evangelical leaders have to respond to this. i'm going to be very surprised whether it moves the numbers very much. >> i am, too. kudos to the folks there doing the right thing and the difficult thing. thank you both for being with me tonight. that is "all in" for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts right now. thanks, my friend. and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. you know, sometimes you see these wild differences in different parts of the country. you know, the coasts see it one way and the middle of the country sees it differently. or rural areas see things up, and cities see things down. you know, maybe the south or the pacific northwest has a specific take on it that the rest of the country doesn't share. sometimes you can do an exercise like this to see how a country as big as ours can pull in different directions at the same time, right? we can all see things differently. sometimes that's how it goes. and then there's days like this one when it's just wallpaper.

when the story is so big and so straightforward we are all on the same page. from florida, the tampa bay times, impeached. from the orgonian in oregon, impeached. from montana, impeached. from honolulu, hawaii, impeached. same front page as the news journal in delaware, they both say impeached. the dallas morning news in texas, the hill newspaper from washington, d.c., it's the same headline for all of us now. it's just that one big word, impeached. you know, i never believed that he's not my president stuff. just as a technical matter all of us are americans, all of us have a president, one president at a time. and right now we are all united in the fact that dude is impeached for all of us everywhere. and it is unavoidable, and it is

just that simple. i mean, coast to coast and border to border and everywhere in between we all woke up to the exact same news in the exact same way today. that front page single word, impeached. on the front page of the st. louis post dispatch and in baltimore and kansas city, impeached, impeached. the headline writers of america did not have a hard day today. you could buy every front page in the country today, you could use it as wallpaper, a recurring relaxing repetitive theme. it wouldn't even be all that hard to match up between the rolls as you papered around the room. to be honest there were some major papers that took a different course today instead of one word on the front page, impeached. some major papers went on out an a limb today and said trump

impeached. and in the great state of alabama, trump impeached. and they went really nuts just not just impeached or trump impeached but they had trump gets impeached. you be you indy star. you go nuts. the impeachment of the president for only the third time in american history is something that is almost reflexively described by pundits and columnists and observers as something that is tearing us apart, something that is cleaving the country perhaps irrevocably. but you know what, for the rest of us we are having a collective

national experience. we are all together going through the same major moment in u.s. history, and the same serious reckoning with the seriousness of what our constitution affords in the evn event of a presidency gone wrong. this was the front page of "the new york times" today which is basically the same as all the others across the country, trump impeached. but the lead editorial today in "the new york times" i think put the right words on it at least for me in terms of the seriousness of this moment, the bigness of it. when in that editorial today "the times" editorial board describes the impeachment of president trump that we all witnessed and lived through last night this way. they say, quote, a magnificent and terrible machine engineered by the founders still and silent throughout almost all of american history has for only the third time in 231 years shifted into motion to consider whether congress must call a

president to account for abuse of power. it's enough to stop you in your tracks, right, when you think about how big and how important this is and the fact we're all living through this. to me -- it was just me but i find it somehow kind of comforting to know that you're in this, we are in this together. with every american now we are all in this together. this is happening in our lifetimes. this is our government, this is happening to our president. this is our moment. and how we handle this as a country is to a certain degree on all of us together right now. and there's nuts and bolts stuff about how this goes forward of course. tonight we're going to talk here live on set with senator chuck schumer. he's the top democrat in the senate. we're going to talk with him about how the trial of president trump is going to proceed there as the u.s. senate makes the incredibly sober decision about

whether or not president trump should be removed from office. we're also going to be joined live on set tonight by someone who worked in business with the president for many years, someone i've invited to come be on the show tonight because i'm hoping she may be able to shed some light how he's likely to react to those pages you just on these consequences, this accountability he's facing i think for one of the first times in his life because honestly one of the wild cards here now is what previously unimaginable thing president trump might do in response to this impeachment to try to start some whole new round of competing crisis that maybe changes these front pages or tries to overshadow them somehow. competitive crisis has kind of been part of the way we lived through this these past few years already. so his reaction i think is a wild card. don't spend too much time thinking about the psychology or

biology of the president. but the other wild card with us now is how much may change about our understanding of this scandal. before the president finally does get to his senate trial. i mean presumably the trial is going to be next month. what new will we have by then? i mean the impeachment inquiry is still open. they're still investigating. we just saw the chairman of the intelligence committee in the house adam schiff send a very provocative letter to vice president pence's office on questioning what he knew about this scheme and his involvement in it. it's a live question in terms of the extent of this scandal, and the question of the vice president's involvement is of course a very sober thing to consider given the possibility that the president might be removed from office. but even as it still evolves and as it will undoubtedly still evolve towards the senate trial starting, i mean just think about the scope of this. the first time we learned about any of this was not that long ago.

it was only september we got the very first inkling. you will recall it was "the washington post" that published this short bolt from the blue editorial on september 5th that honestly called the whole thing in advance. and it is worth remembering that and crediting them for that now this has led to the impeachment of the president. i mean by rights, i'm not on the pulitzer board but if i were voting i would say this editorial should be considered by "the post" for a pulitzer prize. it really did call this entire impeachment scandal before anyone else knew what was going on. this was the headline. trump tries to force ukraine to meddle in the 2020 election. this wasn't a news article. it was an editorial in which "the post" editorial board said they were, quote, reliably informed the president was up to something really bad. it was an odd way to phrase it. it was an odd thing this was on editorial page and not a news story. but you know what? this was super important.

everything "the post" reported from that bolt from the blue editorial that day has turned out to be spot on and has led to the impeachment of a president of the united states for only the third time in history. that editorial that day said this, quote successive democratic and republican administrations have tried to draw ukraine away from vladimir putin's russia and into the ranks of western democracies. but not only has president trump refused to grant the new ukrainian president slod mere zelensky a white house visit, he's also suspended the delivery of military aid to a country still fighting russian aggression in its eastern provinces. some suspect mr. trump is once again catering to mr. putin. but, "the post" says -- again, this is an editorial. but we're reliably told that the president has a second and more venal agenda. he's attempting to force mr. zelensky to intervene in the 2020 u.s. presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading democratic candidate joe biden.

mr. trump is not just soliciting ukraine's help, he's using u.s. military aid the country desperately needs in an attempt to extort it. yeah, nailed it. i mean, that editorial out of the blue not connected to any public reporting that we could see that tied all these things together, but that was really the first any of us knew about the two sides of this scandal. what the president was demanding of ukraine and what he was holding back to keep the pressure on. and that is what would ultimately lead to the president's impeachment. last night it was september 5th on "the washington post" on the editorial page. and what they described is exactly what we now know happened. i mean, after they broached the subject on the editorial page the news started cascading out on the news pages within less than two weeks. september 18, "the washington post" news story, trump's communications with foreign leader are part of whistle-blower complaint that spurred standoff between side

chief and congress. "the washington post" the following day, whistle-blower complaint is said to involve trump and ukraine. ah-hah. "the washington post" after that, trump pressed ukrainian leader to investigate biden's son. yes, that turned out to be true. that reporting was matched that same day by both "the wall street journal" and "the new york times." three days later both "the post" and "the times" confirmed the worst case scenario fears about trump's behavior starting to unspool in the press here. it was the president withholding military aid as part of the pressure campaign, just as that post editorial had said from the outset. the day after those multiple news organizations confirm the military aid was part of the pressure an ukraine to get those investigations to help the president in his re-election effort, it day that is when nancy pelosi announces the country will be starting an impeachment inquiry over this. and the day after that is when the white house releases its notes from the call in question, and then of course we're off to

the races because there in the call notes, there's the president in black and white doing exactly what he's been accused of doing in that initial shocking editorial and in all the subsequent reporting that bore it out. ukrainian president brings up military aid. president trump says, yeah, i need you to do us a favor, though, investigate biden. it all turns out to be true and it went so fast. in less than three weeks we went from this almost believable allegation to the white house providing proof in fact that the president did it, and then the president did it again, made the same demands out in public on the white house lawn. and the impeachment inquiry starts. and all this rolls out in a rush in less than three weeks -- at the outset as all this information is being initially reported but confirmed and confessed to, at the outset of all that it seemed like for a hot minute, it kind of seemed like we all maybe were going to

be on the same page in terms of what the country is going to do it abo about it. because at the outset everyday agreed what was described here in that initial editorial and all that subsequent reporting, everyone agreed at the outset what was described there in terms of the president's behavior was wrong. i mean, when i say everybody agreed, everybody agreed. >> if the president said, you know, i'll give you the money bought you got to investigate joe biden, that is really off the rails wrong. >> right. >> but if it's something else, it would be nice to know what it is. >> if the president said i'll give you the money but you've got to investigate joe biden, that would be off the rails wrong. turns out that's exactly what happened. the off the rails part, yeah, that's it. and lots of elected republicans initially said how concerned they were about these reports of the president's behavior. that what the president was

report today have done, which was later confirmed he had done in the words of senator john thune that was, quote, not good. they all said they wanted to learn more, they all said they wanted to get to the bottom of it and so the witnesses were brought in for the inquiry. the results were all the same. more confirmation. >> to withhold that assistance for no good reason other than help with a political campaign made no sense. it was counter productive to all of what we had been trying to do. it was illogical, it could not be explained. it was crazy. >> in order to get a white house meeting the ukrainians would have to provide a deliverable which is investigations, specific investigations. >> so you heard president trump ask ambassador sondland is he going to do the investigation? >> yes, sir. >> what was ambassador

sondland's response? >> he said, oh, yeah, he's going to do it, he'll do anything you ask. >> the ukrainians would have to have the prosecutor general make a statement with respect to the investigations as a condition of having the aid lifted. >> so just to summarize in this july 25th call between the presidents of the united states and ukraine, president trump demanded a favor of president zelensky to conduct investigations that both of you acknowledged were for president trump's political interests, not the national interest. and in return for his promise of a much desired white house meeting for president zelensky. colonel vindman, is that an accurate summary of the excerpts we just looked at? >> yes. >> ms. williams? >> yes. >> i know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in a the form of a simple question. was there a quid pro quo?

the answer is yes. >> even when they got active trump administration officials, trump appointees testifying the result was confirmation upon confirmation upon confirmation, right? so this whole process, i mean, has gone fast in terms of what we have learned and what the investigation turned up. it went fast in part because it was pretty straightforward. in fact, the quick confession made it easy. but republicans who insisted if there was any evidence of a quid pro quo, that would be bad. even with conservative media, the president's favorite tv shows just weeks ago proclaiming they were all with the president unless it turned out president trump demanded an investigation of joe biden and he was withholding military aid and it was connected to that, that would be off the rails bad. it was just a few weeks ago the conservative media was saying even we wouldn't be with him through that. nevertheless, here we are now with what ended up being almost

a party line vote on impeachment. whatever concerns the republicans and the conservative media may have had before now about what the president did, at least among house republicans they gave up those. doesn't matter much in the end. the republicans lost this fight. in terms of public opinion, the public appear tuesday be pretty solid laeand stably evenly split on the issue of the president being not just impeached but removed from office, which is interesting because the republicans have spent millions and millions and millions of dollars already running ads against impeachment including tons of online ads. the democrats haven't really done anything to counter balance that at all. the ad wars have been fought completely on one side but public opinion stayed the same, about half and half evenly split. now as impeachment has happened in the house and as the senate trial becomes a bone of

contention we're going to talk about tonight, i mean the wild card here we all have to contend with, i think there's two. one is the president's potential behavior from here on out. the other is the fact the scandal isn't over. the scandal continues to un fold. i mean there's the ongoing criminal proceedings against two people involved in carrying out the scheme with the president's lawyer, rudy giuliani. that criminal case closely parallels and sort of abuts this impeachment scandal, and it's a live criminal case in the southern district of new york right now. there's mr. giuliani just this past week continuing to try to run this scheme in ukraine. continuing to try to get officials in ukraine and former officials to make allegations against vice president biden. there's mr. giuliani admitting this week in "the new yorker" he organized the removal of the ambassador to ukraine marie yovanovitch because she was in the way of getting these investigations the president was pressuring ukraine for. as the articles of impeachment

were on the floor of the house, new wall street journal reporting that bill taylor who was brought in by the trump administration to be the top u.s. diplomat in ukraine after ambassador yovanovitch was fired as part of this scheme, they just fired bill taylor, too. bill taylor has just been fired by the trump administration, recalled early from his post by secretary of state mike pompeo. i mean, it's still going on. there's also "the washington post" tonight with a jaw dropping front page story about where president trump got ahold of this story that he's been pushing throughout this scandal, this story it must have been ukraine that interfered in the 2016 u.s. election, not russia. where did he get that idea? where did he get that story he's been selling in the first place? whe where'd he come upon that? quote, after meeting privately in july 2017 with russian president vladimir putin at the group of 20 summit in hamburg, the president's intense

resistance to the assessment of u.s. intelligence agencies that russia systematically interfered in the 2016 campaign and the blame he cast instead on a rival country led many of his advisers, trump's own advisers to think that putin himself help spur the idea of ukraine's culpability said these officials. quote, one former senior white house official said trump even stated so explicitly at one point, saying he knew ukraine was the real culprit in 2016 because, quote, putin told me. putin told him, he says. this is where he came up with this thing that he ended up demanding from ukraine, right, this thing he put their military aid on the line about and needed an investigation into joe biden. i also need an investigation into you interfering in 2016 to get hillary clinton elected. i mean, this thing he pressured ukraine about in the series of events that just led to him becoming the only the third u.s.

president in history to be impeached last night. this theory about ukraine in which republican members of congress are now spreading as well. u.s. intelligence officials have apparently warned republicans in congress now spreading this thing this thing they're spreading was something invented by russian security services. and apparently they don't care. after all their arguments line up with president trump. this thing that is part of the impeachment that republicans in congress are now sort of pushing despite their warnings about who's bidding they're doing by pushing this stuff, where'd the president get this? republicans are all lining up with president trump on this. who's president trump lining up with on this? where'd he get it from? quote, for some white house officials struggling to understand trump's obsession with ukraine, the hamburg g-20 summit meetings were a turning point. three former administration officials said trump repeatedly insisted after the g-20 that he believed putin's assurances that

russia hadn't interfered in the 2016 campaign. over the next several months trump privately told aides on several occasions we believed ukraine had interfered to help clinton win the white house. quote, the strong belief in the white house was that putin told him, said one former official. so, yeah, i mean maybe the senate trial is going to be more interesting than we think. in part i mean yeah they're fighting about how it's going to go. but part of the reason it might be more interesting than we're thinking is because the scandal is still happening. the investigation is still live. criminal investigations running parallel in the actual criminal justice system, the federal court system, those are still live. and in terms of open source reporting we're still getting bombshell stuff like this just breaking tonight. he got it straight from putin stuff this has come out tonight, the actual day after the actual impeachment in the house of

representatives. will any new evidence that comes out since the impeachment vote even get discussed at the senate trial? will there definitely be a senate trial? >> why would the speaker of the house step into that without trying to determine exactly what the majority leader plans to do? so i applaud her for this. in fact, i was one of the ones arguing that this ought to be the case. and until we can get some assurances from the leader that he is going to allow for a fair and impartial trial to take place we will be crazy to walk in there knowing he setup a kangaroo court. >> how long are you willing to wait? >> as long as it takes. even if he doesn't come around to committing to a fair trial, keep those articles here, so keep it as long as it takes. >> jim clyburn is the number

three democrat in the house. he is in leadership. he is among those by his own account is encouraging speaker pelosi to hold onto the articles of impeachment that just passed the house last night, hold onto them until the senate determines its rules how it's going to conduct the trial. so in clyburn's words it won't be a kangaroo court. senator mcthe republican leader of the senate didn't say anything how the trial is going to be run, but he did spend a half-hour on the floor today saying the democrats were terrible and impeachment was terrible. so i think that's meant to be a hit. in the clinton impeachment the top democratic and top republican in the senate worked out rules together. all senators agreed to them unanimously. doesn't feel like that's the direction we're heading here in this senate. but that's what democrats are trying to for with this leverage from speaker pelosi in terms of when and whether she is going to send those articles over to the

senate so they can conduct this trial and with democratic leader of the senate, chuck schumer, today making his case for a real trial with the real evidence, real witnesses. >> leader mcconnell breaking precedent, strong arm his caucus into making this the first senate impeachment trial of the president in history that heard no, no witnesses. is the president's case so weak that none of the president's men can defend him under oath? i have yet to hear one good argument why less evidence is better than more evidence? to my republican colleagues, our message is a simple one. democrats wants a fair trial that examines the relevant facts. we want a fair trial. the message from leader mcconnell at the moment is that he has no intention of conducting a fair trial, no intention of acting impartially, no intention of getting the

facts. the witnesses we suggest are top trump appointed officials. they aren't democrats. we don't know if their testimony would exculpate the president or incriminate him, but their testimony should be heard. if the president's counsel wants to call other witnesses with direct knowledge of why the aid to ukraine was delayed, we say they should be able to do so. president trump claims he wants due process. i suspect he would rather hide or name call because if he really wanted due process he could get it easily. one phone call to leader mcconnell telling him to let his aides testify. one phone call to his chief of staff telling him to release the documents to congress. both of these actions would let the truth come out.

i ask again can none of the president's men come defend him under oath? >> senator chuck schumer, the leader of the democratic caucus in the senate joins us live here next. stay with us. s us live here next stay with us

if your gums bleed when you brush, you may have gingivitis. and the clock could be ticking towards bad breath, receding gums, and possibly... tooth loss. help turn back the clock on gingivitis with parodontax. leave bleeding gums behind. parodontax. the ones that make a truebeen difference in people's lives. and mike's won them, which is important right this minute, because if he could beat america's biggest gun lobby, helping pass background check laws and defeat nra backed politicians across this country, beat big coal, helping shut down hundreds of polluting plants and beat big tobacco, helping pass laws to save the next generation from addiction. all against big odds you can beat him. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message.

i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. 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!

will leader mcconnell breaking precedent strong arm his caucus into making this the first senate impeachment trial in history that heard no, no witnesses? is the president's case so weak that none of the president's men can defend him under oath? >> now that the house has voted to impeach president trump and attention shifts to the trial in the senate, i have questions. i also have the right person to ask for answers. just after 3:00 this afternoon the democratic leader in the senate and the republican leader, chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell, separately stepped off the senate floor raising lots of eyebrows. they reportedly then met for 20 minutes in a side room. in terms of were the results of that discussion we don't know. i will tell you this evening

senator mcconnell used another floor speech to say the two sides remained at an impasse, but like i say i've got questions. joining us on set is the senior democrat from new york, chuck schumer. >> great to see you. thanks for having me. >> how'd your meeting go? >> simply put i told leader mcconnell we would not support any trial without witnesses and documents. what is a trial without witnesses and documents? you want one side to say a case, the other side to say it and there's no evidence? that's not what trials do. and he said no, he had no good reason. you know, on the floor in his 30 minute speech -- i think you showed a few excerpts. 30 minutes, it's sort of a rant. and not once did he refute -- did he give any reason why there should be witnesses. we've had two impeachment trials. andrew johnson and clinton, both had witnesses. and the people we have asked for we're not going on a fishing expedition.

these are the four people who should know exactly what happened and what president trump did. why did he delay the aid and for what reason? these are the people surrounding him. now, the house has built a very good case, but they couldn't get the people there and a number of my republican colleagues have said publicly and privately we're not exactly sure it's true, we'll bring the witnesses on. and we don't know what the witnesses will say. they're appointed by trump. they're hardly democratic and maybe they'll say something exculpatory about trump. but it shows they don't want to show the truth. and we want to get any document between the president, department of defense, department of state that talked about why the aid was withheld. my guess is it's damning, and that's why they're hiding it. and there's an important point here that rises to the

constitution. the constitution gave the senate the ultimate power to stop a president to his overreaching, his breaking the law through impeachment. if the senate cannot get facts, you'll never have a real trial on impeachment. and this president and future presidents will be basically able to do whatever they want. so this rises way above a political or partisan dimension. and my hope is that i doubt we'll ever get mcconnell. but all we need is four republican senators to side with us to get 51 because i have all 47 -- all 47 democrats are totally onboard with it. if mcconnell doesn't come toona agreement, you don't have that many powers as minority leader, but the power i do have is to force a vote, and we will force a vote on all the witnesses and all documents. and my guess is those republican colleagues do not want to vote against witnesses and documents because they know how bad it looks back home, and some of

them are really thinking in conscience, this is sort of interesting. abc/"the washington post" poll, do you think the president's top advisor should testify? well, 85% of democrats said yes, but 64% of republicans said -- the republican rank and file never goes against trump. it's always 70, 80 in trump's favor. 60-40 against him on this. my hope and it's very possible these republicans will go home over the next two weeks, and they will hear from the constituents that at least let them have witnesses and let's see what happens. >> are you in talks with republicans who you think might be willing to side with your view of this? and are you open to compromise on some of the things you've laid out? >> certainly there's lots of talking going on between myself and also many of my colleagues. we talk to our republican colleagues all the time. i talk to them all in the gym. i learned when i got to the

senate democrats exercise late in the day, republicans go early. i go early. so i talk to them. and the second question, sure, i told mcconnell today in our meeting, if you have modifications, if you think one of these witnesses is no good or you want to add another, you know, go right ahead. and there's some argument that some may, well, if the democrats have witnesses then republicans will ask for hunter biden. make my day hunter biden has nothing to do with the trial because he has no knowledge of what the president said of the charges -- >> you don't think they'll put on trial as -- >> it'll look like a circus, and they don't want to do it. so this argument is an argument to deter us from getting witnesses. they'd never ask hunter biden to show up because it would backfire on them. it would make them look so unserious about this process that they lose.

>> stay with us. senator chuck schumer, the top democrat in the senate. we'll be back. stay with us. e senate we'll be back. stay with us (dog barking) ♪ (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.

sarah's last tuition payment, sent off. feeling good? oh yeah. now i'm ready to focus on my project. ♪ ♪ this is why we plan. ♪ ♪ you never cease to amaze me, maya. see how investing with a j.p. morgan advisor can help you. visit your local chase branch. we're back once again with the senior senator from new york, the leader of the democrats in the u.s. senate, senator chuck schumer. sir, thanks again for being here. >> sure. >> in addition to your meeting today with senator mcconnell and you described to us how that discussion went, i know you met with speaker pelosi as well. you two are coordinating working together -- >> i wouldn't say coordinating because we're independent bodies

but talking with each other. we talk all the time. we talk on an average day three, four times a day. i know her cell number by heart but i'm not going to -- >> what can you tell us about this plan being hotly discussed and debated in democratic circles about potentially holding off articles -- >> a lot of nancy's colleagues went to her and thought it was a good idea. and she thought it through and she said if i'm not going to know the outlines of the trial how do i know which managers to choose. depending on what you're going to do -- whether you have witnesses, whether there's -- exactly. and second she said i don't want to send it over to just have a sham trial, and that's what mcconnell is headed for now is sham trial at least if he has his own way. and so i think it's a good idea to not draw a line but to say let's wait, let's see how things evolve in the senate, and i think that's working well because when people say why is she waiting, because we want witnesses and we want documents.

you know, it just drives the message home. >> congressman clyburn today was asked pointedly was asked how long would you wait and he said as long as it takes. do you think this is something that should be an indefinite standoff? >> i think we'll follow it as goes. nancy and i will talk uabout it constantly over the christmas holiday and we'll see how it goes. but i think not just giving them the impeachment articles right away as they are not ready to do the fair trial we want but a sham, and let's say we don't win the republicans over, i'm very hopeful, optimistic, expect we will win some of them over. but if we don't, we will show that this trial and the no vote on impeaching trump, on throwing him out of office is really not based on any fact, not based on any evidence, is a sham. so it's sort of a win-win.

i'd rather get the evidence and see what happens. and even if they say things that are not in our favor, we would have done the constitution a favor by making sure that all the facts get out through this trial and god forbid any future one. >> when you talked somewhat optimistically about the prospect of getting four republican senators to side with the democrats, have evidence and witnesses and all this sort of stuff, obviously if there are senators who favor this sort of thing, if mcconnell is pressured by public opinion, if mcconnell is pressured by senators on the republican side who might think this is the right way to do it, the right way to responsibly discharge their duty, do you think it's also possible mcconnell might be pressured on the white house on this? >> it's one of those instances where democrats, house and senate are united and the republicans are divided. mcconnell is not surefooted. he'd made a whole bunch of different mistakes.

the other day he said i'm proud to be a partisan, i'm going to be a partisan. well, he's going to take an oath in the rules of the senate to be an impartial juror, and he's saying he's partial. he's made a lot of mistakes. and one of it reasons is they're all over the lot. tonight president trump is tweeting i want a trial. well, good. but president trump, if you get a trial you're not going to pick the witnesses. you may get a witness of your choosing, but the witnesses that we have asked for will be there, and they will tell the truth. so i hope he is for a trial because that's the right thing to do. >> senator chuck schumer, leader of the democrats in the united states senate, keep us surprised. i know we're heading into a holiday break, but this is something you're going to be fighting out over the next few weeks. keep us apprised. we'll be right back. stay with us. s apprised we'll be right back. stay with us stuffy? that's because your home is filled with soft surfaces that trap odors and release them back into the room. so, try febreze fabric refresher febreze finds odors trapped in fabrics

(bubbles popping) and cleans them away as it dries. use febreze every time you tidy up to keep your whole house smelling fresh air clean. fabric refresher even works for clothes you want to wear another day. make febreze part of your clean routine for whole home freshness. ♪la la la la la. ♪ 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 ♪

skip to the good part with alka-seltzer plus. now with 25% more concentrated power. nothing works faster for powerful cold relief. oh, what a relief it is! so fast!

we chose eleanor. it was great-grandma's name. so we're in this little town near salerno and everyone has dad's eyebrows. help your family discover their unique story, with a gift from ancestry. president bill clinton got impeached on a saturday. the next day, sunday he went to

church. and as he was leaving that church service he got heckled by someone waiting outside who told him please resign for the good of the world. president clinton did not respond. he just smiled and waved at other people. after a short measured speech the day of the vote, president clinton didn't actually say anything publicly the day after the impeachment vote, the day of his church service. we look back in history to see what presidents do after they get impeached it's a very small sample size, right? only two have ever been impeached before this one. that alone makes it hard to predict what our current will do especially because his volatility has been a hallmark of his presidency. i mean, throughout the scandals and upheavals of the trump campaigns and presidency, denigrating a gold star family, banning muslims from entering the united states, the russia investigation, impeachment, all of it, he's never faced any lasting p lasting prepercussions, nor does he seemed to have deltd wialt w

that in his business career. now perhaps for the first time in his life he's facing the consequences of his actions, with those consequences across the front page of every newspaper in the country. he will always be a president who was impeached. that label will last forever. last night at the very moment he was impeached he held a rally where he talked about home dish washers don't have the they used to, and also disparaged the dead husband of a sitting u.s. congresswoman. i mean, in terms of the questions i have about what happens next for us as a country i generally feel ill-equipped to answer the question of what the president might do. i mean now that this history is written, now he is the third president in the history of our nation to be impeached, what should we expect from him? it's a hard question. i do think we've got somebody here with us tonight, though, who has the kind of first-hand experience that will help us figure it out. she joins us next. figure it out.

she joins us next. let's be honest, quitting smoking is freaking hard. like quitting every monday hard. quitting feels so big. so, try making it smaller. and you'll be surprised at how easily starting small... ...can lead to something big. start stopping with nicorette the ones that make a truebeen difference in people's lives. and mike's won them, which is important right this minute, because if he could beat america's biggest gun lobby, helping pass background check laws and defeat nra backed politicians across this country, beat big coal, helping shut down hundreds of polluting plants and beat big tobacco,

helping pass laws to save the next generation from addiction. all against big odds you can beat him. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. even though you keep your car clean, does it sometimes smell stuffy or stale? try febreze car vent clips to eliminate those odors for up to 30 days. stuffy, stale car odors occur because of everyday smells that are absorbed and released from soft surfaces. then they're circulated by the ac system. febreze car vent clips eliminate the stale, stuffy smells in your car

and leave behind a fresh scent for up to 30 days. plus, they come in a range of scents including extra light. try febreze car brand power, helping you buy better. (kickstart my heart by motley crue)) (truck honks) (wheels screeching) (clapping) (sound of can hitting bag and bowl) (clapping) always there in crunch time.

joining us now here on set is somebody who knows president trump, who worked for him and with him for more than a decade. her name is barbara and she started working for trump in the 1980s, an executive vice president at the trump organization, the author of "all alone on the 68th floor how one woman change the face of construction." i did not know you would say yes when i asked you to, but it's an honor.

i don't think much about the president's brain and personal biography and all these other things. i've got other stuff to worry about, but i'm also starting to think in terms of what's going to happen at this big moment in our country, i'm started to think about what we should expect from him. i don't know he's ever had kind of an accountability moment like this before. has he ever gotten in trouble before? >> he has but not anything of this nature. this is enormous. and he is taking this extremely seriously. >> when you say he has sort of gotten in trouble before -- >> yeah, he's lose a little thing or, you know, he'll deal with bankruptcy or something will happen with a building and he always is able to shuffle it off to someone else and, you know, walk away from it unscathed. >> is that kind of his m.o. to find somebody else to -- >> oh, 100%, it's never, ever him. >> do you mean in terms of blaming them or making somebody face the consequences for him?

>> yeah, if he can absolutely. but certainly blaming them and looking for someone who made this happen in the impeachment, in my mind he's going around saying it shouldn't have happened and you let it happen whoever he's talking to and you didn't do your job and screaming. i think he's probably really out there. >> in terms of dealing with his own people, his own staff? >> yes. >> we did just get a report tonight that the white house chief of staff is gone, that he's already been side lined. he was described in politico.com tonight as sort of being at the kids table. he's allowed to be seen but not speak and then he'll be gone in january. >> yes. because even a person of a high stature, if trump needs to have that person be responsible for something that he did, he'll diminish that person. so it's that kind of thing. >> were you ervin a business situation where there was some negative consequence for him,

for his business and he blamed you? >> yes. the very last thing that i had to do and the very last day i worked for him we were working in california and a decision had to be made and i told him not to do something -- i advised him not and he didn't listen to my advice and it was a very, very bad decision. >> what kind of decision was it? >> it had to do with approaching somebody who we were at war with and letting them know basically how desperate we were to make a deal. not a good decision. not something you would think he'd allow to happen. but at any rate we had a big meeting with his partners and stuff and he blamed me for everything. and i quit. >> that was the end. >> that was the last time i worked for him. >> one of the things that i have been wondering about and kind of expecting is i feel the way he's dealt with things not counting his way as president is he's created competing crises,

something's going bad so i'm going to do something really outrageous and that will be the new thing to keep the news cycle moving to put this thing behind us. >> it's hard to remember specifically what, but he does absolutely, you know, if he's looking bad in some way or another, all of a sudden he's whatever and look at what i've done here and take the pressure off what he had done. >> is there anything that you would say to people who have never dealt with him personally but the country is all sort of dealing with him personally right now. in terms of what to expect or how to sort of mitigate any negative consequences in terms of how he might act out in response? >> you know, the days for litigation seems to be gone. but i will say that he will once he gets through this, and he probably will, he will exact revenge on a lot of people, a lot of people. >> worked closely with president trump in his business career, thank you so much.

we'll be right back. stay with us. k you so much. we'll be right back. stay with us ise) (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.

quitting smoking is freaking hard.st, like quitting every monday hard. quitting feels so big. so, try making it smaller. and you'll be surprised at how easily starting small... ...can lead to something big. start stopping with nicorette

i want to recap some of the news made here tonight by senate democratic leader chuck schumer. he let us know tonight he has all 47 democratic senators unified in support of his proposed rules for the senate trial for the president. that would mean he needs four republican senators to join us. he said tonight he does not believe that he'll get senator mitch mcconnell to support those rules, but he thinks they might be able to get four republicans, and those conversations are already happening. that's news tonight from senator schumer. but obviously this is live issue that democratic and republican side are both looking ahead to the holiday break, but it's clear these negotiations are hot and open from here on out. that's going to do it for us tonight. see you again tomorrow. now it's time for the "last word" with lawrence o'donnell. >> good evening, rachel. and in everything we've heard in the last 24 hours first nancy pelosi kind of shocking us