this will have an effect on his re-election that he will likely get impeached, he will likely get acquitted. but on the back side of that, the decision that he makes, he is very involved in his own campaign. in terms of the message, in terms of the travel, in terms of some big things he is very involved. and when he is and the way that you just described him, people will laugh when i say this. whatever donald trump's right mind is or the rightest version of his mind at least when it comes to politics, this will not be the place where he's in his rightest mind. i think you will see over the course of the spring and the winter when the democratic race

is happening. he is eager to have a voice in that race and that impact. you will see him i think lashing out doing some things that may not be in his best interest politically in the long run. and i think bannon's concern was that it would affect him or affect him negatively. in the long run that democrats might, even if they fail to get him out of office that they might exact a psychic political cost that would in fact impact his re-election process. >> i saw jared kushner, and he is very deliberate in which events he appears in. jared kushner, made it be known that he used to not be republican but now he is. they all talked to the president through the things that get out to the press. they seem to be trying to soothe him into believing that impeachment is in his political benefit out of some fear or terror that exactly what the rev and john are describing may be

sort of this swirling storm around them. are you picking up any sort of early signs of that from your west wing sources? >> i am, nicole. there seems to be an eagerness for trump to grasp onto any shred of evidence that could bolster the case that impeachment is helping the president politically. and we've seen the president echo those points back out in public. he is claiming that the polls are through the roof and showing that impeachment is making him more popular, you know, the fact of the matter is he remains unpopular, underwater, and not in a particularly good standing, at least according to public opinion surveys for his re-election campaign. but he is looking for evidence. he is going to many more rallies than he had been doing a few months prior there almost every week or every two weeks now. big crowds in the arenas. down in florida there were 20,000 people and the president

looked across the crowd and saw that as evidence that impeachment was helping him because all of these people came to see him at the rally. and i think there is going to be an effort to point to that anecdotal evidence that this is a winning strategy for him to be impeached when what we really know is that he doesn't want to be impeached. because what president wants to be impeached? it's a historic mark against him, as our colleagues in the "new york times" wrote in their piece today. >> jake sherman, i want to ask you just to button up this conversation about the politics because it feels like mitch mcconnell is out of his skis just a touch. he does have some vulnerable republicans and if mitch mcconnell wants one thing even more than staying locked up with donald trump, it's to remain the majority leader and not return to minority leader. this shifted so quickly in the fall and support for impeachment is much higher than it ever was before, during, or after the mueller investigation wrapped up, and that devastating report

came out. is there any sense that republicans need a little bit of room to say, no, it was not a perfect call, as jonathan turley did when he was on capitol hill? i don't know, it feels like dog ears i think last week. >> remember, we actually haven't heard from a lot of senate republicans on this. >> right. >> senate republicans have been, i don't want to say hiding but hiding behind the fact that they are jurors and they don't feel it appropriate juncture to comment on the substance of the house's impeachment proceedings. that will change come january 6th when the senate comes back into session after the house impeaches donald trump and after the new year and the christmas holiday. mitch mcconnell didn't have much room to maneuver here as he kind of laid out in his appearance with hannity, which i thought was very telling last night. he has to take up impeachment. he is saying he wants a short trial, a two-week trial won't feel very short. it's going to be broadcast on every television around the country.

so he's also leaving the opportunity that he might have to call witnesses. he said that. he said -- i think we have reported in politico that he might depending on how the trial goes call witnesses at the end. he is leaving himself a lot of leeway. i imagine you are going to hear a lot of this come january. it was a bad call, it was not how i would have conducted myself, a senator saying that, not me, but we don't believe it's impeachable. we don't believe it rises to the level of throwing him out of office. i think you are going to hear that from a lot of people. the senators, as we all know, tend to ring their hands a lot more than members of the house. i think you are going to hear some measure of that. and by the way phil could attest to this. the president is not going to like that. the president has lashed out against people who have said this is not a perfect phone call, but we need to -- we're not going to impeach him over that. i think mack thornberry republican of texas said that. and the president was very angry and tweeted about it. >> but i do think that the

senators, mitt romneys of the world, maybe cory gardner, i think that's where they are going to end up. you are not going to see the fire-breathing defense from a lot of these vulnerable and moderate, relatively moderate senators, like you saw in the house of representatives. but, again, mitch mcconnell said yesterday that he does not expect republicans will vote for impeachment. mitch mcconnell, i don't believe, would say that unless he had a really good idea that the votes were pretty locked up one way or the other. >> the problem is that it is not true that it's merely a less than perfect call. it is sort of the essence, as a lot of these witnesses have testified to, of that which is impeachable. it is extorting another country, a country at war for a domestic political errand in the words of fiona hill. >> absolutely. this is why one of the concerns, i think that many of us have,

around what happens with this trial and how it gets constructed is does it do service to this article of our constitution that tells our congress that it's their job to protect the country from a president who will not abide by his oath of office. it's interesting because one word we haven't heard, you know, we've heard the democrats say cheater and talking about him being a cheater in the elections and that he will continue to cheat, and as the rev said, rudy giuliani making that point quite clear and quite public. we haven't heard the word disloyal. because it's disloyal to the interests and security of the country, both in its elections and in terms of him elevating his personal over the interests of the country. that's what's on trial at this point. so, if in fact it is such a weak case, which is what mitch mcconnell has called it

publicly, a very weak case, why do they want no witnesses? why are they so afraid of the public servants that came forward and have already essentially spoken to the country and for which donald trump, if he wants due process, is perfectly prepared to respond to their charges, to respond to the facts that they have put on the table? it's a striking thing to say we are going to try to bury this. >> all right. no one's going anywhere. we need them all too much. after the break, is mitch mcconnell throwing those senate republicans under the bus by announcing on national television that the result of a senate trial has been predetermined in close consultation with the white house? and will any of those vulnerable gop senators encourage him to walk it back? also, rudy giuliani, who doj officials have gone to great lengths to distance themselves from as he's come under federal

investigation is today deep inside the west wing in search of dirt on the bidens. and speaking of the bidens the republicans trading in their clinton obsession for a biden obsession and turning to the same conspiracy theory playbook it used with her. will it work and what should democrats do to respond? all those stories coming up. for. ...depend® silhouette™ briefs feature maximum absorbency, beautiful colors and an improved fit for a sleek design and personal style. life's better when you're in it. be there with depend®.

so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix. the most common when youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one.

for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com some things are too important to do yourself. ♪ get customized security with 24/7 monitoring from xfinity home. awarded the best professionally installed system by cnet. simple. easy. awesome. call, click or visit a store today.

throughout the impeachment process, republicans have argued that democrats are violating trump's rights as a defendant. the inability to face his accuser's secretive proceedings,

they say, violating trump's rights to due process. and while democrats have reminded their colleagues that this is a process, trump and his allies have complained about the way it's been different from a court of law. that's why mitch mcconnell's appearance on sean hannity was so notable because in the court of law this would represent a major scandal. >> everything i do during this i am coordinating with white house counsel. there will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this. there is no chance the president's going to be removed from office. my hope is that there won't be a single republican who votes for either of these articles of impeachment. >> mcconnell is saying there is akin to an impartial juror, somebody who is supposed to be announcing his cooperation. he met with white house counsel

pat cipollone who is expected to defend trump in the senate. trump isn't giving up on the idea of a spectacle. >> president, do you prefer a short process in the senate or a more extended process? >> well, i have heard lindsey graham, who's terrific, and i like his statement. i will do whatever i want. look, we did nothing wrong. so i will do long or short. i wouldn't mind a long process because i'd like to see the whistle-blower who's a fraud. the whistle-blower wrote a false report. and i really blew it up when i released the transcript of the call [ laughter ] i mean, i love it when a defendant gets to make his trial whatever he wants it to be. i think one of the things that's interesting about this is donald trump, who did not want to call a single witness in the house, who did not want to put up a

defense in any way, who did not want his counsel to appear in the hearings. now he wants a big fullblown trial and lots of opportunity. but as you heard him say, not to talk about the facts that are before the american people but to try to tell the maximum publ -- american public to pay attention to something else. if i can call who i want to call like a whistle-blower who never claimed to be a fact witness. the whistle-blower's job was not to be a fact witness. the whistle-blower's job was to say, hey, over here, something that deserves your attention through official channels, not even prejudging what the outcome of that investigation would be. now we've heard from the folks who had direct knowledge. and by the way, some of the folks that the democrats would like to call, little dangerous, i would argue as a lawyer, but

he has senior aides who he would not allow to testify in the house. >> people like secretary of state, mike pompeo, the president himself, rick perry, rudy giuliani, the vice president, mick mulvaney, and john bolton. >> people who run the country. >> all of them who have been named and deputies and lieutenants to all of them have been fact witnesses. and it's interesting, heilemann. no one has offered a single fact that contradicts any of the allegations in the whistle-blower complaint and that exonerates any of the people on this list. my question though is what does it say about -- and the trump comments are ridiculous. i watched a lot of green eggs and ham. i do not mind them short. i do not mind them long. i will be fine no matter what because sam i am. it's so ridiculous. >> they do rhyming though. >> which is why i haven't quit my day job. but the idea that trump's cool

with whatever just shows that he is -- as much as he wags the dog and wags all of us, and we sort of have to follow whatever he does, he really has no idea what his own impeachment will look like. >> not a clue. but i do think, that's the thing you say, i'm fine with whatever. i think the reality is trump would like this to be longer. he would like everyone to be saying that the call was perfect. i think he believes that the call was perfect. the call is manifested not perfect. maya's right. of course the whistle-blower's not a fact witness. but there's been actually not repudiated. all of the testimony we have is consistent with what the whistle-blower said. i think the reality is trump is focused on getting re-elected. and jake and i were talking about this on morning television on this network. the trump campaign thinks that the biden issue is a winning issue for them. again i say for all you out there. i'm not saying it's a winning issue for them, but they think it's a winning issue for them. they would like to get joe biden

or hunter biden in that room. if donald trump could have the bidens come in in addition to the whistle-blower, he would like to have that trial go on for many months. and they are going to have that trial in their television advertising, their digital advertising, on the debate stage if donald trump participates, at the convention. we are going to be hearing about burisma from the stage if joe biden's the nominee. so, there's ways in which trump would like a long trial, if he could have the trial that he was in charge of. but, of course that is not actually how it works. >> phil rucker, you mentioned lindsey graham in there. here's lindsey graham, the old lindsey graham. >> some people have said i won't vote for impeachment. some house members have said i will not vote for an impeachment. let me tell you please don't say that until you understand what you're voting on. members of the senate have said i understand everything there is about this case, and i won't

vote to impeach the president. please allow the facts to do the talking. nobody knows whether the president -- what the articles of impeachment are. people have made up their mind in a political fashion that will hurt this country long-term. if you don't, if you can't vote for impeachment, give us the due justice to the case. don't decide the case before the case is in. and this bothers me greatly. >> phil rucker, i will never grow numb to the hypocrisy of today's gop. stunning. >> yeah. well, senator graham sounds the same there from two decades before. but his message is entirely different now. and he's not alone, of course. most of the republican senators i think have pretty much made up their mind before this trial begins. you know, senate leader mcconnell made that pretty plain in his interview yesterday with sean hannity. we should keep in mind that

president trump is first and foremost previously was a reality television producer. he knows what these dramas are like. and if you think of the house process as season one and trump feels like he got beat up, almost voted off the island, it was really bad in season one. well, season two when it comes to the senate he has got the home-field advantage and he is going to be trying to pull all those leverages to put on a drama. he wants hunter biden to be called forth to testify. he wants chairman schiff to be brought forth so that republican senators can peck at him with questions and really tar up this process. he knows the outcome is pretty much set. but he wants to use this as an opportunity to set a political narrative and shape the debate between now and the november election. >> for those of you in your car if you're listening while phil rucker was talking we put up trump's witness list. jake sherman? >> i mean, it's tough to even

respond to that. the senate is a majoritiarian institution. you need a majority of people to get things done. it's not controlled by donald trump or mitch mcconnell. it's controlled by 51 votes. there are not 51 votes to bring the whistle-blower to testify. that's just -- that doesn't exist. there are not 50 votes to bring any of those people that the president wants to -- i'm sorry that he's not getting his way, but that's not the way the senate works. that's number one. number two, it is not as if the president hasn't had the opportunity to present evidence that would be what nancy pelosi keeps explaining exculpatory. and she likes to explain that that means would show he is not guilty of these issues that intelligence committee has raised. he has had the opportunity to have an opportunity to present those issues. as phil says he is absolutely right. he is a creature of reality

television. but he could have programmed this the way he wanted to in the house of representatives but chose against it. and i don't know why he thinks the senate which is a more buttoned up and a more traditional and slow-paced and formal institution why he thinks that's a better stage for him. it's not entirely clear to me. >> you know, phil rucker, i want to give you the last word. and i want to just ask you if you think there is any chance in hell that if any of the witnesses the democrats want to come, had anything exculpatory to say that donald trump wouldn't, you know, cross off all of the consent forms for waiving executive immunity, rick perry, rudy giuliani, mike pence, mike pompeo, mick mulvaney, or john bolton. if donald trump wanted him there, they could defend him on the facts. seems to me they'd be be there by tomorrow morning. >> i think that's right, nicole.

they would be there if they could defend president trump without being asked questions for which they don't have comfortable, easy, honest answers. and i actually asked that question of trump when we were in london a couple weeks ago with pompeo and mulvaney sitting right next to him. mr. president why won't you authorize them to go before the congress and testify on your behalf? and he doesn't have an easy answer for that because in his gut he wants them to go testify because he wants them to tell the world that it was a perfect call but they can't exactly say that under oath, under questioning from democratic lawmakers. it's much more complicated and there are still not easy substantive answers for these administration officials to be providing. >> phil rucker, thank you for spending some time with us. we are grateful. after the break, the trump white house rolls out the red carpet for rudy giuliani, donald trump's man in ukraine, who's under federal criminal investigation and in some corners of the doj. not the case though in the west

wing. we will explain. wing we will explain. l 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. man: 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'd like you to be part of ours. so happy holidays. and welcome to the family. the chevy family! get the chevy employee discount for everyone today.

colon cancer screening for people 50 plus at average risk. some things are harder than you thought. and others are easier. like screening for colon cancer with me, cologuard. i'm noninvasive and you use me at home. i'm also effective. i find 92% of colon cancers using dna in your stool. so why wait? cologuard is not for those at high risk for colon cancer. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your healthcare provider if cologuard is right for you. most insured patients pay $0. too many after-parties. new neutrogena® bright boost with dullness-fighting neoglucosamine. boosts cell turnover by 10 times for instantly brighter skin. bright boost neutrogena®. 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.

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.

we are all used to this by now, me reading from my phone because if it's the 4:00 hour we have breaking news from the supreme court. here's the "new york times" take on the news that has just come down. the supreme court agreed to friday to decide whether president trump can block the release of his financial records setting the stage for a blockbuster ruling on the power of presidents to resist demands for information. the court's ruling expected by june. that's before the next presidential election. i don't have to tell any of you could give the public a look at information the president has gone to extraordinary lengths to protect or the justices could rule that mr. trump's financial affairs are not legitimate subjects of inquiry, so long as he remains in office. either way, the court is now poised to produce a once in a generation statement on presidential accountability. lucky for us, we are joined from

outside the supreme court by msnbc news justice correspondent pete williams. it seems like this is another branch of government who is expected to rule and potentially put itself in the middle of a consequential decision about the authority of congress in june, just weeks before the next presidential election. >> so the court agreed to take three cases, the three appeals that the president had filed here or his lawyers had filed here in the supreme court. the first one is an appeal from lower court rulings that said that a grand jury run by the d.a. in new york, cyrus vance could get records from trump's accountants to investigate whether hush money payments were improperly paid. that's the case that produced that very colorful exchange from trump's lawyer in october who said no because the president cannot be indicted while in office. he can't be subjected to any part of the criminal process including a grand jury subpoena,

and that's when trump's lawyer colorfully said that even if the president shot somebody on fifth avenue he couldn't be investigated. so that's one question. that's a separate issue here. can a local grand jury, not part of the federal government, not congress, subpoena records for a grand jury investigation of a possible crime? so that's the first case. and then the court took two other cases. these both involve what you were talking about, nicole, which is the attempts by houses, committees of the house to get their hands on documents from the trump accountants and also from two banks, deutsche bank and capital one. they say they want trump records for a variety of investigative and law-making purposes. now, maybe it will be a once in a generation decision about the power of congress. i'm not sure whether it's going to be a once in a generation the

privilege of the president. and here's why. none of these cases directly ask the president for anything. they are requests to either his banks or his accountants. secondly, they don't involve anything any official act the president took in office. and, thirdly, they don't involve any official business. so it's all his personal records, not a presidential power. so that's what makes these cases so interesting. but the court will hear the argument on all three cases in march. and of course a decision by the end of june when the court wraps it up for this term. >> pete williams, i wonder if you think you've been watching this court longer than any of us here, if you think that it will be a different climate in donald trump's two picks and i'm sure that's how he views them in his eyes, will be ruling on a case that will really capture the president's attention, for lack of a better word, he is likely

to be tweeting about it around the clock. just your thoughts from watching this court. have you ever seen a dynamic like that shape up? >> well, we saw justice gorsuch on the court involved in some of these privileged cases involving the presidential powers. remember, in the 1970s when the supreme court said president nixon was not immune from a subpoena for the white house tapes, william renquist did sit the case out. but other members of the court did vote on that case. i wouldn't think that any of the current justices would recuse themselves. renquist had worked in the justice department. that's what complicated that. that's not true of either kavanaugh or gorsuch. so, i mean certainly the attention will be on them. but, you know, these are complicated questions that go well beyond this president about the power of the congress. one big question here is this is what the trump's lawyers have said. congress doesn't have the power to investigate. that's what the fbi does.

that's what the executive department does. congress can legislate and it can subpoena when it wants something for legislative purposes. but to find out whether the president was money-laundering or whether he was involved in hush money payments, that's not a proper use of the congressional power. so that's a big sort of fundamental question that cuts both ways i think for parties. >> pete williams in front of the supreme court for us. thank you so much. >> you bet. >> maya, you warned me, i don't know, eight hours ago that a decision on this was possible today. your thoughts. >> yeah. i think -- well, first of all i think pete did a masterful job of taking three cases and making it quite accessible. so hats off. i will try to do what he does. so the intersection, the two threads i want to tie together here is donald trump just got impeached this morning for

obstruction of congress. two of these cases relate to congress saying in order to do our constitutionally permitted oversight, that also enables us to determine whether there are laws we should consider and pass, right? so if there are open questions about whether or not the president is engaged in conduct they think should not be appropriate for someone to engage in, one of the ways they say, and i am simplifying here, but we should be able to investigate that and determine it because it is our job under the constitution to look at our laws, see if we have holes to fill. but also in light of the fact that we have the opportunity to consider whether any serious abuse is going on here. we also have an impeachment power. so that, when you add that to the president going beyond questions of executive privilege, it goes directly to the separation of powers question and beyond.

because, remember that bill clinton sat for a civil grand jury. if a president can be forced to sit for a civil grand jury and yet the trump administration comes along and says but a criminal one, you know, i can shoot someone in the street and not be held accountable. and by the way, the department of justice at the federal level cannot hold me accountable for federal crimes either. that is literally an argument that says i am above the law as long as i am president. >> is jake sherman still with us? jake, this is something, and i'm sure you've got a lot more reporting from this than i, do but i've heard from sources that this is what awaits us as a country on the other side of impeachment however it goes. a conversation, a debate, it would appear now a supreme court decision about whether or not the powers of congress are worth fighting for, worth enforcing and worth bolstering.

and it would appear that all the questions the kinds of things i ask you on this show, why not press the kupperman case, a real weakening. you even have some right-wing lawyers talking about how breathtaking the sweep of disregard is from this white house and this administration in the category of congressional oversight. >> there is a lot to unpack here. number one, yes, absolutely. the administration has roundly declined to participate in oversight. and that is a dangerous precedent to set. and the strange thing to me politically and substantively is the administration hasn't pretended that it was going to comply with oversight. it hasn't tried to say, oh, yes, we need time to get our witnesses together. and the obama administration did that, every administration does that from a political point of view it's smart because you don't look like you are stonewalling. you look like you are getting your ducks in a row. that's number one. number two, this is going to reignite the question of whether

the house democrats should've waited for these court cases to come from fruition to be completed because now you are going to have the president's tax returns, you are going to impeach him next week. you really only have one chance to impeach the president. they can't impeach hem again in june if they found out that he's paid no taxes. we have no idea what they are going to find out here. this is going to reignite that. and i just -- number three, the white house has argued that congress doesn't need these records because there is no specific legislative purpose for congress to have these records. they are not writing laws based on these records. well, the administration in saying that, and i defer to maya on this, but the administration is basically saying that congress does not have a role in oversight. its role in oversight is not legitimate. that is not the case based on everything we know about our country. >> based on everything that's ever happened before this

moment. >> this is not a new country. we've had congress for a long time. and congress has conducted oversight for a long time. >> and white houses have turned over their emails to congress for a long time. heilemann and the rev will weigh in on this on the other side of the break. rudy giuliani just off another dirt-gathering mission to meet with the president. that's just confirmed by nbc news. don't go anywhere. ws don't go anywhere. but then i started cosentyx and i haven't really had to think about it. real people with psoriasis... look and feel better with cosentyx. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen... or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. ask your dermatologist about cosentyx.

with retirement planning and advice for what you need today and tomorrow. because when you're with fidelity, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. too shabby! too much! i can rent this? for that price? absolutely. it's just right! book your just right rental at thrifty.com. us lives here. it's just right! where we can be surprised by others. and ourselves. for a better us, donate to your local y today. i didn't have to call 911.help. and i didn't have to come get you. because you didn't have another heart attack.

not today. you took our conversation about your chronic coronary artery disease to heart. even with a stent procedure, your condition can get worse over time, and keep you at risk of blood clots. so you added xarelto®, to help keep you protected. xarelto®, when taken with low-dose aspirin, is proven to further reduce the risk of blood clots that can cause heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death in people with chronic cad. that's because while aspirin can help, it may not be enough to manage your risk of blood clots. in a clinical trial, almost 96% of people taking xarelto® did not have a cardiovascular event. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death. while taking, a spinal injection increases the risk of blood clots which may cause paralysis- the inability to move. you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding.

before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. enjoy every moment-and help protect yourself from an unexpected one, like a cardiovascular event. are you doing enough? ask your doctor if it's time for xarelto®. to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto.com.

news that the u.s. supreme court is going to take up cases that may -- may -- result in the public knowing a whole lot more about donald trump's finances than it did before it voted for him the first time. here's the way "the washington post" writes this up. the supreme court's decision to get involved represents a historic moment that will test the justices and the constitution's separation of powers design. it's the first time the president's personal conduct has become -- has come before the court and marks a new phase in the investigations that have dogged this presidency. cue the tweets. >> when you look at this, this clearly is going to be about separations of power. >> yeah. >> this is way beyond just this president. this is separation of powers because if they say that the congress does not have the right to decide what it needs for oversight. because that's really what you're saying. they're telling us where the

congress only can deal with oversight. but we're going to determine how broad the oversight is. how do we know in terms of oversight that they want to make a law dealing with the justice department's rule that you can investigation a president? or a law on any number of things. so you can't decide where the goal posts are here in terms of oversight. and if the supreme court rules that then they, in effect, are saying the separation of powers now are different than they were before. and this is where we are in the red zone with this trump presidency. it will, in effect, turn around the way this country is structured. and that is dangerous for everybody. this is a dangerous, potentially dangerous, position that we're in. i'm not talking about the local manhattan d.a. i'm talking about the two cases of congress. if they go right on this, i started to say left. >> if a court doesn't affirm the congress's oversight power is what you're saying. >> you're really dealing with

how anyone now can play with that. that the executive branch has power. we're talking about the separations of power being totally imbalanced now. and that will live us with for a long time. >> i want to ask you a question about whether or not we are at a risk of covering this the wrong way. why do we think that the supreme court is going to be the one institution by which he will abide? i mean, do you think this decision and its outcome -- because when the supreme court ruled on the census, that was something he sent his department -- i mean, you -- are we asking all the right questions? >> i think we're asking all the right questions in a world where there's still some semblance of normalcy. and i do think -- i actually call me naive and very rarely does anybody do that, i don't think it matters that much. i do think there's a reasonable chance, in maya will tell me if i'm nuts, there is a reasonable chance this could be a 9-0 decision where the court just

says we understand what's at stake here. we understand that the congress has legitimate oversight -- oversight function. and the president's way out of line. and then the question you're asking is, what -- is it possible the president will just say, we don't care? >> take me to court. he just did. >> take me to jail. those questions now pop up. we hear it's a similar question to the what happens if trump loses and refuses to leave office? you know, all those things which are, i don't think, unreasonable questions given the president's -- the way to which the president's thumbed his nose to these things. not unreasonable questions. but we, so far, have not seen -- so far have not seen them defy, openly defy, court orders. and i'm hopeful that they won't again. but i will say this to jake sherman's point where he was talking about the politics of this. the one thing i do think we're all wrong about is that there's some political price to pay for doing what they have done. the reality is people hate congress. and the country is really polarized. and i think trump's right that, in general, they can -- on the

political level -- they're not paying a big price with the country for resisting oversight. >> we have to sneak in our last break. don't go anywhere. we'll be right back. ♪ limu emu & doug and now for their service to the community, we present limu emu & doug with this key to the city. [ applause ] it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. and now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

the best of pressure cooking and air frying now in one pot, and with tendercrisp technology, you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside

and juicy on the inside. the ninja foodi pressure cooker, the pressure cooker that crisps. 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. we're always grateful to our guests but a lot of people around the table, this one, have been putting in 12 to 20-hour days. and jake on capitol hill. we're so grateful to have you guys. my thanks to jake, maya, sharpton. most of all, to you for watching all week long. another wild one. "mtp daily" with chuck todd starts now. today is a solemn and sad day. for the third time in a little over a century and a half, the house judiciary committee has voted articles of impeachment against the president.