audience shows such a success this year. we've got many to come, but until then that is "all in" for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts right now. >> good evening, chris. spectacular. i love your live shows. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. happy to have you with us. impeachments turns out they are unpredictable things. we have not had very many of them in the course of u.s. history so by definition that means we don't have a lot of historical experience and data to extrapolate from in terms of forming an informed take on what's going to happen next and how this is all likely to turn out. i mean, if nothing else i think that should make us all a little bit humble about predicting what's going to happen in the end with this impeachment or even what's going to happen next with this impeachment. for example, this time last night i was all confident, just flat out saying here on the air that before the end of the night last night the house judiciary

committee was definitely going to vote on articles of impeachment against president trump. i was forgetting that i should be humble about these things as we all should be. i said, you know, you should definitely plan to get the physical paper of edition of your newspaper today because newspapers all over the country their headlines this morning would be these historic front page spreads about the judiciary committee passing articles of impeachment against the president. yeah, i was so sure. that's actually not what was on the front page of any paper in the country today. in its paper edition at least because of course they didn't get to the articles of impeachment last night. i was all confident and cocky being like oh, yeah that's definitely going to happen. it did not happen. that said, i feel like the universe rescued me a little bit on this because the front pages of today's newspapers around the country were still kind of awesome even if they weren't those headlines that i predicted about them passing the articles.

i mean, just to chapter the moment of where we are, the front pages of today's papers around the country were kind of amazing. this was the l.a. time's front page today, "on the brink of impeachment vote." they've got that two man shot with jerry nadler in his glasses looking very sober and next to him is the top republican on the committee, doug collins. what's he doing? he's like blowing up an imaginary beach ball, making this incredible grimace. this was the arkansas democrat gazette, impeachment hearing rancorous, divided panel moves house closer to vote. and again you've got nadler and collins there. here's "the washington post," article 1, abuse of power. article ii obstruction of congress. rancor ahead of historic vote, judiciary panel weighs charges. anger fuels marathon impeachment debate. all the away across the country

this was the san francisco panel today. house panel on brink of historic vote. other side of the country again, this is the tampa bay times, "fierce debate ahead of vote." this was the arizona republic this is interesting. look at their headline, right, they said "partisans hold the line in the impeachment debate" but then they focus in on members of congress who are on the judiciary committee who are from arizona. "arizona representatives remain united with their parties as judiciary panel argues over articles against the president." so focusing in on members of congress from their state and saying, yeah, they're sticking with their party lines. and two more to show you. here's the kansas city star. "gop tries to kill impeachment charges as process grinds on." and one last one. here as usual with the best headline of the bunch st. louis post dispatch, look at all those great photos of all those

members on the committee. that's louie gomert on the far left there, on the far right -- killing somebody with her eyes. both maximizing the expressingi expressingive character of their big old faces. but then you get that stark headline. house judiciary impeachment debate over time. and that is exactly what happened. it did go into over time. i thought they would vote last night. i'm sorry. that had definitely been the plan, but they didn't vote last night. there was a sudden adjournment, much yelling and screaming about that, much upset. but then they reconvened this morning and it was over pretty quick. first one -- the first article abuse of power. the second one obstruction. each of those articles passed 23-17, which is party line vote.

all democrats in favor, all republicans opposed. and even though it feels like we now know how this is going to go all the way through to the end, i am reminded if only because of what i said last night that humility is in order. impeachments are unpredictable. they are rare. they're very rare in u.s. mystery. they're always a little bit wild. and, you know, it's fine to form reasonable expectations about how they look like they're going to go, but don't get out of over your skis on any particular part of this. let me give you an example of what i mean. beyond me saying that thing definitively last night that didn't happen today. in the watergate scandal they actually considered five articles of impeachment against nixon. the watergate equivalent of what we had yesterday and today in the house judiciary committee where they marked up and ultimately voted on the impeachment articles, back then 1974, the equivalent of what we

just went through yesterday and today happened at the end of july. the judiciary committee met to markup and ultimately vote on articles of impeachment against richard nixon. of the five articles of impeachment they considered against nixon they only passed three of them. there was a fourth one on nixon ordering the bombing of cambod you. that one didn't pass out of the judiciary committee. there was a fifth article of impeachment about tax fraud, which was basically about the taxpayers paying to renovate nixon's beach house. that one didn't pass the judiciary committee either. but three articles against nixon did pass. abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and contempt of congress. for all three articles that passed in the judiciary committee against nixon, a whole bunch of republicans on the committee voted no. 11 no votes, 11 no votes, 15 no votes. that's where things stood in the

nixon impeachment scandal, in the watergate skancandal when t happen at this point in the process. not exactly along party lines but pretty much along party lines. and the expectation at that point was that, you know, they would go through the process. they would take those articles of impeachment that passed out of the judiciary, the three of them that passed, they'd take them and put them on the house floor. and if any of those three articles passed on the house floor, they had move over to the senate and on the basis of those charges there would be a trial with nixon in the senate. everyone thought at this point of the game with nixon they knew what would happen in watergate. but what actually happened in watergate was nothing like that. less than a week after the judiciary committee voted for those three articles of impeachment that they passed against nixon, less than a week later, nixon was forced by an order of the supreme court to release more evidence that

pertained to the scandal including a tape in which he could be heard ordering that the watergate investigation of the fbi be shutdown. think about that for a second. less than a week before they had just voted on the impeachment articles in the judiciary committee. just like we had happen today. and everybody thought they knew how this was going to go in terms of those articles going to the floor in the senate and everything. but then after they already voted on the articles on the judiciary committee and then this new bombshell evidence drops out of the sky and politically it's just chaos. >> good evening. president nixon stunned the country today by admitting that he held back evidence from the house judiciary committee, keeping it a secret from his lawyers and not disclosing it in public statements. the news has caused a storm in washington. and some of mr. nixon's most loyal supporters are calling for his resignation. the president issued a statement about the evidence he kept

secret saying this was a serious act of omission for which i take full responsibility and which i deeply regret. the reaction at the capitol to the president's disclosure evidence was held back was one of shock and dismay among some of his most hardworking supporters. it's seen by many as a decisive turning point in the impeachment process. here now is some congressional reaction. >> the effect on the supporters in the judiciary committee was devastating. republican charles wiggins of california said i have reached the painful conclusion the president of the united states should resign. wiggins said the national interest requires the president to concentrate his efforts on a speedy transition of power to congressman ford. >> republican member of congress from richard nixon's california, he was just an unimaginable defection from richard nixon's camp. wiggins was the strongest and most outspoken and most

compelling supporter of nixon on the judiciary committee. right, congressman wiggins voted no on all five of the impeachment articles that they considered against nixon. he led the nixon camp in the judiciary committee. he led the republican resistance to the impeachment. but even he when faced with this new incontrovertible evidence he decided he too must go. wiggins wasn't like in leadership or something. he wasn't speaker of the house or something. but i mean talk about a day in which you want to buy the paper, right? this was august 6, 1974, you see the banner headline there. nixon admits order to halt inquiry on watergate 6 days after break in. expects impeachment, support ebbs. and the verbatim copy of nixon's

statement about the disclosure of the tapes. but then also there above the fold, i mean next to the picture of the democratic leader tip o'neil, there's this back bench california congressman charles wiggins with his incredible head of hair, right? and he gets his own headline on the front page of "the new york times" that day specifically because he's the epitome of the staunch republican defender of nixon. he gets his own headline on the front page. wiggins for impeachment, others in gop join him. front page of "the new york times" tuesday, august 6th. by the end of that week nixon was gone. that was the tuesday paper i just showed you. he resigned on friday. frankly, so he could have at least the perceived dignity of quitting rather than being forcibly removed from office which was obviously going to be the next thing that happened. but even then, even at that moment in the impeachment of nixon, i'm telling you impeachments are unpredictable

at any stage of the process. so nixon ezines friday, august 9th ahead of what me expects to be the culmination of impeachment proceedings. even guys like chuck wiggins were against him now. but even then, even when richard nixon resigned the presidency, the first american president to ever do that, right, there was still more to do when it came to that impeachment. because by the time nixon resigned on august 9th the judiciary committee in the house hadn't even finished their formal report on the impeachment inquiry. they didn't finish their report on the impeachment until almost two weeks after nixon was already resigned and gone from office, which was kind of crazy, right? i mean nixon has resigned and is no longer president. he's a private citizen. vice president gerald ford has been sworn in to replace him. the country is catching its

breath. a president had never been forced until this moment. and a week and a half later there's the judiciary committee, oh, by the way we actually have to finish this. here's our 528-page report on the impeachment investigation. this is the report that would have guided the floor vote on the articles of impeachment against nixon if we'd gotten that far, but we didn't because he quit. but still, here's the report. yeah, you've got to finish it out, right? they did this whole investigation. it occasioned this incredible moment in american history. this is the formal record of what happened, so you've got to finish it. even though nixon was gone, here it is for the record. but even then, there were still more surprises. >> the impeachment report was accepted in routine rapid firemaner. chairman redino presented it.

there was no debate and the electronic vote counter registered 412-3 acceptance. >> 412-3? let's think about that for a second. nixon over the course of the past month at that point, right, had the judiciary committee passed three articles of impeachment against him. then after that when further damning evidence came out against nixon that blew up his whole defense, even republicans who had voted against the articles of impeachment admitted publicly, yeah, they also were done, he should resign. nixon had in fact resigned. at which point the house still had to put out sort of the final pu punctuation mark, laboriously laying out the evidence and the damning patterns of nixon's behavior. i mean it is done at this point. the only live question at this

point in the watergate skanldal is whether nixon might be indicted and potentially put in ja jail. they get the final report in the house and don't even bother debating. they're like, yeah, we're going to hold the vote. we're going to cept this report as the very last thing we do here so that the formal record of this incredibly unique and terrible moment in american history is now formally adopted into the congressional record and it is officially put in the history books. and three members of congress vote no on that? they vote no, they don't want to do that? they're against putting that in the congressional record? we should make no record of what just happened here. what? i'm telling you in an impeachment anything can happen. who were the three people that voted against accepting into the congressional record the watergate report? well, of the three of them two of them were dixiecrats, segregationist, southern white democrats. one of them was named sunny montgomery. fun fact again about sonny

montgomery as a colonel in the mississippi national guard it was sonny montgomery who personally led the arrests of john lewis and other freedom riders in mississippi bus stations in 1961 when they're trying to desegregate bus station in the south. and also he said at the time actually issued this in a written statement. he said, quote, i contend that richard m. nixon is the greatest president this country ever had. rather than take any chance of doing anything offensive to this great man i decided to vote no. move over lincoln. move over george washington. again, that guy's vote was that there should be no congressional record of the impeachment of richard nixon. at this point nixon had already resigned his office and was no longer president. i want no record of this, i'm voting no. the third and final vote along with those guys was a republican

from indiana named earl landgrebe, one of the great names in american politics ever. earl landgrebe was a guy in general i think enjoyed being contrary, being kind of the poison ivy patch at the picnic. for example, earl landgrebe once voted against cancer research. he was the only vote in the entire congress against this cancer research appropriation. because he argued against the cancer research -- he argued what's the point? he literally argued that there was no point in spending any money to try to cure cancer because there was no point in curing cancer. because even if we cured cancer, that would only change, quote, which way you're going to go. why bother trying to stem off death? what a waste of work. there was another occasion in congress where earl landgrebe also voted no on a quorum vote.

it was literally a vote where you just had to say you were physically there in the room so they knew there were enough people in the room to do congress stuff, tike votes. he was in the room and he voted no. as in, no, i'm not really here. i mean, that's like somebody calling roll. bueller, bueller? not here. when asked afterwards why he voted no on the quorum vote, he said he could not recall exactly. but i'm sure at the time it seemed quite imperative to him. earl landgrebe has gone down in history as a kind of ripply's believe it or not character in the watergate era because of stuff like that. and in large part at the height of watergate with the south bend tribune newspaper in his home state of indiana. the week of nixon's resignation he said, quote, don't confuse me with the facts, i have got a

closed mind. i will not vote for impeachment. i'm going to stick with my president even if he and i have to be taken out of this building and shot. don't confuse me with the facts, i've got a closed mind. nbc news caught up with earl landgrebe just outside the capitol building after the smoking gun evidence was released showing nixon personally ordering the shutdown of the watergate investigation. even at the point with nixon's staunchest supporters, people who had voted against the articles of impeachment, flipping saying he's got to go, even at that point he was unperturbed. >> some members of the committee have looked at the new transcripts and concluded a case can be made for obstruction of justice. do you think first that case can be made, and even at this point the president should be removed? >> i don't think he should be removed, and i don't think he should resign. i -- maybe it's because i'm not a lawyer. maybe i'm not quite as gung ho

on legalism. i'm still trying to maintain some balance and to let into this whole matter just who's your horse sense -- >> let me just interject there, what he said there was hoosier horse sense. he's reminding folks at home in indiana he's a hoosier and therefore he's got a better horse sense view of this. he actually gets hanged up on the hoosier horse sense of this as the reason why richard nixon should stay president. >> i just -- i can't -- i just will not permit just strict sheer legalism to warp my hoosier horse sense, you see? >> so even if he is guilty of obstruction of justice you do not think he should be removed? >> absolutely not. not until somebody proves there's damage other than just defending some legalistic

congressman who contends that the president lied to me. when you prove damage to this great country. when you prove that we've lost some freedom. when you prove that part of our country has been taken over, has been given to a foreign power. when you prove some damage, then you've got a case. but there's no damage here that can be proven. >> now, see, if it were foreign influence, if it were some foreign power being invited in, well then even earl landgrebe could see you've got a case. even that guy. i'll tell you the post script on earl landgrebe he was walloped in his re-election effort in 1974, sent packing. he was replaced by a democrat who happened to be a history professor from the local university. impeachments take wild turns, and we think we know what's going to happen. we think we know how they will proceed, but do not get too cocky. i mean, here's what we think is

going to -- here's what we think is going to happen over the next new days in this impeachment. articles of impeachment were voted out of of the judiciary committee today. tomorrow the house is going to have a pro forma, very brief session that they need to do to introduce the articles in a sort of technical session. we don't expect anything substantive to happen there, but you never know. on tuesday the rules committee will very briefly have their own moment where they basically need to play their part in getting the impeachment articles onto the house floor under the rules of debate by which those articles of impeachment will be considered. again, we don't expect that to be a substantive thing but anything can happen. that night, tuesday night next week we are expecting there to be demonstrations and marches all over the country on the eve of what is expected to be the house floor vote on impeaching donald trump. groups like indevisible and move on are expecting demonstrations and marches in support of impeachment all over the country in all 50 states on tuesday

night. again, the eve of what is expected to be the house floor vote for impeachment. and then on wednesday morning the house will convene for a full floor vote on these two articles. if the house votes for even one of the two orticals of impeachment president trump will become only the third president in u.s. history to be impeached. and we're going to talk tonight what will happen then in terms of the senate, putting him on trial and considering removing him from office. but i just want to highlight one other thing to watch for in the meantime, and i'm bringing this up here because no one has really been talking about this, but as far as i can tell, again being humble. not trying to be too cocky about this. as far as i can tell there's another part of this about to happen. just as there was that final report on the watergate scandal and the impeachment of richard nixon, the complete historical record of the impeachment investigation that would have been used to guide the house floor vote on the impeachment of richard nixon if he hadn't

resigned before that time came, that report that three members of the house decided should not be included into the congressional record, we should pretend it didn't happen. that final report from the judiciary committee, again, over 500 pages at the end of the watergate proceedings. it was produced less than two weeks after nixon actually resigned. there was also one of those same kind of reports for the bill clinton impeachment in 1998. that one was 450 pages including a big long dissent from the democrats. it started with this, the judiciary committee democrats uniformly and resoundingly dissent. the guy who's now chairman of that committee jerry nadler was one of those democrats uniformly and resoundingly dissenting from the report of the clinton impeachment back in 1998. one thing that happens in impeachment proceedings is that

the judiciary committee also produces a big comprehensive final report for the congressional record that summarizes the impeachment case and is supposed to guide the vote on the floor. and yes, every impeachment is a little different and they all have very unpredictable elements. as far as i can tell that's going to happen here in the trump impeachment. we believe on sunday night the judiciary committee in the house are going to produce their own final report on impeachment for trump. which is intended to be a guide for that floor vote that's going to happen next week. and, again, anything could happen. but i'll tell you on the facts of the matter if you have been waiti waiting on the house to explain if and how they believe president trump's actions here in this impeachment on the ukraine skanld ukraine scandal may fit into a larger pattern of him courting foreign influence in our elections, or him abusing power in office or broadly obstructing justice.

if you hear the larger narrative this report we're going to get some time between now and midnight sunday night, that is probably where that will be. so anyway be humble. no time to be cocky about it. also may attention. we've got a big night ahead. michael beschloss going to be joining us and also got important news from the united states supreme court. all ahead. stay with us. states supreme court all ahead. stay with us th 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast!

hi honey, we got in early. yeah, and we brought steve and mark. ♪ experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment.

you have power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength of advil. what pain? here, it all starts withello! hi!... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone!

wifi up there? uhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today.

today on the day the judiciary committee passed two articles of impeachment against president trump, the united states supreme court also announced that it will hear a key and determinative case about president trump trying to with hold evidence from investigators. specifically evidence about his tax returns and other financial records. the supreme court says they'll take up three cases in combination on that issue. they'll hear arguments in march. they're likely to rule by june. and while it is amazing the president of the united states has gone to the supreme court to try to stop anybody from seeing his tax returns, the history here is also uncanny. i mean, not to put too fine a point on it, this is also basically what happened in the middle of the impeachment

proceedings against richard nixon when the supreme court then took up the issue of what evidence he could hold back from investigators. that, of course, did not end well for him when the supreme court ruled unanimously against him. that resulted in evidence being released by the white house that resulted in president nixon resigning from office. joining us now is nbc news presidential historian michael beschloss. thank you for being here. i feel like i'm trapped in a time capsule tonight. >> me too. i thought that was great. >> authority than my affinity for earl landgrebe stories. >> right, the hoosier horse sense. >> the hoosier horse sense which amazing. let me ask you about what i see as parallels here. the unpredictable twists and turns in the impeachment but also the late breaking news the supreme court may have a starring role here in the next few months. >> i think that's right.

it's doubtful that's going to have too much to dedo with impeachment at least at the moment. one of the articles of impeachment that actually was voted down in the case of richard nixon was to look at nixon's taxes. they decided not to do that. the other was the secret bombing of cambodia. so the parallels certainly are there. >> in terms of what i think has been an undercovered part of this process we think by midnight sunday night we're going to get the judiciary committee's full report on the president's impeachment. i've reviewed today that the nixon report of that kind and the clinton report of that kind, they strike me as very complete historical records of everything that happened during the impeachment including minority views and dissenting views from lots of individual members. how important have these documents been over time? >> well, in the nixon case it was really important because that was 528 pages. and the idea was to set down the record of why richard nixon would have been impeached if he

had not quit to avoid having to face the senate trial in the face of almost certain impeachment. because many in the house and senate were worried that if they did not have that report, nixon would spend the rest of his life saying i was railroaded, i didn't do things that other presidents did not do. and in fact maybe if i'd fought that senate trial, i might have prevailed. and you know what, rachel, it turns out that's exactly what richard nixon did the rest of his life. >> was it surprise during watergate when this very, very important new evidence turned up that ended up being determinative in terms of nixon's future? i was struck by the time line when they started to get ready to vote on the articles in the judiciary committee which was a thing we saw happen here today, the supreme court around that time had handed down its ruling. nobody exactly knew what was going to be prulsoduced by the white house. was it a surprise that something so damning was released in the middle of that process after the

articles had already passed out of judiciary? >> it was. and what nixon had been praying for was that the supreme court would vote on his side. and nixon said, you know, i appointed four of those members of the supreme court. i sure hope they feel obligation and loyalty to me. he thought there was a good chance that the supreme court would rule in his favor. as it turned out, it didn't. and so only at the last minute after three articles of impeachment had been voted was nixon compelled to admit that he had obstructed justice by trying to stop that fbi investigation and taped himself doing it. >> michael, let me just ask you one last question. i feel like this is one of those times when everybody is describing everything as historic and i'm falling into this myself. as an actual presidential historian are you frustrated by everybody putting that label on everything or are you feeling that, too? >> i think asking a historian if he's unhappy to hear the word

historic is probably something you're not likely to get a yes for, but it is historic. of course it is. this has only happened, it will be three times in our history. that's an awfully long period of time. 242 years. no matter what happens and i agree with you that impeachments can be unpredictable. of course this is historic. >> thank you for joining us tonight, michael. great to have you here. we've got much more ahead. stay with us. u here we've got much more ahead. stay with us donald trump failed as a businessman. he borrowed billions and left a trail of bankruptcy and broken promises.

he hasn't changed. i started a tiny investment business, and over 27 years, grew it successfully to 36 billion dollars. i'm tom steyer and i approve this message. i'm running for president because unlike other candidates, i can go head to head with donald trump on the economy, and expose him fo what he is: a fraud and a failure. i'm happy to give you the tour, i lohey jay. it. jay? charlotte! oh hi. he helped me set up my watch lists. oh, he's terrific. excellent tennis player. bye-bye. i recognize that voice. annie? yeah! she helped me find the right bonds for my income strategy. you're very popular around here. there's a birthday going on. karl! he took care of my 401k rollover. wow, you call a lot. yeah, well it's my money we're talking about here. joining us for karaoke later? ah, i'd love to, but people get really emotional when i sing. help from a team that will exceed your expectations. ♪ why fingerstick when you can scan? with the freestyle libre 14 day system

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

they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/try and never go to the post office again!

it's 2013, there attorney general of the great state of florida was running for re-election. it was a $25,000 check payable from the donald j. trump foundation payable to the pac supporting the re-election for tam pain attorney general pam bondy. that has become a famous donation over time in part because of the timing when that check was sent. right before that check arrived in the mail the orlando sentinel had put up this headline. "new york's trump university lawsuit draws florida officials' attention. he was facing a class action lawsuit over claims that trump university had bamboozled tons of people all over the country out of their money. pam bondy was the attorney general of florida, and in that

capacity her office was thinking about having florida join all the other states that were suing trump university as a fraud. that was september 13, 2013, big headline, right? florida might be joining the big lawsuit against trump university. although it was less than a week later, september 17th, when pam bondy's re-election pac got one of the biggest donation checks it received that cycle, a check from donald j. trump's foundation. and a few weeks after that her office decided they had looked into it but they wouldn't pursue a lawsuit against trump university after all. ta-da. and i mean where do you want to start with that one, right? first of all charities like the trump foundation can't give money to political campaigns and pacs and candidates so the donation itself no matter the timing was not allowed under law, and the timing was super

suspicious, and in term of that charity it wasn't a one off in terms of something that looked a little hingy. donald trump had used his foundation for years. last year the attorney general of new york filed a lawsuit accusing the president of misusing the assets of that foundation basically operating that charity as a fraud, as another fraud. just this week a few days ago president trump had to pay $2 million as a settlement in that case. so the trump foundation hasn't fared well. it's gone now. pam bondy on the other hand has landed on her feet. she was recently brought to the white house to be a lawyer on the president's impeachment defense team. in order to take that role, though, and this is awkward, she had to resign from a lobbying firm she'd been working at. a firm called ballard partners. you might have seen headlines of ballard partners being one of the entities being subpoenaed in a criminal case running in

federal court in new york basically parallel to the impeachment proceedings on capitol hill. this is criminal case in the southern district of new york that involves igor fruman and lev parnas. they took part in a scheme for which president trump will be impeached, working with rudy giuliani. they are charged in the southern district of new york now with multiple felonies. and according to "the new york times," this lobbying firm that pam bondy worked at until like five minutes ago, ballard partners, they've been subpoenaed in part because they paid thousands of dollars to lev parnas in some sort of business deal that seems to have coincided with the impeachment scheme. of all the firms she could have worked for, that's the one? the firm she has to leave in order to work on trump's impeachment defense just got subpoenaed for information about a time she had been working there in a criminal case related to impeachment scandal. i mean, that's very awkward for her to be involved in the president's defense given that.

not nearly as awkward, though, as this picture of lev parnas with pam bondy with their arms around each other. he of course is one of the defendants in that criminal case related to impeachment scheme. and there's one of the president's defense team with him. and this is the person the white house thinks should be working on the president's defense and potentially one of the people the white house wants representing him at his trial in the senate. the person seen smiling in a picture with a defendant in a criminal case that is part of the impeachment scandal. do they not know anybody else? but that's just part of what folks are worried about when it comes to the upcoming senate trial. we've got more on that coming up next. stay with us. got more on that cp next stay with us a different kind of car. ♪ ladies and gentlemen for a different kind of drive. ♪ ladies and gentlemen for the drive to create a new kind of family car, that became a new kind of race car. for the drive to rebel, zag. for the drive that's inside you. and inside us.

that's the drive under the hood of every mini. because every mini is... for the drive. ♪ in connemara. right! connemara it is! there's one gift the whole family can share this holiday season, their story. give the gift of discovery, with an ancestrydna kit. 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. 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 doctor bob, what should i take for back pain? before you take anything, i recommend applying topical relievers first. salonpas lidocaine patch blocks pain receptors for effective, non-addictive relief. salonpas lidocaine. patch, roll-on or cream. hisamitsu.

the rules of the of an impeachment trial in the u.s. senate it's the senate who acts as jurors. they have to take an oath in which they solemnly swear they

have to do impartial justice so help me god. take it away, mitch mcconnell. >> everything i do during this i'm coordinating with the white house counsel. there will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent we can. we have no choice but to take it up, but we'll be working through this process hopefully in a fair amount of time in coordination with the people representing in. >> he's part of the jury and planning on running in total coordination with the defendant in the trial. is that how it's supposed to go? actually what are the rules for how it's supposed to go? joining us now is cass sunstein, he was an advisor to president obama and has been described as the most cited legal scholar in the united states. the author of over 40 books on

40 matters including impeachment. so how much do we know about the rules? how proscribed are the rules of the senate for conducting an impeachment trial? >> the constitution doesn't specify what we know from alexander hamilton and we might say senator mcconnell meet alexander hamilton, is the senate is supposed to be independent and supposed to be impartial. and the whole idea is not to be closely coordinated with the person who's accused of committing an impeachable offense. so that's built into the leading commentary on the founding document. >> if that is not adhered to, if for example senator mcconnell wasn't just talking on fox news but he does intend to run the senate trial as he said in close coordination with the white house and not essentially as an independent matter where the senate makes up its own mind about how it's going to move

forward, is there any corrective there? >> well, ultimately we the people are in charge, and senator mcconnell is a very important senator but he's not the only senator. and there will be a rebellion i believe in the country and in the senate if he holds to that unconstitutional conception of his role. this is something that is not ambiguous in the constitution that the senate is supposed to be an intermediary between the representatives of the people, that is the house of representatives and the accused, that is the president. and here in stating that role of the senate as the jury between the representatives of the people and the accused. again, i'm kwoelting hamilton. that was his account. >> if it's the constitution to be impartial, to openly or gleefully admit you're running the impeachment trial in

coordination with the defendant and senator mcconnell goes about it this way -- if the chief justice of the supreme court who i understand presides over the trial, shares your view of that, would he be in a position to make sure that the senate trial runs differently against the wishes of senator mcconnell? >> it would be hard because the chief justice's role is mostly ceremonial. in the past it's to make sure that nothing untoward in some technical sense happens. but the fact is there has to be a trial, and there are procedures laid out actually by the republicans in connection with the clinton impeachment and the trial that followed, and that's actually very fortunate. the republicans themselves are responsible for the best precedent we have. which means if there's an egregious departure from that pres dependent where things were done basically above board and

if senator mcconnell deviates dramatically from that, it will be palpably the word unfair is too gentle for what it will be. >> thank you so much for being with us tonight. i hope you don't mind if we keep you on speed dial. in the next few weeks we're going to need some grounding in the founding documents of this country. thanks for being with us here tonight. >> my pleasure. >> more to come. stay with us. t. >> my pleasure >> more to come. stay with us starting at $15.99. treat yourself to the perfect gift today, because the aussie 4-course won't last long! and now, get a $10 gift with every $50 in gift cards.

[sneeare you ok?fles] yah, it's just a cold. it's not just a cold if you have high blood pressure. most cold medicines may raise blood pressure. coricidin hbp is the... ...#1 brand that gives... powerful cold relief without raising your blood pressure. sa new buick? for me? to james, from james. that's just what i wanted. is this a new buick? i secret santa-ed myself. oh i shouldn't have but i have been very good this year. i love it...i love it... don't forget you this holiday season, get an s-you-v, from buick.

celebrate the holidays with up to 25% below msrp for current eligible non-gm owners and lessees on most of these 20-19 buick models.

we were paying an arm and a leg for postage. i remember setting up shipstation. one or two clicks and everything was up and running. i was printing out labels and saving money. shipstation saves us so much time. it makes it really easy and seamless. pick an order, print everything you need, slap the label onto the box, and it's ready to go. our costs for shipping were cut in half. just like that. shipstation. the #1 choice of online sellers. go to shipstation.com/try and get 2 months free.

here's something i have absolutely no idea how it's going to work out. but it's got to work out one way the other and soon. the next presidential debate is next week. it's thursday in los angeles. this is debate number six. it's the first of all the democratic debates this year that will have fewer than ten people on stage at once. right now there's seven qualified candidates and the deadline's passed so it's those seven. that said it appears tonight it's very possible there will be zero candidates on that debate stage next week because 150 people who work at marymount university are planning to run a picket line. they're going to be walking a picket line outside the debate venue. their union is in a very live debate with a contractor at that school. the union has been pushing for better health care options for months since the spring of this year. but talks broke down this month. and that meant a picket line was

a very real possibility for the night of the debate. and democrats don't cross picket lines. and today one by one starting with elizabeth warren every candidate who made it into that debate, who's qualified for that debate announced they would under no circumstances cross a picket line in order to get into the that venue. the democratic national committee said tonight they too see this as a real problem and are promising to find a fix. quote, congressman tom perez would absolutely not cross a picket line and would never expect our candidates to either. we're working with all stakeholders to find an acceptable resolution that meet their needs and is consistent with our values and will enable us to proceed as scheduled with next week's debate. at least for now it seems like some of the details of the debate are up in the air. if there's going to be a picket line there, it can't happen there. it is unclear what the acceptable resolution here might be, but they're definitely trying, working on it. we'll be right back. trying, working on it. we'll be right back.

♪ ♪ experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment.

and i like to question your i'm yoevery move.n law. like this left turn. it's the next one. you always drive this slow? how did you make someone i love? that must be why you're always so late. i do not speed. and that's saving me cash with drivewise. my son, he did say that you were the safe option. and that's the nicest thing you ever said to me. so get allstate. stop bossing. where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. this is my son's favorite color, you should try it. [mayhem] you always drive like an old lady? [tina] you're an old lady.

if you felt like this week was three years long wait until you see what's coming next. tomorrow there's going to be a pro forma session in congress where the articles of impeachment will be formally introduced. at least i think that's the formal thing they're doing tomorrow. in any case it's expected to be a procedural thing, a pro forma session. but this is an impeachment, so be on your toes.

weird things happen. that's tomorrow. that's saturday. sunday -- we believe by midnight sunday night the house judiciary committee is expected to release its full report on the impeachment of president trump. technically, that's supposed to guide the floor vote that's going to happen on wednesday, but we also expect that to be a really substantive report including potentially this might be the place where the house ties the ukraine skancandal to things in the mueller report and other patterns in the president's behavior. tuesday the rules committee is going to establish the rules for the floor debate on impeach. . that night we also expected to see hundreds of marches and vigils all across the country in support of impeachment tuesday night, impeachment eve. because on wednesday the full house is expected to debate and vote on whether to impeach president trump, which would make him only the third impeached president in u.s. history. that's the plan. but anything could happen. does it for us tonight. we will see