lui picks up our coverage. erage. and good evening. i'm richard lui. full coverage on impeachment just ahead. but we're going to start with some breaks news for you this hour. nbc news now reporting that trump administration intends to draw back more than 4,000 troops from afghanistan by the 2020 election. the u.s. has between 12,000 and 13,000 troops in afghanistan now. and the announcement comes just days after diplomatic talks with the taliban resume. joining me now from the white house north lawn, nbc news correspondent hans nichols. also with us this hour, tom nichols, national security expert and "usa today" columnist. let's start with you, hans. put this into context for us and, again, the exclusive reporting that we have. >> so my colleagues courtney cuby and carol lee have broken this story the white house intends to announce as early as next week, the administration intends to announce as early as next week this draw down of

troops. now, this is significant for a whole bunch of reasons. remember it was about two and a half months you and i were talking about that time that president trump invited the taliban to camp david and then cancelled it abruptly. and said all talks with the taliban were off. but at that point, the -- the intention of the president was very clear. that he wanted to bring down troops. at the time, we thought there were about 14,000. there were actually around 12,000. bring that number down to about 8,000. that's what this planned reduction, which they do through redeployments and through the natural course of events with troops going there. this wouldn't be like whole units are being drawn out of afghanistan. it gets you down to about 8,000. now, whether or not what that does to peace talks with the taliban, it's not quite certain. you mentioned that the peace talks have started again. but they're actually, and they have. the white house quietly did that after the president made that unannounced visit to afghanistan over the thanksgiving holiday. i think one thing to look at is when the peace talks actually get back on track.

because they're in a temporary pause right now after there was a big attack at a base on wednesday. so there were a lot of cross-currents here. but, richard, on this all, i think you need to look at what the president's rhetoric has been and his intentions have been. president donald trump has wanted to get out of afghanistan from day one. and he's been sort of challenged by his generals on this. and there's this big "washington post" multipart reporting out that has these afghanistan papers on how a lot of senior officials always suspected that the war was essentially unwinnable. richard. >> so cross-currents. over to you, tom nichols, and hans is reporting here. part of those cross-currents. do you negotiate from a position of strength, meaning more troops potentially versus fewer troops? >> i'm not sure it makes much of a difference to the -- to the taliban about whether we have more or fewer in any given time. the commander there has said that he can manage the drawdown and that may not be the -- the

issue. at hand. it seems like this is -- the -- the timing of this seems like this is the president, as he has done in the past, trying to get ahead of a news cycle. whether this happens, when it happens, that's a different story because even if this does happen, it'll happen in phases over a drawdown of a long period. so i think from the point of view of negotiations, it's less important than the political point that was made by announcing it in a very dramatic fashion. >> so, tom, difficult, easy negotiations with the taliban, as you know so well, hans does as well. the futile power structure that exists. it's not concentrated. >> no. and that's the other problem is when you're negotiating with a -- a -- a set of groups like this. who can speak on their behalf? who can make the arrangements stick? exactly what are you getting in terms of future guarantees? that -- that's a separate question from how many troops we have there in any given time. we could have even more troops there and that would still be a problem.

>> all right. hans nichols with the new news for us this hour. our exclusively to nbc news, thank you, tom nichols. thank you both. following a historic vote from the house judiciary committee, we're going to look ahead to another big one on wednesday. that is when the full house votes on whether to impeach an american president for only the third time in the nation's history. but first, some new developments. nbc news confirms one moderate democrat, new jersey congressman, jeff van drew, expected to switch parties after a personal meeting with president trump. democrats can afford to have 17 defections on the impeachment vote expected on wednesday. but no more than that. a sign of the intense effort by the white house and house republicans to peel off democrats who might be on the fence on impeachment. now, earlier today, i spoke with california congressman harley ruda who hails from one of the reddest districts in california

and i asked him what he thought about news of van drew's possible defection. >> i hope it's not true. in fact, i hope every politician would not decide how they are going to vote on the impeachment based on polling. we took an oath to the constitution of the united states of america. and, to me, that should be the defining document and defining purpose in how we decide to vote. and for me, it's pretty clear on how we should vote. we should vote to impeach the president of the united states, donald j. trump. >> and then there was a look at what has happened over the past week. leading up to the key judiciary committee vote. >> the president abused his power and is a continuing threat. not only to democracy but to our national security. >> i mean, come on. this is a predetermined -- you guys have been wanting to impeach this president since he got elected. >> the entire argument for impeachment, in this case, is based on a charge that is not a crime. >> there are no crimes here?

that is the defense my colleagues across the aisle are putting forward. the president committed the highest crime against the constitution by abusing his office. >> this impeachment's going to fail. the democrats will pay a heavy political price for it. >> when a robber points the gun at you to take your money, they usually don't walk up and say, i'm robbing you. >> it's a little hard to believe that burisma hired hunter biden to resolve their international disputes when he could not resolve his own dispute with hertz rental car over leaving cocaine and a crack pipe in the car. >> the pot calling the kettle black is not something that we should do. i don't know -- i don't know what members, if any, have had any problems with substance abuse, been busted in dui. i don't know. but if i did, i wouldn't raise it.

>> the question now is on article one of the resolution. impeaching president donald j. trump for abusing his powers. >> mr. chairman, there are 23 ayes and 27 noes. >> question now is on article two of the resolution. impeaching president donald j. trump for obstructing congress. >> mr. chairman, there are 23 ayes and 17 noes. >> the article is agreed to. >> let's go now to democratic congresswoman debbie dingle of michigan. she is the house senior representative. thank you so much for being with us on this saturday. >> it's good to be with you. >> what do you make of this reporting on representative van drew? >> you know, i respect my colleague. it doesn't surprise me. i think he comes from a very difficult district. he often finds himself voting or agreeing with many of the policies of republican party. i'm still going to work with him like i do all my republican

colleagues. he voted against moving forward with the process of even investigating. and nobody expected him to vote one way or the other. but, by the way, this isn't a partisan vote. this is a vote of conscience as far as i'm concerned. >> you heard some -- heard it many times i bet here, representative. this is a predetermined process. this is a predetermined vote. what's your response to that? >> well, for me, it certainly wasn't. last summer, when i had -- tom steyer bought 40 ads against me because i wouldn't come out for impeachment. i had moveon.org. i had a lot of people who had some pretty strong feelings and i was worried and am worried even as i sit here tonight about how divided this country is. but, you know, i haven't announced what i'm going to do. but anybody who's heard me talk knows that i've been greatly disturbed by what the actions have been. that we did take money that had been appropriated by the congress, which was needed for our national security and it became subject to someone's personal, political demands. that's not okay.

and it clearly has been obstruction of congress in many fronts. so i'm going to re-read the intelligence committee report. i'm going to read the judiciary committee's report. and then announce my formal decision. but i, until i was worried about our national security and protecting our democracy, hesitated on impeachment until we had clear things that endangered our national security because i am worried about how divided our country is. but this is not a political vote. i don't put my finger in the air and say what are people thinking? i have to do what i took my oath of office to do, which is to protect our country. >> so, representative dingle, you're saying you have not decided yet which way you will vote? >> well, i'm leaning but i haven't -- i want to read it one more time. >> uh-huh. >> because i am worried. i -- i -- no matter where we go, what happens next week, it's going to continue to divide this country. and i tell you what. i've had people screaming at me. you know, very few people telling me you got to impeach

him. not so much last summer. but i've had a lot of -- i've had some come up to me and threaten me. and you can't -- but do you know how many people have been home for two days have just come up and thanked me? and said i'm worried about our country. what do we do to pull us together? how do we pull together? and i will work with republicans on all the issues that we're working on now. that matter to them from lowering prescription drugs. we've gotten a trade deal, which shows we can work together. that's what our job is and that's what we got to do more of. >> so, representative, when you look at the great deliberative culture of the state of michigan, what would you say then to representative rouda who's already said i know which way i'm going to vote without even receiving the report and being able to read the report that we expect to come out sunday night? >> i think that different people come to decisions differently. i'm someone that really spends -- i -- i'm just -- i'm

someone that dots every i and crosses every t. i make the young people in my office nuts some days. everybody's -- it's a moral decision. i don't believe this is a political decision for each of us that has to cast that vote. and he -- it -- each of us has come to that very quickly or very i'm just gottdotting every and crossing every t. >> do you believe more than 17 votes could be lost? van drew's the first one. do you think it'll be more than 17? >> i don't know because we're not whipping it because it is such a personal individual vote. i would be surprised because i've been talking to a lot of my colleagues. but, you know, i hope -- i've been talking to my republican colleagues, too. they're struggling as much as we are. there is a lot of pressure being put on the republican side. but in the end, i think we all have to love our country and do -- and protect our constitution and our national security. i don't think we're going to have 17 people vote the other way. >> okay very quickly as you read the headlines from "usa today"

that the trump team is leaning on vulnerable democrats there. whipping it appears. why not on your side whip the votes? >> because it's not a political issue. this is about our country. i'm an american and i am going to vote the way that i do because i'm an american. and my job is to protect this country. our national security. and our democracy. and that will be what my vote is on. not based on what anybody says to me in this district. i listen to them. i care and i respect it. but it's what i, morally, believe to protect our country at this point. >> from the great state of michigan. congresswoman debbie dingell. thank you, representative, for taking the time today. >> thank you. >> appreciate it. let's turn to our panel. "politico" white house reporter. author of "the washington post" power up newsletter, jackie. former republican congressman from florida, david jolly. and former director of paid media for hillary for america, joel pane. dan, what do you make of the reflections that just came from

the senior whip? not going to whip votes. clearly, appears that the white house or the trump team is trying to figure out the numbers here. >> yeah. i think this makes congresswoman dingell's job easier since she's not having to pester colleagues to vote one way or another. but i don't think nancy pelosi would be bringing impeachment to the floor next week if she didn't think that it would pass because it would be very embarrassing if they brought that impeachment motion on the floor. and then more than 17 democrats defect. so i think congresswoman dingell and many other democrats feel like they're going to do this regardless of the political consequences. you've already seen republicans raise a lot of money from the trump campaign about impeachment. >> you know, look at representative van drew. and when i was pressing representative dingell, she respected, is what she said, his process, every member's process here. jackie, and the question has to be how many roudas are there

that have not necessarily waited for the report expect later on this weekend from the judiciary committee in terms of a summary and readout of the articles and exactly what happened during deliberations. how many roudas might there be? and how many debbie dingells might there be on the left? >> that's a question we'll find out on thursday obviously. but look, i think what van drew and dingell are both really, you know, explicitly contrasting is this existential choice that faces democrats right now. is it country? and the constitution? or is it party and politics? what do they prioritize? in the case of van drew, it appears that he saw a poll that saw him losing in his district if he voted against impeachment. and the pressure of that trump put on him worked. but what you, i think, saw during the house judiciary markup that really stood out to me at least was these calls to the conscious. you had someone like lucy mcbeth, who represents georgia and i think the only vulnerable

democrat on the judiciary committee who, you know, said that she did not come to congress to impeach the president. she came to congress to represent the legacy of her son, who was killed in gun violence. but at the end of the day, this is the right thing to do for her. and she doesn't care if she loses that seat. so i think, you know, it -- it remains to be seen, again, just how many moderate democrats deflect. but that's why nancy pelosi was reluctant all along to -- to, you know, dig into this process because she is concerned about protecting her frontliners. >> joel, predetermined or not? the question might be is there going to be a surprise between now and the end of what might be happening in the senate trial, as we remember back to nixon, right? we heard from the supreme court during the deliberations of the judiciary committee during those two months. and that turned the tide in the end. will there be a surprise? >> yeah. i mean, the only surprise now is whether republicans can find their scruples because that's

the only thing that's going to change anything. we know that nancy pelosi would not bring this vote up unless she had enough votes in the house to pass impeachment. so i think that jackie's right. i think that's probably a wise assumption that the speaker knows whether or not she's whipping the vote. she knows what her members are thinking. and i think in the senate, you've already heard mitch mcconnell, lindsey graham, other influential republicans talk about how they have already predetermined what they think should happen even though they're supposed to be an impartial jury pool. so unless republicans have a change of heart and decide to actually, you know, approach this with the type of sobriety that i think that we would all expect and hope they would. no. there's no surprises. he is going to be impeached in the senate. and probably he will escape on a party line vote -- rather, he will be impeached in the house and escape on a party line vote in the senate. >> former representative david jolly. you know, you've been saying and you've mentioned in the past. potentially, and you're not the only person that's thought of this idea and discussed it, which is if the articles are

approved, should the leader, leader pelosi, hold them for a while? if she were to do it, why would that make sense? >> yeah. you know, speaker pelosi's done a masterful job. democrats have a very tricky playing field that they have had to navigate. but there is a real question for the speaker and house democrats as custodians of what will likely be approved articles of impeachment in the house. whether to refer them to a senate, as joel mentioned, where the majority leader has already said he is fully coordinating with the white house to ensure the president's acquittal. and the senate judiciary chairman, lindsey graham, just hours ago saying in an overseas interview, he's not even going to pretend to be an impartial juror. so what is the point? we have to ask ourselves. referring the house articles to a senate, where the fix is already in. the alternative is at least impeach him in the house. record that for history. accept that as a certain accountability on the president. and then, perhaps, by

withholding the referral to the senate, schumer and mcconnell can strike a deal where there are certain concessions for fairness of the proceeding. or perhaps you wait until next spring or summer and see if there is more impeachable conduct committed by the president of the united states. we know that congressional action is not a deterrent for the president. what happens if he engages in additional impeachable behavior? and he's already been acquitted by a senate under control of senate majority mitch mcconnell. it's not an easy decision for nancy pelosi. but i think the inflexion point is upon us, richard. very quickly because if they pass this and refer it to the senate, then we're going to watch a rigged trial in the senate. and i'm not sure that for reasons of prudence that's the best course forward. it may be worth house democrats considering holding the articles back and not referring them to the senate immediately. >> jackie, is that a possibility? >> you know, i actually am not

quite sure if house democrats are actually weighing that at the moment. it seems like we are going full steam ahead to have this vote on thursday. that is the direction most people have indicated. you have also seen people like max rose, you know, one of the front liners who represents staten island who's already come out to say he's going to vote to support that. so i don't think that's going to happen. but i think where congressman jolly is right is that this is, you know, a potential liability for democrats. this is -- if these articles are voted upon and it makes it to a senate trial, this trial is going to go into the democratic primary. you're going to have some of the leading contenders for the democratic primary, as well sitting on the bench. sitting in the senate. six days a week. you know, listening to these trials. and instead of out there campaigning. and it's also why you see president trump pushing to have a theatric, drawn out trial because he knows it can garner headlines and get him on the front pa front page of newspapers. so i do think, you know, democrats do face some potential

problems when it comes to mapping out parameters of this trial come january. >> david jolly, censure possible? >> no, i think that's off the table. and you saw this debated as a compromise during the clinton impeachment. the difference here is democrats in '98 were willing to have the conversation with republicans. what if we delivered votes for a censure to say that president clinton's behavior was wrong? republicans under donald trump will never acknowledge the wrongdoing of the president. and so they will never offer a censure compromise. and house democrats are right to impeach the president. this is exactly what the framers envisioned. this was the presidency they feared when they wrote the impeachment article. impeachment is the proper response by house democrats in this situation. >> all right. always great to get your perspective. former representative david jolly. appreciate your time with us tonight. the rest of the panel stays with us. see you soon. coming up, education, not impeachment. it was the topic of the day for 2020 presidential candidates at

msnbc's public education forum. ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪ we go the extra mile to bring your holidays home. i need all the breaks, that i can get. at liberty butchumal- cut. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ and you'll experience a whole new range of emotions like... of a travel site the relaxing feeling of knowing you're getting the best price. and the magic power of unlocking your room with your phone. i can read minds too. really? book at hilton.com and get the hilton price match guarantee. ♪ do you recall, not long ago ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪ ♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun

♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪ apps except work.rywhere... why is that? is it because people love filling out forms? maybe they like checking with their supervisor to see how much vacation time they have. or sending corporate their expense reports. i'll let you in on a little secret. they don't. by empowering employees to manage their own tasks, paycom frees you to focus on the business of business. ♪ music

what are you doing back there, junior? since we're obviously lost, i'm rescheduling my xfinity customer service appointment. ah, relax. i got this. which gps are you using anyway? a little something called instinct. been using it for years. yeah, that's what i'm afraid of. he knows exactly where we're going. my whole body is a compass. oh boy... the my account app makes today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. not my thing.

welcome back. while lawmakers in washington debate impeachment, the 2020 democratic candidates for president are out across the country trying to keep the focus on issues closer to home for voters. education being one of the topics. seven candidates attended the msnbc public education forum in pittsburgh today discussing the challenges that teachers, parents, and students face. they laid out their proposals

for how to improve america's schools. >> i've met with many parents and grandparents who have put their children in public charter schools. and i have no doubt about the sincerity of their efforts to educate their children. but i believe that it is our responsibility, as a nation, and will be my responsibility as president of the united states, to make certain that every public school is an excellent public school. >> under me, would -- would hat education secretary would do is to help transmit that innovation across the country where kids living in poverty are actually overcoming circumstances because of phenomenal teaching and phenomenal school leadership. the rest of the country needs to see those examples because we're desperate for them all over. >> college affordability is very important. and so is college completion. but the way it's being talked about right now, you'd think it's the only thing that matters

after 12th grade. and there is not nearly enough conversation going on about how to support apprenticeships, internships, and cte so that you can prosper whether you went to college or not. >> there is no question that we have got to keep track of every kid in this country to make sure that he or she is reading, doing math well. but there are better ways to doing it than standardized testing, in my view. >> as we look at the anniversary of sandy hook, which i know you pointed out earlier, the thought of that teacher, that school aide in the closet with the little boy with her arms around them where they're both shot dead. that shouldn't be happening in our schools. >> universal free pre-k is an absolute requirement for our educational system. we -- look. this is a question of resources but it's not only a question of resources. absolutely, teachers are being underpaid. but they're also being undersupported. >> i had teachers who first and

foremost worked on my confidence. told me i was smart. told me i could do what i needed to do. you got to give 'em confidence. that's what you all do. you guys and women are not only teachers. you're coaches. you're coaching these kids. >> an overview of what was said today at msnbc's education forum up next for you, attorney general bill barr versus inspector general michael horowitz battling it out over what is true in the russia investigation. it out over what is true in the russia investigation. 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. (burke) at farmers insurance, we've seen almost everything, so we know how to cover almost anything. even a "three-ring fender bender." (clown 1) sorry about that... (clown 2) apologies. (clown 1) ...didn't mean it. (clown 3) whoops. (stilts) sorry! (clowns) we're sorry! (scary) hey, we're sorry! [man screams] [scary screams] (burke) quite the circus. but we covered it. at farmers, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

save hundreds of thousands of lives. but after the emergency, time and again, insurance companies deny coverage, second guessing doctors, nurses and first responders... now "big insurance" is lobbying congress. asking for restrictions on air medical services. eliminating patients' access to life-saving care and destroying jobs all in exchange for bigger profits for insurance companies. tell congress, put patients first, not big insurance.

the fight over impeachment dominated the headlines this week. but another scuffle within the department of justice also made some news. the report by doj inspector general michael horowitz on the probe of the 2016 trump campaign. much expected. much watched. it found that despite the fbi mishandling parts of the investigation, the launch of the probe was justified and political bias did not play a role. the findings were quickly criticized by attorney general bill barr before horowitz had the chance to talk publicly about the findings before congress. and then when horowitz did testify, days later, he stuck by his findings. he created a public disconnect,

though, between the two at the same time. take a listen. >> i think our -- our nation was turned on its head for three years. i think based on a completely bogus narrative that was largely fanned and hyped by an irresponsible press. >> so your report states that you didn't find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation played a role? >> that's correct. >> do you still stand by your statement that -- that -- that the campaign was spied upon? >> oh, it's clearly spied upon. i mean, that's what electronic surveillance is. >> your investigation found no evidence that the fbi placed any confidential source within the trump campaign or tasked any confidential source to report on the trump campaign, that's correct, right? >> that's correct. >> and i think when you step back here and say, what was this all based on? it -- it's not sufficient.

>> we found the crossfire hurricane was open for an authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication. >> john durham, the federal prosecutor barr tapped to lead a different, a separate, review of the russia probe. that is still ongoing right now. the report is forthcoming. it also said or jon durham also said in a statement that he disagreed with the ig's report. joining us now to discuss former deputy assistant attorney general harry litman. tom nichols. harry, let's talk with you first. who's right here? >> look. there is a disagreement and there is a way to resolve these disagreements. it's called the inspector general. that's the reason we have an inspector general to make an apolitical call on the facts. the attorney general suggested maybe he knows other facts. but that doesn't make sense. whether it was predicated or not has to do with what was in front of the fbi at the time. he gave the information that

did -- did the attorney general to horowitz. horowitz didn't change his mind. that really, really should've been the end of it. incredibly unusual and aberrant for the attorney general then to come out and contradict that statement. what's the point of having an inspector general if that's what's going to happen? and there's the process of process. in that, you wrote in an op-ed here, harry, barr allegedly wanted to avoid public confusion. but he caused more. that was your "washington post" op-ed. and let's go over to tom on this. because if you're -- you're an everyday american, like myself, and you look at this. you're saying, well, which way is right? i'm not sure. everybody is contesting each other's opinion. and report. >> the attorney general -- the attorney general's a cabinet officer. he works directly for the president. he heads the department of justice. i think most people are going to take barr's view on this because most people out there, understandably, don't really

understand what an ig investigation is. i mean, we abbreviate it, you know, because we know what an inspector general is. but the average american, i think, again understandably, has no idea how those are conducted. as harry pointed out, they're supposed to be the last word. it's supposed to be the independent voice that looks at a problem and determines if there were some kind of irregularities. and -- and usually, when there's an inspector general report in any department, sometimes you'll get that cabinet officer saying they were too hard on my guys. you know, to defend the institution. that sometimes happens where they want to defend their department and its conduct. this is a case of saying an independent, outside voice wasn't hard enough on my own department to find what i wanted it to find because i believe this whole thing was wrong from the get go and i don't care what the inspector general says. and we're going to keep doing this until we get the answer i want. >> as part of that, the fisa

abuses that came out and the attorney general saying look at that. see? there is a problem here, harry. and when you look at the level those abuses did happen, the counter to it is that it's -- was happening at a lower level. how do you assess what actually happened in the reporting of the ig came out on? >> it was pretty blistering at that level, richard. and i don't disagree with it. i have seen reports like that. and the -- and christopher ray, the head of the fbi, was quick to accept it and try to put reforms in place. but it just has nothing to do with the headlines of the report, which is, they validly initiated the investigation and there was no political bias. they're just two separate sets of conclusions. so, yeah, they should clean their own house. but to try to fan the flames, the embers really, to keep a lie, this notion of some political bias or deep-state operation. really is -- is wrong at this point, as tom says, when do you stop? you keep going till you get it right?

that's not normally how it works. especially, one more quick point, durham, you know, made a statement in the middle of a criminal investigation. that's also extremely unusual and -- and against the normal policies of the department. >> again, what you write about for those watching if you want to get more deal tail, go to your op-ed, harry, there in "the new york times." tom -- "washington post," excuse me. tom, as we look at this attorney general and i'll bring up this example that just came out this week. judge rejecting department of justice's effort to delay a house lawsuit against barr. this has really been the playbook of the department of justice. don't give the stuff over to the house if they ask for it. and so the question has to be how effective has this attorney general been in impeding the progress and the power of a different branch of government? the house and its oversight. >> i think it might be unfair to say that it's been the effective strategy the department of justice. it's been the effective strategy

of william barr. and it's been very effective. one of the things i think that has averted a lot of terrible outcomes over the past three years is that the bush -- excuse me, the trump white house just isn't very competent. they're just not very good at what they do. unfortunately, barr is competent. he is good at what he does. and what he's doing here is obstructing all of this in order to protect the president. and, you know, that's -- you have to give him credit. he's actually good at it, which is enough to -- to make me somewhat nostalgic for jeff sessions at this point. >> 15 seconds. harry litman. there's a difference between rank and file. >> yeah. there -- there is. but my -- 15 seconds, i'll take three. agree 100%. >> agree 100%. well-said. good writer. harry litman. tom nichols upon appreciate y r tom nichols. coming up, talk about the trial ahead. p, talk about the trial ahead.

(loud fan noise) (children playing) ♪ (music building) 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. i looitaly!avel. yaaaaass. with the united explorer card, i get rewarded wherever i go. going out for a bite. rewarded! going new places. rewarded!

anytime. rewarded! getting more for getting away. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com. and get... rewarded! woman: friction points, those obstacles that limit a company's growth. i try to find companies that turn these challenges into opportunities. but by going out in the field, and meeting management, suppliers, competitors. in the end, it's these unique companies with creative business models that will generate value for our investors. that's why i go beyond the numbers. why fingerstick when you can scan?

with the freestyle libre 14 day system just scan the sensor with your reader, iphone or android and manage your diabetes. with the freestyle libre 14 day system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose levels any time, without fingersticks. ask your doctor to write a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. you can do it without fingersticks. learn more at freestylelibre.us that will makeout washington insiderss. very uncomfortable: term limits. you and i both know we need term limits, that congress shouldn't be a lifetime appointment. but members of congress, and the corporations who've bought our democracy hate term limits. too bad. i'm tom steyer and i approve this message because the only way we get universal healthcare, address climate change and make our economy more fair is to change business as usual in washington.

so there's a lot to look at for the coming week, which is when the full house is expected to vote on articles of impeachment. most likely, they will send them to the full senate for a trial. and this week, some senate jurors gave us a glimpse into what those proceedings could look like. >> everything i do during this, i'm 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. >> what i think is so unfortunate is here you have the majority of the -- majority leader in the senate saying i'm going to take instructions from donald trump's lawyers. you know, instead of behaving like a leader ought to behave. >> if you wonder what's going to happen in washington, impeachment will be over probably by mid-january. personally, i think president trump will come out of this stronger. >> cannot in any way give a president a pass for doing things that violate our values. and now, we have to decide in an objective fashion, indeed, was this an impeachable offense? and we will hear evidence of that and we need to not have somebody's back. we need to do the bidding of what's best interest of the american people. >> this is a kangaroo court in the house. but it's going to go to the senate. it's going to go nowhere.

and i think the american people know this is a waste of time and -- and this is democrats putting on a circus. >> and a part of that, to call or not to call senate republicans struggle with the issue of whether to call hunter biden or any witnesses in an impeachment trial. hment trial. i wanted more from my copd medicine that's why i've got the power of 1, 2, 3 medicines with trelegy. the only fda-approved once-daily 3-in-1 copd treatment. ♪ trelegy ♪ the power of 1,2,3

♪ trelegy ♪ 1,2,3 ♪ trelegy woman: with trelegy and the power of 1, 2, 3, i'm breathing better. trelegy works three ways to open airways, keep them open and reduce inflammation, for 24 hours of better breathing. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. trelegy is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. think your copd medicine is doing enough? maybe you should think again. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy and the power of 1, 2, 3. ♪ trelegy, 1,2,3 woman: save at trelegy.com. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? ♪ trelegy, 1,2,3 memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

janie, come here. check this out. let me see. she looks... kind of like me. yeah. that's because it's your grandma when she was your age. oh wow. that's...that's amazing. oh and she was on the debate team. yeah, that's probably why you're the debate queen. - mmhmm. - i'll take that. look at that smile. i have the same dimples as her. yeah. the same placements and everything. unbelievable. ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪♪g. we go the extra mile to bring your holidays home.

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. and you know what they isay about curiosity. it'll ruin your house. so get allstate and be better protected from mayhem, like meow.

now as we head toward likely senate impeachment trial, what's not clear is whether the president's witness wish list will be fulfilled. that list, in partial, includes joe biden, his son hunter, the whistle-blower and house intelligence committee chair adam schiff. what we dou know is majority leader mitch mcconnell is saying he will coordinate the proceedings with the white house counsel. the president's chose ally and chairman of the senate judiciary committee senator lindsey graham is calling for a fast trial. that's something the president says he's open to, as well. >> do you prefer a short process in the senate? or a more extended process? >> well, i've heard lindsey graham, who's terrific and i heard his statement and i like that. and i could also -- i can do -- i'll do whatever i want. look. there is -- we did nothing wrong. so i'll do long or short. i wouldn't mind the long process because i'd like to see the

whistle-blower. >> political consultant joins us. daniel litman, jackie, and joel pane still with us. joel, as we look at what mitch mcconnell's saying, lindsey graham, they're saying fast and coordination, as well. speed, fine. react to that, joel. but then there is also the reaction of mitch mcconnell clearly going on to season hannisean hannity and speaking to the president. >> they have no idea what the hell they're doing. i bet you one thing the president is tired of and it's having republicans testify against him because in adam schiff's committee, that's all it was was career republicans or career diplomatic officials, members of our national security apparatus that he appointed to these key positions who are all validating everything that was in that whistle-blower complaint. so i'm sure he would like to mix up the trial a little bit in the senate and add in joe biden or hunter biden or others.

>> and the issue is, as we listen to mitch mcconnell, the majority leader here, is that all the senators become jurors and in that interview on sean hannity, he also did intimate that he had hoped all of the other senators, republicans in the senate, would vote with him. or be in lockstep with the president but they're jurors. >> right. i mean, i don't know if you can guarantee that. i actually think you may see at least three to four republican senators vote unfavorably for the president. i think if you talk to many gop strategists, they would likely agree with those numbers. with that said, i think it would be a disaster to call witnesses. because remember, if republicans call witnesses, democrats get to also call witnesses. and i don't think that the president wants john bolton, for example, there. i don't think he wants his chief of staff, mick mulvaney, there. so you have to think about this on the negative and i don't think the president's thinking about that. he's only thinking about the charade, if you will, thinking

about this from the perspective of i guess a media reality show. and that's not how this process works. and i don't think mitch mcconnell wants to delay the process by going that route because you potentially hurt some of your vulnerable republican senators who are up for election next year. >> how do you see the tone of the senate trial compared to what we saw this past week, all bets are off, right? we were just watching words never said, never heard potentially in a hearing that was televised nationally. >> well, i think we're already seeing the procedurally the tone is going to be a lot different. again, during this senate trial it's going to be six days a week. senators are going to have to sit in silence every single day. there's not going to be that jousting that vaudeville, and those theatrics that the president, i think, really wants to see. but at the same time, the way mcconnell has set this up, when his members are supposed to take an oath to impartial justice and

he's out there already, you know, trying to whip his members, make sure that people are in line with the president, this just gives democrats ammunition to do what house republicans were just doing, which is to say this trial is rigged. why are republicans going into a trial without even hearing any of the witnesses already saying which way they're going to vote? >> you know, daniel, as you go across the white house and the president is watching all of this and there's been reporting both ways in terms of he's worried and he's not worried, we were just interviewing representative debbie dingell at the top of the hour. we were just watching that the president was indeed react to go what debbie dingell was saying on a network called msnbc, not called fox news. where is this president's concern right now as he potentially becomes in that rare group of impeached presidents? >> yeah, he's very concerned about his legacy, i think.

he doesn't want that asterisk attached to his presidency where he is the, you know, third person or fourth person who is impeached or resigns. and so this is a person who really cares about his image, and he can't help himself watching some channels other than fox to get their take as well. and so you saw him attack congresswoman dingell, bringing up her late husband. and so this is a president who wants republicans to be in line. he doesn't want any defections because then it makes it look less partisan. so he wants to be as partisan as possible so that that would achieve that goal that mcconnell wants. >> shermichael, so should the democrats be at this moment whipping? we're talking about senior whip, debbie dingell saying no, we're not going to do that. this is a constitutional obligation and a role you must take on that is not political.

but if the white house is whipping, should the democrats also do that? as they look at the numbers we put up on screen now. >> as a matter of strategy, i think they should. but i do agree with representative dingell. this is a matter of moral and ethical responsibility that those members swore an oath to the constitution to uphold. and you do have to set a standard. if you don't set a standard now, then what? what's the guideline, the line, if you will, for any future president to do whatever he or she decides to do regardless of the rules of our country? that may come at a political price, richard. and i think that's something democrats are just going to have to accept that reality if that becomes the case. but i do think the american people at large expect members of congress to uphold their oaths and do what's in the best interest of the country over the politics. and i think that has to always take precedent. >> i want to play general mathis and what he said at a conference

earlier this weekend and get reaction from you. let's listen to that first. >> if we start unifying by understanding each other's point of view instead of calling people names or enemies of the state or terrorists or anything else, then i think we can start putting it back together. but i'd be very alarmed. i'm less concerned right now with foreign enemies than i am of what we're doing to ourselves. >> joel payne, he's saying the biggest threat to america is ourselves. >> yeah. i'd say another threat is people like general mathis or tillerson or others who've been in the inner circle who have not talked about their experiences in the trump white house and not call truth to power. with all due respect to the general, i understand that is something that he takes seriously as a uniformed member of our armed services, but he also has a responsibility to the

public to report on what he saw and to share what he saw. and so i think that's a copout. i think general mattis has been taking a pass on his role and allowing a lot of things we're debating here today to happen. i wish general mattis would use his voice and speak up. >> we're talking about representative dingell, debbie dingell. she responds to the president and this is what she said. we have the tweet. i've always said i'll work with president trump when he wants to help hard-working men and women, but i'll also work to hold the administration accountable. debbie dingell responding to the president, of course, hailing from one of the key swing states in this upcoming election. thank you all for this saturday. that wraps up that hour for me. i'm richard lui. you can follow me on twitter, instagram, approximate facebook. our coverage continues after a short break. short break. -twins! grandparents! we want to put money aside for them, so...change in plans.

alright, let's see what we can adjust. ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. okay. mom, are you painting again? you could sell these. lemme guess, change in plans? at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan. colon cancer screening for lemme guess, change in plans? 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.

beyond the routine checkups. beyond the not-so-routine cases. comcast business is helping doctors provide care in whole new ways. all working with a new generation of technologies powered by our gig-speed network. because beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected. to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond. save hundreds of thousands of lives. but after the emergency, time and again, insurance companies deny coverage, second guessing doctors, nurses and first responders...

now "big insurance" is lobbying congress. asking for restrictions on air medical services. eliminating patients' access to life-saving care and destroying jobs all in exchange for bigger profits for insurance companies. tell congress, put patients first, not big insurance. good evening. i'm richard lui. full coverage on impeachment just ahead. but we'll start with breaking news this hour. nbc news now reporting the trump administration intends to draw back more than 4,000 troops from afghanistan by the 2020 election. the u.s. has between 12,000 and 13,000 troops in afghanistan now, and the announcement comes just days after diplomatic talks with the taliban resumed. joining me from the white house north lawn, nbc news correspondent hans nichols.