barricade. let's play hardball. good evening. i'm chris matthews. in washington tonight the articles of impeachment are in possession of the speaker of the house. the u.s. senate which is to try the impeached president is unable to act, so there will be more history left to write once the president faces trial in the senate, but it remains unclear when that will be. as i speak there's a standoff between house speaker nancy pelosi and senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. she has yet to transfer the

articles of impeachment over to the senate. the standoff comes as congress departs for a holiday recess, look at the calendar, almost three weeks effectively freezing the state of play on this constitutional moment. pelosi says she's weighing a delay in order to get a fair trial in the senate and won't select impeachment managers until she knows how the senate intends to conduct itself. but mitch mcconnell contends it's decided house democrats are afraid to bring their case. >> speaker pelosi suggested that house democrats may be too afraid -- too afraid to even transmit their shoddy work product to the senate. we'll see whether house democrats ever want to work up the courage to actually take their accusations to trial. >> well, according to politico the politico magazine, an emboldened pelosi was dismissive of mcconnell's charge saying fear is never a word used with me. you should know right away i'm never afraid and i'm rarely surprised. in an interview with the associated press the speaker

said of trump, he'll be impeached forever no matter what the senate does. he's impeached forever because he violated our constitution. i'm joined now by richard senator blumenthal of connecticut, a member of the senate judiciary committee. former senator barbara boxer of california, and noah feldman, professor at harvard law school, one of the witnesses to testify to the house judiciary committee earlier this month about the legal arguments on impeachment. i want to start with senator blumenthal about this. where do you stand on the constitutional question? does pelosi have the prerogative to hold back the articles? >> this decision is indeed nancy pelosi's to make. and her position is fully understandable that she wants some assurance there will be a full, fair, honest trial with witnesses and documents. after all of the extraordinarily able work done by the house committee and the courage of

those dedicated public servants who have come forward. she wants to make sure that we will have more than the sham charade that mitch mcconnell -- is promising. keep in mind he has said there's no chance donald trump will be removed. he has promised he will take his cues from the white house, and he has enablers in my republican colleagues. he cannot do this sham without their 51 votes. but i will tell you something, chris, there's a court of appeals here. it's the electorate, the court of public opinion, and they're saying 51% of all american people want those documents. more than 60% of republicans, and the fact of the matter is my republican friends and colleagues are doing a little soul-searching. courage is contagious, and they're going to be going back to their home districts, their states this holiday for two weeks, and they're going to be

hearing about those 71% of americans who say we need documents and witnesses. >> barbara boxer, former senator of california, let me ask you a question. this is about guts, it's about nerve. how long can nancy pelosi, the speaker as a person because she's making this decision personally, how long can she hold those documents? when they get back to the house coming back into session next year january 7th, first tuesday back, how long can she hold onto those documents politically and get away with it? >> well, it's a great question, but right now i think senator blumenthal is right. for her to just send those articles over to the senate after the foreman of the jury essentially stepped out to the microphone and said there's no difference between the way i feel and the way trump's lawyers feel, what she's done is remarkable. and i don't think she's out there on her own, chris. i think she is -- i know how she works.

she's got people around her who understand the constitution, who understand the gravity of the situation. the last point i make right now is when i sat through that clinton impeachment it was -- it was horrible. i -- as a democrat, obviously, i was so disappointed and so upset. you know, trent lott and tom daschle worked hand in glove. and they, guess what, what had witnesses. and those were three witnesses and they took depositions, and their testimony was used in the trial. so nancy what she's doing here, speaker pelosi, what she's doing here is she's shining the spotlight where it needs to go now, and that's on mitch mcconnell who calls himself the grim reaper. but he better step up to the plate and stop playing party politics. >> let me go to the same question to professor feldman. right or wrong she says i'm not sending over the documents.

how long can she get away with it? if it's two, three months, does she even hold the sort of damocles she can at any moment impeach the president. does she have that authority? >> under the constitution the house has the authority to impeach. the impeachment proffer takes place when someone from the house goes over to the senate and impeaches the president at the bar of the senate. that's the way it's always been expressed for a couple of hundred years. so until she does that, he's not technically impeached. when we stated the president's been impeached that's a kind of shorthand. we mean the house has voted to impeach him, but the actual impeachment takes place when the articles go over there. >> i'm just asking because this is "hardball," and it's not just about the constitution but in the constitutional framework. if mitch mcconnell plays the usual way and says nothing, he doesn't speak again on this subject, he says i'm waiting for

the documents to get here, pelosi, what leverage does she have at that point? if she says i'm not negotiating, i'm not sitting here with chuck schumer saying who wrng-- you gg us two people, we want and we'll give you, you give me a couple of bidens and maybe a whistle-blower. he says i'm not going to negotiate that way, guys. what's the pelosi operation there going to look like? >> well, she doesn't have any formal leverage -- sorry, forgive me. i think she has no formal leverage. the only leverage she has is to hope there's a response from the senate and eventually to impeach when the time comes. >> senator boxer, you have a thought there because i wonder if this becomes a standoff it's a barricade situation. she's saying we're barricading up, we're not giving you the document. the danger of a barricade, the -- i know this from irish history, the danger of it is eventually you have to break out of your own barricade. i'm talking politics, barbara.

pure politics right now. >> no, i hear you. her leverage, that is pretty straightforward to me. it's the people. the people want to have witnesses. there are polls that show that. her other leverage is there are several members of the united states senate who know they're in a tough spot. they're up for election in purple states. they will fight for a fair trial. so i think the genius of this -- she won't wait forever, but the genius of this is to put the spotlight on the process, and if mitch mcconnell says this is it, i think that there'll be a lot of pressure on those purple state senators. so if she didn't do this, let's just take it that way. if she had just sent it over, okay, just sent it over then i don't think anyone would even be tuning into this because everybody knows we don't have

the two thirds vote, so no one would be paying attention to mitch mcconnell. >> i agree with that. >> and the way he runs the senate, which is as my good former colleague, whom i miss, will tell you is with an iron fist, and he's the self-described grim reaper. >> let me ask senator blumenthal. you're on the judiciary committee. suppose mitch mcconnell, we know what he is. sometimes he's elmer fudd, sometimes bugs bunny. i don't know what he's up to with this one. suppose he comes back like bugs bunny and says you want two witnesses, i want joe and hunter biden. by the way, i also twanlt -- want the whistle-blower. what do you say if he says here's the deal i want all the witnesses, not just yours? how do you respond? >> well, chris, that's a great question. what we have ultimately is the power to call for a vote and put

our republican colleagues on record. and that's exactly what we will do because they will be judged by -- >> senator, they'll say you protect the bidens, you protected joe biden, top of the class right now in terms of the polling. you're protecting your possible nominee, you're protecting his son and you're protecting the whistle-blower. and how do democratic senators respond to that? i'm just gaming this out. >> what the american people want -- what the american people want and what we want is witnesses who have relevant evidence. trump has blocked everyone of the up to 12 witnesses that were sought by the house. he has blocked every single document that was sought by the house. every single one of them from the office of management and budget, the department of state, the department of energy, the department of defense. those documents, those witnesses we will vote to have. hunter biden has no direct evidence as those witnesses that we want mick mulvaney, john bolton, robert blaire, michael duffy, every one them

responsible officials who have knowledge of this corrupt activity, bribery, soliciting something of value namely an investigation of his political opponent in return for an official act, his releasing that money, our taxpayer money to support an ally fighting for its life, ukraine. "the washington post" -- and that's why we want those documents and witnesses. >> this out, tonight "the washington post" is posting an article by former senator jeff flake. republican of arizona. he addressed his old republican colleagues saying, quote, president trump is on trial but in a very real sense so are you. and the political party which we belong. he warns, quote, the danger of an untruthful president is compounded when the coequal branch follows that president off the cliff into the abyss of unreality and untruth. if there ever was a time to put country over party, it is now. and by putting country over party, you might just save the grand old party before it's too late.

senator flake conclusion by saying, if there's ever a time to put country over party, it's now. professor, thank you. how do you resolve this? how does this come out of the wash in two weeks? now, the recess is not until the first or second week really in january. this could go on. how could you see it resolved? >> i think it's only resolved by some negotiated solution in the senate where the senators figure out exactly what the procedure is going to be and come to terms with who's going to be called. and then the articles will be transmitted and the trial is going to happen, and that has to happen. it's necessary under the constitution at this point for there to be an actual trial in the senate. so i see a resolution coming when a negotiated solution is reached, which will have to be reached. >> senator blumenthal, how do you get republicans to look at this as a conscientious decision that they really are jurors, they're not just politicians? >> well, of course mitch mcconnell has said he is not going to be impartial.

in fact, he is going to put the president in charge of his own defense and in charge of the by, in effect, his being the president's defense team. how do we force our republican colleagues to search their conscience? well, ultimately it's public opinion, and the court of public opinion, that is the ultimate appeals court here. and i firmly believe that my republican colleagues are going to be under enormous pressure as barbara boxer has just put it so well. when they go home over these next two weeks, when they hear over the next two, six, eight weeks from american people who want a full, fair trial. and ultimately there will be some negotiation, but it can't be the kind of trap that mitch mcconnell is trying to set, and it can't be the charade or sham because we should absolutely refuse to be part of this complicit scheme. and it is ongoing. that's what comes across so

dramatically in the house impeachment articles that the president is continuing to solicit help from the russians. he is continuing to sustain and support these crackpot conspiracies about the ukrainians not the russians attacking our country, and it is a danger to our national security that we must resist and reject. >> well, maybe one of your colleagues, senator mitch mcconnell of utah is going to stand forth and be a profile in courage, mitt romney rather. mitt romney, he could make a difference. blumenthal of connecticut, always great having you on. and my friend barbara boxer, please keep coming back. it's great having you on. professor, i was so impressed by your testimony. thank you for coming here on "hardball." again, a perennial request for your presence here. coming up, an influential evangelical magazine receives the wrath of trump for an op-ed calling for his removal from office. "christianity today" cites

trump's abuse of power, his lies and his, quote, grossly immoral character. plus, how trump is continuing to weaponize the justice department. bill barr's partisan investigation into the origins of the russian probe now reportedly has former cia director john brennen in his cross-hairs. we got much more to get to tonight. stick with us. great riches will find you when liberty mutual 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. ♪ you have power over pain, so the whole world looks different.

the unbeatable strength of advil. what pain? 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.

what are you doing back there, junior? since we're obviously lost, i'm rescheduling my xfinity customer service appointment. ah, relax. i got this.

which gps are you using anyway? a little something called instinct. been using it for years. yeah, that's what i'm afraid of. he knows exactly where we're going. my whole body is a compass. oh boy... the my account app makes today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. not my thing. welcome back to "hardball." "christianity today," an influential evangelical magazine, is calling for president trump's removal from office. in a surprising editorial, the magazine describes the president as, quote, a near-perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused. the magazine calls for his removal because, quote, we believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear in a way that the mueller investigation did not that president trump has abused his authority for personal gain and

betrayed his constitutional oath. the impeachment hearings have illuminated the president's moral deficiencies for all to see. well, the editor edited the piece by asking their evangelical readers this. if we don't reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? the piece struck a nerve with the president, of course. in a string of twitter attacks trump accused the magazine of being a far left magazine or very progressive that, quote, knows nothing about reading a perfect transcript of rather a routine phone call. that's the president's tweet words. he added the fact is no president has ever done what i have done for evangelicals or religion itself. that's trump talking. despite what the president might say there, however, christianity today was founded in 1956 by the reverend billy graham who wanted to, quote, plant the evangelical flag in the middle of the road

taking the conservative theological position, but a definite liberal approach to social problems. according to exit polls, by the way, 80% of white evangelicals voted for president trump. and for more i'm joined by the person who wrote that editorial. mark galli i editor in chief of "christianity today." he's retiring in a few days. mr. galli, thank you for joining us and i really want to know about your thinking, your feeling, your moral sense about this whole question of the president. i want to preface this by saying i watched the whole day of hearings two days ago and i didn't hear a single republican member of the house say one good word about the president's basic goodness, his honesty, his character. no defense of him as a person, as a human being under god, nothing. and i felt that to be a very serious deficiency on the part of those who defended him. your thoughts about your own thinking?

>> yeah, my thinking runs along the same lines. it's not just republicans, of course my constituency is -- evangelical christians. mr. trump is obviously willfully ignorant about christianity today because we're hardly a progressive or leftist magazine. nor are we particularly a political magazine. we're a religious magazine with theological and spiritual purposes. in fact, i'd like to emphasize the point of this editorial was not to enter the political fray as to raise the conversation above the political fray and rest it on an ethical and moral basis that i would hope an evangelical audience could resonate with and appreciate, and actually because it's in the middle of a partisan political debate. a lot of people are missing that. but a careful reading will indicate we don't have any political animus against trump. i don't have any personal animus against him.

i just think the president of the united states more than most leaders but almost any leader has a responsibility to lead not only politically, militarily, economically but also morally. and from our perspective as christians, we happen to think the moral part of it is the most important part. and if that's deficient, the rest can't in the end be helpful for our nation. >> let's talk about the ends justifying the means. i was taught that was wrong. it seems the president gets a lot of support from people who believe it's important to change the direction from the supreme court to being pro-life, and he's done a lot of that changing and he may be on the road to a 7-2 conservative pro-life court. is there a deal at work here where people of the christian faith are willing to accept this president's moral deficiencies personally in order to get the court they want? >> well, actually i would be a

little more sympathetic to that argument because that's the argument that my friends on the conservative evangelicals have been making. that's true of pretty much any political situation. there is some give or take. you have to accept some of the bad and good with any candidate, platform, or particularly bill. bad or good. so i'm not so concerned about that as much pause that's just part of the nature of political life. but i think with the revelations that happened at the impeachment hearings we cross some sort of line that i felt kind of deep within myself that up to now the argument that on one hand he's helping pro-life, helping religious freedom, on the other hand he's a person of questionable moral character we'll weigh that in the balance and just accept him as it is and hold their nose. i felt after the impeachment hearings when it was clearing and to me unambiguous, that he

used the office of the presidency to manipulate a leader of a foreign nation for his own political gain. it was not only a violation of the constitution, as such it's a huge moral problem because one of the things he vows is to uphold the constitution. so there is -- there is a place for the give-and-take in political life. but there also comes a time when the ends do not justify the means. and as i argued in my piece, i think we've gotten to that point where that argument about the ends justify the means no longer holds water, at least in my view. >> when you heard the transcript or the phone records that showed the president going to the president of a vulnerable country, vulnerable to russian military aggression and he said there's something -- i want you to do us a favor. is that when you saw he was interjecting his personal interest into public affairs, at the expense of public affairs? >> that was one moment.

but the whole notion that withholding funds and obviously the pressure applied was done subtly but it seemed to me between the phone call and the various witnesses it's unmistakable that's what was going on. it would be foolish to think nothing else but that was going on. and that's what was so disheartening and disappointing. >> we know this president said things we were told not to do as kids. you know, don't make fun of someone's appearance, don't make fun of someone's handicaps, basically don't be cruel as a way of making a joke, if you will. and the other day the president talked about john dingell, i knew the guy, good guy i liked him. and he's a tough guy. and the president referred to him being in hell basically as a way to taunt his widow who was now a member of congress. where does that fit in your way of looking at trump? >> well, that's a classic

instance. it's one of many instances in the trump presidency in which he had an opportunity to use the office of the presidency to do something bigger than himself and even bigger than the occasion. and that is, in a moment when people are -- this would be a moment where people are grieving. but even when people are at odds with one another, one thing the president can do is remind us that we are a country that holds certain values, and we have things in common. in the midst of the democratic debate, and it should be a good debate, it should be an energetic debate, but the president is one of those figures who says but we're doing this debate as a "we." we are debating. it's not an us versus them. and if we win, the godless left or right is gone and vice versa. this is our country, our debate, our conversation. and he has repeatedly had an opportunity to do that.

and it's just so sad to me he has failed to take advantage of those opportunities. he seems to be incapable of actually doing it, which is one of the reasons i argued i don't think he's fit to be president. this is not a surprising view for "christianity today" to anyone who's read our pages. we made the same basic argument during the nixon impeachment trial. we made the same argument during the clinton trial. anyone who reads this would yawn and say that's kind of what they do when it's discovered a national leader has lied to us. yeah, well, that's a problem. >> i think this is very good what you're saying here. it sounds very consistent with your religion and your philosophy. thank you. and your editorial positions over the years. mark galli, thank you so much for joining us here on "hardball" tonight. >> up next trump is reportedly using the justice department now to go after his perceived enemies. he's using it as his weapon. attorney general barr's hand picked investigators now digging around in former cia director john brennen's role about

sounding the alarm about russian interference in the 2016 election. you're watching "hardball." i can't believe it. that sophie opened up a wormhole through time? (speaking japanese) where am i? (woman speaking french) are you crazy/nuts? cyclist: pip! pip! (woman speaking french) i'm here, look at me. it's completely your fault. (man speaking french) ok? it's me. it's my fault? no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. (pterodactyl screech) believe it. geico could save you 15% or more on car insurance. cologuard: colon cancer and older at average risk. i've heard a lot of excuses to avoid screening for colon cancer. i'm not worried. it doesn't run in my family. i can do it next year. no rush. cologuard is the noninvasive option that finds 92% of colon cancers. you just get the kit in the mail, go to the bathroom, collect your sample, then ship it to the lab. there's no excuse for waiting. get screened.

ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers. you have a brother in the secyes sir.alion? they're walking into a trap. your orders are to deliver a message calling off tomorrow morning's attack. [ dramatic music ] why in god's name did you have to choose me? if you don't get there in time. it will be a massacre. we will lose sixteen hundred men. your brother among them. you may have gingivitis. when you brush, 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 highest levels of government, they were spying on my campaign, which is you know gone on long before i won the election. it was actually long before. >> the john durham investigation is a very important -- i feel one of the most important investigations in the history of our country. >> investigate the investigators.

>> welcome back to "hardball." that was president trump. he's been trying to undermine the intelligence community's assessment that russia interfered on behalf of his campaign in 2016 in that election since the very beginning of his administration. it's been his white whale. i got to get those people, calling for an investigation of the investigators is what he says. he got what he wanted in october when the justice department led by a loyal trumper, bill barr, the ag, announced a criminal investigation into the origins of the russia probe. and for trump this killed multiple birds with one stone. allowing him to discredit the russia investigation and any shadow that placed on that campaign or his campaign while going after the people he sees as political enemies including former cia director john brennen. a new report from "the new york times" reveals john durham, the federal prosecutor scrutinizing the russia investigation has begun examining brennen's role and how the intelligence community begun examining brennen's role and i'm joined right now by greg bahher,

a former fbi official. katherine mug -- mulligan. it seems the justice department has become the president's weapon. he just used barr to do anything he wants, go after brennen. brennen doesn't like me, i don't like him, let's go hurt him. >> i mean, this is not what the justice department is supposed to be doing. i mean, if there is a real concern about anything that may have happened, that concern is most appropriate to be explored by the inspector general. and if there's a criminal referral, which we don't have in this case, then it makes sense for it to move to a u.s. attorney, not the other way around. >> greg, what would be the crime they're looking for? brennen was head of the fbi. he oversaw an investigation of possible collusion of a political campaign and the russians. there were so many russian figures involved in this it seems like it was probable cause or whatever, prima facie evidence. there was something fishy going

on with all these meetings. how do you call that criminal to investigate that? >> it's hard to make sense of this. katherine is right. i'm a former i.g. and former federal prosecutor, so i've been on both sides of that. so what it appears durham is doing, it appears whatever he's doing should really be done by a combination of the doj i.g., we've seen his report and then the. c.i.g. if concerns go beyond the fbi and other intelligence agencies. and if and only if the. g.s find evidence of a crime, then the referral is made to the rest of it attorney with jurisdiction. >> jurisdiction is a great word, greg. what is the guy -- the u.s. attorney up in connecticut got to do with this except he's willing to take orders do do what he's told by the president. throw barr? >> by all accounts durham as a sterling reputation. >> he's about to lose it, i think. >> well, that's the question.

his statement after the release of the i.g. report -- it's difficult to square with the reputation that he has. and so i will be looking with interest at how he handles this. i mean, one thing troubling to me is the time line. it seems every time there's a political event that the president doesn't like, an anonymous source is suddenly revealing details about this criminal investigation. you have that when the republicans stormed the impeachment private deposition. >> the skiff. >> that was back in october. that came out the day after -- there was also a quinnipiac poll that day showing a big surge in public approval for impeachment. and then the very next day you hear oh, now it's going to be a criminal probe. same thing happens -- the president gets impeached by the house -- >> are you saying all these players are just pawns in the president's hand? even members of congress like devin nunes become operational

all of a sudden? they're going bopping around wherever he tells them to go. >> look, i really don't want to be thinking that but i think the time line here is troubling. >> well, president trump has also used another scapegoat, that would be ukraine in his denials that russia interfered on his behalf in 2016. "the washington post" reports almost as he took office trump has seized on a theory that troubled his senior aides, that ukraine tried to stop him from winning the white house. according to "the washington post," the president's intense resistance to the assessment of the u.s. intelligence agencies, all 17 of them, that russia systematically interfered in the 2016 election and the blame he cast on a rival country led many advisers to think that putin himself helped spur the idea of ukraine's culpability. is it possible and we've been through the whole question of collusion, that the president has someone whispering in his ear it's ukraine not us and that person is putin? >> it appears that that has been happening. what is surprising is that --

not that the russian president would try to influence the president that way, but that the u.s. president would be influenced that way apparently despite -- >> because he wanted to hear it. >> despite every classified briefing he's had since before he was even sworn in tells him the opposite. >> but he wants to believe he won the election in the electoral college, but he wants to believe he can pound the table long enough people say okay the russians had nothing to do with you winning. >> look, the fact of the matter is the president seems to be the only person with access to classified information who believes russia was not involved in interfering in the 2016. election. all his cabinet officials have said that it happened. multiple independent agencies. >> have you ever had a perfect phone call? trump has these words as perfect, beautiful. everything he does is beautiful perfect, you can't even talk to the guy. that's a bit narcissistic, i think. have a nice holiday. both of you. still ahead seven democratic candidates faced off in the final debate of this year last

night. i watched all of it. and give buttigieg the front-runner treatment. you know how you're the front-runner, everybody's pounding you. we're going to have highlights and low lights next on "hardball." (man and woman) [burst of talking to animals] ♪ (vo) it feels good to give back. (attendant) thank you so much. (woman) oh, you are so welcome. (vo) you can choose the aspca to get two hundred and fifty dollars from subaru when you get a new subaru, like the all new outback. (vo 2) get 0.9% on a new outback during the subaru share the love event. 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.

made it myself. i love this place! made that myself, too. order up. fries on the side. right where i like 'em. don't forget the grease fire. burn, baby -- wait, what? -[ alarm beeping ] -i said grease fire. what are you doing on the counter? when owning a small business gets real... sorry. can i get a to-go box? ...progressive helps protect what you built -with customizable coverage. -aah!

welcome back to "hardball." as president trump faces the reality of being only the third president in u.s. history to be impeached, which he is, the democrats faced off in their final debate of this year last night with three of his potential jurors right on the stage, all u.s. senators. it was no surprise the president's impeachment led the debate. here they go. >> we need to restore the integrity of the presidency, of the office of the presidency. and it's about time we get that under way. >> this is beyond public opinion. this is beyond polls. this is beyond politics. the president left the house with no choice. >> we cannot have a president with that temperament who is dishonoring the presidency of the united states.

>> if the president claims that he is so innocent then why doesn't he have all the president's men testify? richard nixon had his top people testify. >> with only 45 days until the iowa caucuses, many on that stage last night were giving their front-runner treatment which means a bad time to mayor pete buttigieg who leads in the polls in iowa. here goes. >> our good friend joe and he is a good friend, he's received contributions from 44 billionaires. pete, on the on the other hand he's trailing, pete. you've only got 39 billionaires contributing. so, pete, we look forward to you. i know you're an energetic guy and competitive guy to see if you can take on joe on that issue. >> the mayor just recently had a fund-raiser that was held in a wine cave full of crystals and served $900 a bottle wine. we made the decision many years

ago that rich people in smoke-filled rooms would not pick the next president of the united states. >> this is the problem with issuing purity tests you cannot yourself pass. [ audience reacts ] if i pledged never to be in the company of a progressive democratic donor i couldn't be up here. senator, your net worth is 100 times mine. >> i love it. it's personal. why in it was senator amy klobuchar who may have hit mayor pete at his biggest vulnerability, and that's coming up next. you're watching "hardball." ty, we present limu emu & doug with this key to the city. [ applause ] it's an honor to tell you that liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. and now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ]

only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix. why fingerstick when you can scan? with the freestyle libre 14 day system just scan the sensor with your reader,

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

the calming scent of lavender by downy infusions calm. laundry isn't done until it's done with downy. i want to be president of the united states. and the point is we should have someone heading up this ticket that has actually won. >> if you want to talk about the capacity to win, try putting together a coalition to bring you back to office with 80% of the vote as a gay dude in mike pence's indiana. >> again, mayor, if you had won in indiana, that would be one thing. you tried and you lost by 20 points. >> she's talking -- that's amy klobuchar the senator talking about how buttigieg ran for state treasurer and lost rather badly. that was a scene from last night's democratic debate, and i was thought it was pretty good. according to nbc news buttigieg got the front-runner treatment

of course, they're all leveled at him all the attacks from other candidates. that honor by the way previously belonged to former vice president joe biden. he used to get hit by everybody. a lot of people thought last night was joe biden's best performance so far. here's biden defending his calls for bipartisanship after trump's eventual departure. >> we need to be able to reach consensus. if anyone has reason to be angry with the republicans and not want to cooperate it's me, the way they've attacked me, my son, my family. i have no, no, no -- but the fact is we have to be able to get things done. and when we can't convince them, we go out and beat them like we did in the 2018 election in red states and in purple states. [ applause ] >> for more i'm joined by the adrian al rod, former senior adviser to hillary clinton's campaign. a republican strategist a

moderate last night. i want to start with you, my friend. and it did seem to follow a pattern. and if you're leading the polls especially with the iowa caucus coming up february 3rd you're the target of all the other people and states. >> what you saw last night was candidates really focusing on mayor pete buttigieg, and he might even win iowa. there were people close to joe biden telling me you know what the vice president is looking at other states more racially diverse like california and nevada. but what you see there is other candidates essentially saying, yeah, he might actually win iowa which is big deal. so you saw amy klobuchar who is someone who made it very clear she wanted to be the moderate alternative. we've had a lot of conversations about the progressives battling for that corner of the party, but last night we saw a debate of moderates. amy klobuchar saying essentially look if you had won and been a statewide candidate and you had shown you could be someone who had the experience, maybe we could consider you, but you don't have that résume.

instead what you have is a small town that you've been able to help, but i'm someone who's won statewide in a big state, and i'm the type of person who can carry this mantle. you saw in ar was someone really taking it to mayor buttigieg. i keep remembering her saying the mayor, the mayor, the mayor. she kept saying that to bring that home. and then you saw elizabeth warren. everyone was waiting for and i think i was waiting for the fireworks to go off between pete buttigieg and elizabeth warren. they've been trading barbs about demonizing the private sector work. you saw elizabeth warren making that wine cave reference there and it started trending on facebook. but i think the big take away there was that pete buttigieg was going to be attacked and that people are worried about the fact he's a front-runner. >> let me ask you who you think are the front-runners now? is it biden, buttigieg and warren? are they the three that really can win this thing? >> and sanders. >> you think he can win the nomination. i don't think he can win the nomination but -- >> that's what i'm talking

about. who can still win the nomination? >> i don't know if sanders can win the nomination. but yes, i do think it's down between biden, warren and buttigieg. i think that's what you saw play out last night. amy klobuchar knows she needs to get in that top four. right now she's in the top five or six. the only way i think she sees her path to doing that is to go after mayor pete's voters and that's why you saw her draw a contrast. you guys will remember -- >> because they're the same voters. >> in large part they're the same voters. those pragmatic midwestern moderate democrats. you guys will recall during the detroit debate just a couple of months ago mayor pete with a strong assist from amy klobuchar held the mantle for defending obama-era policies. it wasn't joe biden. it was the two of them going against elizabeth warren and bernie sanders. we saw a complete opposite situation last night between the two of them really going after each other and amy klobuchar of course also making it clear, hey, listen, you're the mayor of a town of 100,000 people. i have won several times statewide. in a state that is largely, or at least to an extent a trump

state. so she's trying to draw that contrast. it's going to be fascinating to see how this plays out. >> did you notice the shift? we were talking about medicare for all. a tough defense certainly for senator warren. so she shifted the target away from herself over to buttigieg. it's not about whether medicare for all will work or not. compromised on that. delayed it for three years. but who's paying for you. why didn't he fight back and say no, let's keep talking about medicare for all? why do you let the topic shift over to who's paying it? i think he weakened out on that one. buttigieg. >> elizabeth warren backed off of medicare for all. she was like i want to get as much as i can as fast as i can. it was a real capitulation and bernie sanders went all in again on medicare. >> is he trying to leapfrog her to the left? >> he's trying to get all those progressives back. remember there was really -- positioningwise there was only two progressives left on the stage -- >> is she falling between the cracks right now? >> i think she wsa hurt the most last night.

some people hate this, but the reason joe biden had such a great debate last night because he wasn't a front-runner and he wasn't attacked. and guess who showed him how to be a front-runner and get attacked. pete buttigieg. because he took it all ways and he had answers for everything. by the way, i don't think the mayor thing hurt him at all. pete buttigieg is on this stage not because of his résume, as she wants to say, he's on the stage because he's got support. >> i want to talk to you about this. we're talking about basic political talent. and one thirnng, i've watched politics for a hundred years of my life. i'm not that old but i can remember everything. voice matters. reagan had a fabulous voice. those who had weak voices like carter did not do well in politics. i'm impressed by buttigieg. he has a broadcaster's voice. i don't know where the hell he got it, but when they get into the thick of things last night, he seemed strong. i think klobuchar sounds really good, too. what did you think about buttigieg when he was under attack last night? >> i think he's someone who

showed he can be nimble and also showed he can be turning the tables on someone. i think one of the most memorable things he said was elizabeth warren is trying to issue purity test that's she can't herself pass. and he basically made the case, look, you're trying to attack me but remember, i'm the poorest person on this stage, you're a millionaire and you have millionaire donors just like me. we did see buttigieg get attacked from all sides. some people said at times when he was mocking amy klobuchar it came off as a little bit of just annoying and a little bit of mean-spirited there. but i think overall he was someone who showed if you put him on the stage with president trump he might be able to hold his own, and that's of course what democrats are looking for. >> i think there's three guys making pick-ups last night. amy klobuchar picked up points. i think buttigieg definitely went up a bit. and who else? biden. biden had a good night. he did not have a bad night. which is for him a good night. >> he wouldn't say he would run for second-term which i think something voters are going to think about for a while. >> i think the best answer when you're his age is to say i'll think about when it when the

time comes. thank you. adrian elrod, veteran of the hillary clinton campaign. rick tiler, a republican talking about democrats. yamiche alcindor, fabulous work this week. up next, while this country seems divided i see a path forward. i do. you're watching "hardball."

♪ 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 ♪ too shabby! too much! i can rent this? for that price? absolutely. it's just right! book your just right rental at thrifty.com.

1 in 5 people you meet wear yeah. that many! but right now, is not the time to talk about it. so when you're ready, search 'my denture care'. poligrip and polident. fixed. fresh. and just between us. steven could only imaginem 24hr to trenjoying a spicy taco.burn, now, his world explodes with flavor. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day all-night protection. can you imagine 24-hours without heartburn?

this week made history. it also points to the true possibilities for 2020.

the partisan vote in the house of representatives on the two articles of impeachment shows a clear line of division in this country. but it also masks the possibilities for moving that line. there are millions in the middle who are capable, in other words, are voting differently than they did in 2016. one nod to the electorate are those who simply want to do the decent thing like those republicans who voted for barack obama in 2008. another nod is for those whose politics lean towards the center and could well find a democrat who's closer to them than they are to donald trump. i could easily imagine these voters going to someone like joe biden. still another group is republicans or conservative independents simply disgusted by trump's behavior, the insults, the attacks on people's looks or handicaps, the attacks even on the dead. the sheer indecency of the man now in the white house. there's good reason to believe that the democratic candidate for president in 2020 could appeal to all kinds of voters as simply a designated driver to take this country home next

november, home to a country whose leaders stand guard on the country's moral dignity rather than assault it. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. tonight on "all in." >> frankly i don't care what the republicans say. >> the impeachment of donald trump. >> history will remember those who were willing to speak truth to power. yes, i called for trump's impeachment early. >> congresswoman maxine waters on what happens now, what happens next as the president stews in the white house. >> it doesn't feel like impeachment. >> then new reporting on just who might have put the ukraine server conspiracy in trump's head. >> you have groups that are wondering why the fbi never took the server, why haven't they taken the server. >> plus the evangelicals now censuring the president. >> our president is doing things not only unconstitutional but blatantly immoral. >> and lin