everyone here in studio 6a, you watching at home, thank you for making these live audience shows such a success this year. we have many to come. until that that is all in for this evening. >> good evening, chris, spectacular. i love your live shows. so good, thanks my friend. 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 have more of them in the course of u.s. histo 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. 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 edition of your local newspaper today because, you know, 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, yeahin, that's definitely going to happen. that 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 capture 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. times front page today, on the brink of impeachment vote. they've got that great two-man shot of judiciary chairman jerry nadler opt left there, you know in his reading 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 invisible beach ball, making this incredible grimace. this was the arkansas democrat gazette, impeachment hearing rankerous, then you've got nadler and collins there. here's "the washington post," the article i, abuse of power, article ii obstruction of congress. judiciary panel weighs charges. anger fuels marathon impeachment debate.

all the way across the country, this was the "san francisco chronicle," house panel on brink of historic vote, delay chairman puts off decision as parties battle. 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 headlines, right? they say 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. they're focusing in on members of congress from their state and saying yeah, they're sticking with their party lines. and there's 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 gohmert on the far left there, covering up his face with both of his hands, on the far right, that's pra mill la jayapal killing somebody with her eyes. collins and jerry nadler maximizing the expressive character of their faces. then row get that stark headline, house judiciary impeachment debate overtime, and that is exactly what happened. it did go into overtime. i thought that 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 chop, chop, it was actually over pretty quick. votes finally on two articles of impeachment against president trump this morning. the first article abuse of power, the second one obstruction. each of those articles passed 23

to 17, which is up 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 are very rare in u.s. history. 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 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 what happened last night that didn't end up happening until today, let me give you another example from watergate. in the watergate scandal, they actually considered five articles of impeachment against nixon. watergate e kwif lance 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 mark up and ultimately vote on articles of impeachment against nixon. it was july 27th, july 29th, and july 30th, 1974. 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 cambodia. that one didn't pass out of the judiciary committee. there was a fifth article of impeachment about tax fraud, which was basically about having the taxpayers pay to renovate nick sxo nixon's beach house. that one didn't pass the judiciary committee either, but the three articles against nixon did pass, abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and contempt of congress. for all three of those articles that passed in the judiciary committee against nixon, a whole bunch of republicans on the committee voted no. 11 no vote, 11 no votes, 15 no

votes. that's where things stood in the nixon impeachment scandal in the watergate scandal when they were at this point in the process with the judiciary committee having just voted on articles. 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 judiciary, the three of them that passed. they'd take them and they'd put those on the house floor, and those three articles of impeachment would get voted on in the house floor, and if any of those three articles passed on the house floor, then those would move over to the senate and on of the basis of those charges, there would be a trial of nixon in the senate. i mane, everybody thought at this point in the game with nixon that 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 anything sonixon, less

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 at the fbi be shut down. i mean, 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 gnaw how this was going to go in terms of those articles going the to the floor and the senate and the trial and everything. after they'd already voted on the articles in the judiciary committee and it's on its way to the house floor this new bomb shell 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 that evidence was held back was one of shock and dismay among some of his most hardworking supporters. it is seen by many as a decisive turning point in the impeachment process. here now is some congressional reaction. >> the effect of the president's statement on his supporters in the judiciary committee was devastating. republican charles wiggins of california, the president's strongest defender 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 and orderly transition of power to vice president ford. >> charles wiggins, 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 incon tree veritable evidence about what nixon had done, he too decided that nixon had to go. it actually made the front page of the "new york times" the next day. wiggins wasn't in leadership or anything. it wasn't like a -- you know, it 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 6th, 1974. you see the banner headline there, nixon admits order to halt inquiry on watergate six days after break-in, expects impeachment. support ebbs. the upper right-hand column

there, tapes released, and then there's two big fat columns in the middle of the front page, the verbatim copy of nixon's statement about the disclosure of the tapes. then also there above the fold, i mean, you know, next to the picture of the democratic leader tip o'neill, 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. and indeed, that was the death kne knell, right? 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. 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 resigns friday, august 9th ahead of what he expected to be the culmination of the impeachment proceedings that would see him removed from office. if even guys like chuck wiggins were against him now saying he should resign, there was no hope for him, but even then, even when richard nixon resigned the presidency, the first american president to ever do that, all 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 is kind of crazy, right? i mean, nixon has resigned, and is no longer president. ha he's a private citizen, vice president gerald ford has been sworn this to replace him. the country is still catching

its breath from this unprecedented thing. an american president had never been forced from office in the middle of a term by a scandal until this moment. and like a week and a half after that, a week and a half later, you know, there's the judiciary committee, oh, by the way, we actually still 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. i mean, yeah, you 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 fire manner. chairman peter radino presented

it, the thomas o'neal offered the resolution to accept the findings. there was no debate, and the vote counter registered 412 to 3 acceptance. >> 412 to 3? to 3? think about that for a second. nixon over the course of the past month at that point, all 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 that, 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 punctuation mark on this sad case. the judiciary committee produces, you know, 200,000 words, this 500-plus page long report, 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 scandal is whether nixon might be indicted and potentially put in jail. they get the final report, and the house they don't even bother debating. they're just like yeah, you know, we're going to hold the vote. we're going to accept 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, one was

named sonny montgomery, as a colonel in the mississippi national guard it was sonny montgomery who led the arrest of john lewis and the other freedom riders in mississippi bus stations in 1961 when they were trying to desegregate public transportation in the south. sonny montgomery. it was also otto pressman, another dixiecrat from louisiana, he 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 landgrieb, one of the great names in american politics ever. he was a guy who kind of in general i think enjoyed being contrary, being kind of a -- you know, the poison ivy patch at the picnic. earl landgrebe 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 in trying 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 voted no on a quorum vote. it was literally a vote where you had to say you were physical physically there in the room. he voted -- he was in the room and he voted no as in no, i'm not really here. i mean, that's like somebody calling role, buehler, buehler, not here. 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 ripley's believe it or not character from the watergate era because of stuff like that about him, but also in large part because of a specific interview he did about nixon at the height of watergate with the south bend tribune newspaper in his home state of indiana. the week of nixon's resignation he told the south bend tribune,

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 outside the capital building after the smoking gun evidence was released showing nixon personally ordering the shutdown of the watergate investigation. even at that point with nixon's staunchest supporters, people who had voted against the articles of impeachment flipping and saying, yeah, he's got to go. even at that point earl landgrebe was unperturbed. >> some members of the committee have looked at the new transcripts and included that a case can be made for obstruction of justice. do you think that first that case has been made and second, even if it is made, do you think this president should be removed? >> i don't think he should be removed, and i don't think he should resign.

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 some just hoosier horse sense. >> what he said there was hoosier horse sense. he's reminding the folks at home in indiana that he's a hoosier, and therefore he's got a better horse sense view of this. he actually kind of gets hung up on the hoosier horse sense thing as the reason richard nixon should stay president. >> i just -- i can't -- i just will not permit just strict sheer legalism to warp my hoosier horse sensuous you se, ? >> even if he is guilty of obstruction of justice, you do not think he should be removed. >> absolutely not. not until somebody proves that

there was damage other than just offending some legalistic congressman who contends that the president lied to me. when you prove damage -- 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's 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 that's 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 would concede you've got a case. even that guys. i'll tell you the postscript on earl landgrebe is that he was walloped in his re-election 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 happen. here's what we think is going to happen over the next few days in this impeachment. articles of impeachment were voted out 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 the 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 pray 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 indivisible 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 articles of impeachment president trump will become only the third president in u.s. history to be impeached. we're going to talk tonight about 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 nobody has really been talking about this, but this is -- as far as i can tell, again, being humble, not trying to be too cocky about this, as far as i can tell, there is some other part of this that's about to happen. just as there was that final report on the watergate scandal, right, 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 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 judiciary committee's democrats. they're part of that report in the clinton impeachment 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. after the judiciary committee passes articles of impeachment, which just happened today and sends those articles toward the

house floor, 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 about to happen here, too, in the trump impeachment. we believe that sometime before midnight on sunday night, the judiciary committee in the house is going to produce their own final report on the impeachment of donald 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 waiting for the house to explain if and how they believe president trump's actions here in this impeachment on the ukraine scandal may fit into a larger pattern of him courting foreign influence in our elections or him abusing his power in office or more broadly

obstructing justice, if you have been waiting to hear the larger narrative of how this impeachment fits into a pattern of behavior by the president, this report that we are going to get sometime between now and midnight sunday night, that is probably where that will be. so anyway, be humble. no time to be cocky, but also pay attention. we got a big night ahead, michael beschloss is going to be joining us, also got important news from the united states supreme court. it's all ahead. stay with us tonight. homeowners arrive, we'll inform them that liberty mutual customizes home insurance, so they'll only pay for what they need. your turn to keep watch, limu. wake me up if you see anything. [ snoring ] [ loud squawking and siren blaring ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

it's not getting in my way.? i had enough! joint pain, swelling, tenderness... ...much better. my psoriasis, clearer... cosentyx works on all of this. four years and counting. so watch out. i got this! watch me. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are feeling real relief with cosentyx. cosentyx is a different kind of targeted biologic. it treats the multiple symptoms of psoriatic arthritis to help you look and feel better. it even helps stop further joint damage. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability... ...to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen... ...or if you've had a vaccine, or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. i just look and feel better. i got real relief with cosentyx. watch me! feel real relief. ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx.

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 withhold 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 are likely to rule by june, and while it is amazing that 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, but 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. >> other than my obvious affinity for earl landgrebe stories. >> right. >> let me ask you about -- >> hoosier horse sense. >> hoosier horse sense which is amazing. let me ask you about what i see as parallels here, both in terms of some of the unpredictable twists and turns in the impeachment, but also this late breaking news today that the supreme court will have a starring role here within the next few months. >> well, i think that's right. it's doubtful that that's going to have too much to do with impeachment at least at the moment, but one of the articles of impeachment that actually was voted down in the case of richard nixon was to look into nixon's taxes. they decided not to do that. the other was secret bombing of

cambod cambodia, so the parallels certainly are there. >> in terms of what i think has been sort of an undercovered part of this process, as far as we can tell, we think that by midnight on sunday night, we're going to get the judiciary committee's full report on the president's impeachment. i've reviewed today the nixon report of that kind and the clinton report of that kind, and they strike me as very complete historical records of everything that happened during the impeachment including, you know, 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 a 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 had fought that senate trial i might have prevailed, and you know what, rachel? it turns out that that's exactly what richard nixon did for the rest of had husbais life. >> was it a surprise during watergate when this very important new evidence turned up that ended up being determtive in terms of nixon's future. i was struck by the time line that when they started to get ready to vote on the articles in the judiciary committee, which is the thing we saw happen here today. >> right. >> the supreme court around that time had handed down its ruling. nobody exactly knew what was going to be produced 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 that they feel

obligation is and loyalty to me. he thought that there was a good chance that the supreme court would rule in his favor. as it turned out, it didn't, 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's describing everything as historic, i'm falling into this myself. as an actual presidential historian, are you frustrated by everybody putting that label on anything, or are you feeling that, too? >> i think to ask a historian if he's unhappy to hear the word historic is probably something that you're not likely to get a yes for. but it is historic, of course it is. this has only happened, you know, will be three times in our history. that's in 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. >> nbc news presidential historian michael beschloss. thank you for joining us tonight, michael. great to have you here. >> my pleasure. >> we've got much more ahead. stay with us. stay with us

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 man: 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 man: save at trelegy.com.

what are you doing back there, junior? since we're obviously lost, ♪ trelegy, 1,2,3 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. it was 2013, the attorney general of the great state of florida was returning for re-election. she received a big fat check in the mail that fall from new york city. it was a $25,000 check payable from the donald j. trump foundation, payable to the pac

supporting the re-election campaign of florida attorney general pam bondi. 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. at the time in 2013 a thing that donald trump was running in new york, which would eventually be described as prosecutors as a major interstate fraud scheme, a thing called trump university, 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 bondi was the attorney general of florida. in that capacity hers after was thinking about having florida jo join these other states suing trump university as fraud. big headline, right? florida might be joining the big lawsuit against trump university. although it was less than a week

later, september 17 when pam bon bondi's re-election pac got one of the biggest donation it received that cycle, that check for $25,000 from donald j. trump's chair rity. and then what do you know, a few weeks after that pam bondi's office in florida decided that 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 that donation itself, no matter the timing was not allowed under law, and the timing was super suspicious, and in terms of that charity, it wasn't a one-off in terms of something that looked a little hingky. donald trump turned out to use his foundation for years to improper further his own political interests and business interests. last year the attorney general in 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 tdays 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 bondi, 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. if that sounds at all familiar to you, it's because you might have seen headlines about ballard partners being one of the entities that has subpoenaed in federal court in new york parallel to the impeachment proceedings on capitol hill. this is a criminal case in the southern district of new york that involves igor fruman and lev parnas. they took part in the 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 bondi worked at until like five minutes ago, ballard partners, they have been subpoenaed in that case in part because they paid thousands of dollars to lev parnas for some sort of business deal that appears to have coincided with the impeachment scheme. of all the lobbying firms pam bondi could have possibly 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 in which she had been working there in a criminal case related to the 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 bondi with their arms around each other. he of course is the defendant, one of the defendants in that criminal case related to the impeachment scheme, and there's his -- one of the president's defense team with him. this is the person the white

house thinks should be working on the president's defense and potentially one of the people who 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. when you take align, you have the support of a probiotic and the gastroenterologists who developed it. align naturally helps to soothe your occasional digestive upsets, 24/7. so, where you go, the pro goes. go with align, the pros in digestive health. ♪needs somebody ♪everybody needs somebody to love♪

♪someone to love ♪someone to love ♪i got a little message for you...♪ ♪when you have that somebody, hold on to them,♪ ♪give them all your love.... wherever they are♪ ♪i need you, you, you ♪i need you, you, you ♪i need you, you, you ♪i need you, you, you ♪ ♪the beat goes onp for heart failure look like? it looks like emily cooking dinner for ten. ♪the beat goes on it looks like jonathan on a date with his wife. ♪la-di-la-di-di entresto is a heart failure medicine that helps your heart, so you can keep on doing what you love. entresto helped people stay alive and out of the hospital. heart failure can change the structure of your heart, so it may not work as well. entresto helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto

with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ♪the beat goes on ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure yeah! entrust your heart to entresto. ♪the beat goes on (employee) half a millionar sales preowned vehicles,er most with tech features like blind spot detection, back up camera... [kristen gasps] (employee) because you never know what might be behind you. (kristen bell) does the sloth come standard? (kristen bell vo) looking to buy? enterprise makes it easy.

under the rules of an impeachment trial in the u.s. senate, it's the senators who act as jurors. they also take an oath in which they solemnly swear they will do impartial justice, according to the constitution and the laws so help me god. take it away, mitch mcconnell. >> 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 to the extent that we can. we have no choice but to take it up, but we'll be working through

this process hopefully in a fairly short period of time in total coordination with the white house counsel's office and the people who are representing the president. >> he's part of the jury. he's planning on running the senate trial in his words 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 a professor of constitutional law at harvard. he was an adviser to president obama. he's been described as the most cited legal scholar in the united states. the author of over 40 books on legal matters. it's great to have you here tonight. thanks for making time. >> thank you, great to be here. >> so how much do we know about the rules? how proscribed are the rules for the senate in 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 documents. >> 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 mien mooind 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 quoting hamilton. that was his authoritative account. >> if what you're describing, if it is a clear constitutional violation to not be impartial, to sort of, you know, openly or even gleefully admit that you are running the impeachment trial for the benefit of the defendant and 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 will 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 that -- and the trial that followed, and that's actually very fortunate that republicans are thels responsibmselves for president we have. which means if there's a grievous departure from that precedent where things were done basically above board and if senator mcconnell deviates dramatically from that procedur procedural regularity, the word 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. inthe next few weeks we're going to need some grounding in the --

in the founding documents of this country. thanks for being with us here tonight. >> my pleasure. >> more to come. stay with us. customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. wow. thanks, zoltar. how can i ever repay you? maybe you could free zoltar? thanks, lady. taxi! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

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 democratic 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 on the day of the debate. 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. thousands of women with metastatic breast cancer, which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of the body, are living in the moment and taking ibrance. ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+/her2- metastatic breast cancer,

as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole significantly delayed disease progression versus letrozole, and shrank tumors in over half of patients. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. ibrance may cause severe inflammation of the lungs that can lead to death. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including trouble breathing, shortness of breath, cough, or chest pain. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. be in your moment. ask your doctor about ibrance.

when you take align, you have the support of a probiotic and the gastroenterologists who developed it. align naturally helps to soothe your occasional digestive upsets, 24/7. so, where you go, the pro goes. go with align, the pros in digestive health. 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 scandal 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 impeachment. 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 you again on monday. now it's time for the "last word" where ari is filling in for lawrence tonight. >> good evening, rachel. i hope you have a great well-earned weekend. >> thank you very much, my friend. i'm ari melber, i'm in for lawrence o'donnell and i'm joining you on a night that is worth watching the news, a night that completes a day that will forever be if past precedent is any guide written into the history books. rachel was just talking about it. there's a lot of ways to put it. it would put it like this. now donald trump is on the verge of being the first elected president ever impeached in his first term. i want to get into that with a member of congress shortly. we're also going to keep an eye on all the other developments rachel mentioned. now, also ahead in the broadcast in our coverage tonight what is the trump