good morning. i'm phillip mena at msnbc world

headquarters in new york. it is 7:00 in the east, 4:00 out west. we start this hour with breaking news out of chicago. 13 people have been shot at a possible house party in a south side of chicago neighborhood. that is according to police. the age and condition of the victims being treated at an area hospital is unknown. we may learn more about what happened at a news conference which is expected to begin shortly. this latest shooting adds to a weekend of shootings that have killed at least four people. and now the day's other big headline, newly released documents with critical information on one of the key aspects of the democrats' case for impeachment. it cites an email among 146 pages of doj released documents that mentions the hold on ukraine funding just two hours after the july 25th call between president trump and volodymyr zelensky. in a statement released this morning an omb spokesperson says it's reckless to tie ukraine funding to the july 25th call.

the spokesperson says that decision was announced july 18th. meanwhile, president trump at a summit for young conservatives last night striking a familiar theme on impeachment. >> there's no crime. there's no nothing. how do you impeach is this you had no crime. even their people said there was no crime. crazy nancy, she's crazy. >> from the impeachment to the battle for 2020, we have a team of reporters and analysts this morning to help break it all down for us. let's go to nbc's hans nichols who is traveling with the president on this holiday weekend in west palm beach, florida. these are heavily redacted documents. what else can you tell us about what's in them? >> reporter: yeah, well, it gives us a sense a little bit of what the bureaucracy looks like behind the scenes, but only a sense, phillip. we don't have a complete and clear picture, this in large part because many of the officials writing these emails haven't testified before -- they didn't testify before the house and it's unclear if they have

testify before the senate. take michael duffey, he is the omb official that's basically in charge of funding for national security, so that includes a lot of military aid. this is all being housed in the white house through different agencies, whether it's the state department or the defense department. after that july 25th phone call -- and omb says, with he should be clear, that this is basically a coincidence, but basically 90 minutes after that call that president trump has with president zelensky duffy writes an email to dod saying basically put a hold "on the money." what omb is saying is that this decision had been made and that's been -- came out in the testimony a few days earlier, july 18th, and that's just how the bureaucracy works. but you do get a sense that they were aware, at least duffy was, that this could be sensitive because in one of those emails he basically asks people not to share the information and keep it on a need to know basis. then when the funds are ultimately released on september 11th duffy basically is saying i'm glad this is behind us now,

hopefully now we can move on. >> that is nbc's hans nichols traveling with the president this morning. hans, thank you. joining me now to discuss further, daniel lippman, reporter at "politico." daniel, good morning. >> good morning. >> what is your take away from these documents? what stands out to you? >> well, i read through the entire 146-page document, it's very actually interesting to see how there was concern at the pentagon, people were wondering why is there a hold, and then they said that the president is interested in this, can you give us more information and then they put that hold on it. you can also see the names of all the defense contractors who are going to supply this aid to ukraine and you had one of those contractors ask about the aid being held up, saying what's the issue here? you know, we really -- this stuff is ready to ship. why are you guys holding this up? >> this phone call served as the backbone of the impeachment proceedings against the

president. is there anything new that adds to the narrative exactly what happened here or change it in any way? >> i think the fact that they had emailed only two hours after the president's phone call. omb says it's a coincidence and it very well may be, but we don't know what michael duffey was thinking. why he emailed exactly then, and mitch mcconnell doesn't want a whole -- you know, have any more witnesses and there may even be no senate trial if pelosi doesn't send those articles of impeachment. so we're kind of left in the dark exactly why duffy was emailing so closely after that presidential phone call. >> you said you read all 146 pages of t based on those conversations that you read in knows emails do you get the sense that those involved felt that the hold could be problematic? >> i think a lot of people probably felt like they were wondering why they had this

extensive hold because this was pretty uncontroversial in the government bureaucracy, but i think probably there are some officials that were just doing their job. you have kind of the loyal foot soldiers. but it was interesting to see that the comptroller of the pentagon, elaine mccluskey, there were so many emails between her and michael duffey -- and this is the person who is in charge of the entire dod budget -- and she is spending all of this time dealing with this ukraine aid and this holdup. so it really captured the dod and national security bureaucracy because of the president's wish that this money be held up. >> what else did we learn about michael duffey? what else stood out to be about that? what do you want answered after reading all of those pages? >> i think a lot of people just want to hear from him and want to know did he think that this

was right? why didn't he speak up more and kind of question the reasons behind this hold? and it's also interesting that this guy is not a typical national security official. he used to be the executive director of the wisconsin republican party and so he also has some dod experience, he came over from dod to the white house, but this is not someone who is just someone from the dod bureaucracy, this was a political actor who knows kind of -- you know, he knows his way around politics. >> before i let you go, daniel, i want to ask about a pete that you wrote, trump going crazy over impeachment legacy. the president has been brushing off any suggestion that impeachment is on his mind. his daughter ivanka says he's energized by it. so what are you hearing? >> well, i've talked to one former white house official and that person told me that trump is obsessed with his legacy and

that he feels -- and he has said to people that if he gets impeached that his presidency is going to be tainted. he has long been concerned about his legitimacy to be president, remember he still talks about the 2016 election result and shows up that map of all the counties that he won. and so this is someone that he cares about how he will be perceived by future generations and he is not happy with the fact that this is going to be -- being impeached is one of the first facts that people will learn about him decades from now and this will be talked about 100 years from now in terms of the reasons for his impeachment. so this is a person very concerned about his image and so has been kind of rouxing his place in history. that makes reelection even more important for him. >> we appreciate your reporting and perspective this morning. thank you. today's second big headline, a battle over the impeachment

trial. it's intensifying and spilling into the holiday congressional recess with a new reaction to house speaker nancy pelosi potentially holding the articles of impeachment until the senate defines rules for the trial. here is democratic congressman dan kildee on senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. >> ultimately he's going to have to relent. i mean, i think the point is that he has to tell the american people how he intends to do this job. so far it doesn't seem like he's taking it very seriously. >> meanwhile, house intel chair adam schiff in a new interview on whether he might be a part of the senate trial. >> if you are called to testify, will you? >> there's no basis to call me as a witness and i think even mcconnell and the republicans have recognized that. the only -- you know, the only reason to even put me on a list is because donald trump thinks it's a good rhetorical attack.

the reason they would like to call me as a witness is just to have a chance to attack me. nothing more. >> joining me now to discuss julia manchester, reporter at the hill. julia, good morning. >> good morning. >> do you envision a scenario where adam schiff is ever a witness witness in the senate trial? what would be the point of that? >> right. so i think a lot of republicans would obviously love to have adam schiff come as a witness. adam schiff has really become a face of their anti-impeachment movement and has been used as a bit of a foil on the side of republicans, however, it's hard for me to imagine democrats really allowing that to move forward. you're hearing a lot of witnesses being floated from both sides, you know, especially from republicans. not only adam schiff, but joe and hunter biden as well, but i'm hesitant to say whether either of those scenarios will actually happen. >> since mitch mcconnell holds the keys to this senate trial, what do you think about the effort here by democrats and nancy pelosi of raising public sentiment to get those witnesses

to testify? >> yeah, it's interesting in terms of nancy pelosi's strategy with, you know, getting these witnesses to testify, as well as delaying the articles of impeachment to go to the senate right now. remember, this comes just before the christmas holiday, so we know that congress won't be -- the senate won't be back until january 3rd, the house won't be back until a couple days later. so we really won't see this senate trial get moving if it happens until later probably mid-january and i think this strategy kind of imposed by nancy pelosi is getting mixed reviews from democrats. on one side of the democratic party you have democrats saying that nancy pelosi is right that we need to delay this so we can keep the attention on mitch mcconnell, on mitch mcconnell for saying he doesn't want to necessarily have his senators be fair jurors in this trial. however, other senators, notably chris murphy from connecticut made a comment saying we need to make a decision. we need to make this decision in the house -- or in the senate

and hear this evidence. so you're kind of seeing a bit of a division line in the democratic party as to how to move forward and when to move forward on the issue of impeachment. >> okay. so if you're keeping score here who do you think is winning right now when it comes to the witness question, democrats or republicans? >> you know, it's hard to say right now. i think democrats are in a bit of a difficult place because they want -- you know, you heard schumer trying to get mick mulvaney or john bolton to come and testify and if you look at the past track record of white house officials coming to testify we know that they have definitely stonewalled that in the past. i think democrats are going to have a very uphill climb at this point. >> if they do somehow get their way and see some of the four people that they want to testify, would republicans then also get their choice to who will testify, which could include adam schiff and even the whistle-blower? >> you know, it's very possible. i think democrats will do all they can to really oppose that, but, remember, there was a bit of a division among republicans

and president trump as to who to call for witnesses. you saw president trump in a number of tweets last week saying he wanted not only adam schiff, the whistle-blower, nancy pelosi to come and testify in the senate trial and i think you're going to see mcconnell and you have already seen him kind of put the brakes on that and say, hold up, we really need to message this correctly and come to a strategy. i don't know if we will necessarily see some of these high profile people. i don't think -- i think democrats will do all they can to protect that whistle-blower and protect his identity, but -- before the senate, but, you know, it's hard to say at this point when we really haven't seen much traction going from these articles going from the house to the senate. >> all right. julia manchester, thank you so much for joining me this morning. >> thank you. the chances of the democrats winning control of the senate. they may be greater than you think. and later why president trump is filling the federal courts with some judges that the american bar association says are unqualified. why is he doing that? ♪

some things are too important to do yourself. get customized security with 24/7 monitoring from xfinity home. awarded the best professionally installed system by cnet. simple. easy. awesome. call, click or visit a store today.

as the impeachment standoff on capitol hill intensifies, one big question is surrounding the much anticipated senate trial, what senators, if any, will defect from their party? joining me now to discuss rashad richey political commentator and radio talk show host. rashad, good morning. >> good morning how. how are new. >> i'm doing well. thank you. an article in the cook political

report talks about which senators' fate may be determined by their vote on impeachment. it says for a republican u.s. senators martha mcsally in arizona, cory gardner in colorado and susan collins in maine a vote to remove trump from office is likely to earn them very credible primary opposition, something that would hurt their reelection efforts, but a vote to acquit trump doesn't help them appeal to the kind of college educated suburban voters that they need to win. so i ask you, rashad, how nervous are those senators about how their vote will impact their reelection chances? >> well, they are politicians to they are very nervous about how any vote could affect their political reality. let's look at senator collins, she is in the state of maine, maine has a very strong tea party faction, however, she has demonstrated the ability to break with party lines, back in 2017 she was one of the deciding votes to stop the repeal of obamacare and that was not a popular stance.

so she has been on the radar of republicans ever since. there is another republican that i think we all need to look at as well and that comes out of alaska, lisa mer could yccould . she got dee soo feeted but decided to run as a write in candidate. she has an independent bone in her body, too. >> let's talk about a prominent democrat. doug jones, he faces a similar predicament. that same article says for jones a vote to acquit trump won't be received well in a state that gave him 62% of the vote in 2016, yet it would also put jones at odds with his own party, especially activists and donors. do you think senator jones would defect from the democrats just for the sake of reelection? >> well, it would not be a

first. remember when we talk about politics this is not really good versus evil, this is political agenda versus political agenda and if some of these elected officials regardless of party affiliation if they feel as if their political career is in jeopardy, you may see them actually massage their position in order to fit into their political dynamic. i would say this to everyone who is an elected official, you are there because people believe in you. you are there because you have been chosen to be a leader not because you simply need a political job. and if you have to sell your soul for the sake of a political job you don't deserve that position in the first place. >> we mentioned lisa measisa le could you ski, jones or collins, out of all of those who do you think has the highest chance of flipping and going against their party? >> definitely mitt romney would

be number one and i would say susan collins number two. >> all right. finally, do you think democrats are going to have any chance of retaking senate majority come 2020? >> i think they can and i think this is going to be very competitive. they will absolutely come close if not take it over. remember president trump is not very popular in some of the states he should win easily. for example, in the state of georgia his unfavorability rating is at 55%, 56% in georgia, this is a state that he should easily be popular in, but he's not. and that is not -- this is not a stand-alone state, there are many states where the president of the united states he is showing numbers over 50% of people saying they are not feeling him anymore. >> all right. rashad richey joining us early on this sunday morning. thank you, sir. >> thank you. the senate confirming 13 more trump judicial nominees, the long-term impact that will have on the courts, that's next. but first, eddie murphy making a triumphant return to

"saturday night live" last night. 35 years after he was a cast member, he brought back the classics like buckwheat, gumby and even mr. robinson. >> so much has changed since we last spent some time together. my neighborhood has gone through so much. it's gone through something called gentrification. can you say gentrification, boys and girls? it's like a magic trick. white people pay a lot of money and then, poof, all the black people are gone. ♪ ♪

shorten your cold by almost half with cold-eeze®. cold-eeze® can shorten your cold by 42%. it releases zinc ions that may inhibit cold viruses from replicating. try cold-eeze® the #1 pharmacist recommended zinc lozenge.

we have breaking news out of chicago where 13 people have been shot at a possible house party in a south side chicago neighborhood according to police. the age and condition of the victims being treated at an area hospital is unknown at this hour. we may learn more about what happened at a news conference which is expected to begin shortly. this latest shooting adds to a weekend of shootings that have killed at least four people. new evidence this morning that north korea is poised to conduct long range missile tests in the next few days.

nbc news reports satellite photos show work on a temporary structure to accommodate the raising of a launching arm. kim jong-un's regime warned of an imminent christmas gift to the united states. u.s. military leaders fear that gift could be the test of a long range ballistic missile. newly released body cam video shows a deadly encounter between a northern california sheriff's deputies and disabled man during a traffic stop last month. deputy charles blunt put david glen ward the victim of a carjacking who officers thought was a suspect into a choke hold. ward later died at a nearby hospital. blupt is expected to be fired. we are hearing for the first time from the teenager who was run over just for being mexican. according to police. 14-year-old nat aliyah was walking to a basketball game at her high school when she was hit earlier this month.

>> i don't remember the impact, i just remember the car coming towards me. >> nicolle marie poole franklin was charged with attempted murder after telling police she drove over the teenager because she was mexican. nat aliyah whose parents are ecuadorian and mexican spent two days in the hospital and is expected to make a full recovery. poole franklin could also face hate crime charges. new information this morning about the central issues surrounding the democrats' case for impeachment. emails released this weekend show there were fewer than two hours between the july 25th phone call between president trump and ukrainian president zelensky. and a mention of the hold on military funds to ukraine. the office of budget -- management and budget says that the hold had already been announced on july 18th, but the new emails give more details on exchanges surrounding that money. joining me now to discuss this is virginia congressman don bayer, a member of the ways and means committee and a former

ambassador to switzerland. congressman, thank you so much for joining us this morning. >> thank you. >> what is your reaction to this new batch of emails that we're seeing? >> i think it was already very clear and uncontroversial that the president had withheld the aid from ukraine in order to get them to investigate joe biden and his son and to investigate this widely discredited myth that ukraine was behind the interference in our 2016 election, and there are some republicans still that i serve with who don't believe t but i think these emails and what we will learn in the days and weeks to come, everything just gives greater credence to the bribery that actually happened. >> why is nancy pelosi withholding these articles of impeachment? what does she want to get out of this? do you think it's going to ultimately end up working out for the democrats? >> i do think she will transmit them to the senate, but mitch mcconnell who is by the constitution supposed to be an impartial juror has already said he is not going to be an

impartial juror, that he is going to work closely with the president on this trial. i think nancy just wants to understand what the rules are going to be and guarantee that the american people and the presidency a fair independent trial going on. >> when do you think that that will happen, congressman? >> you know, probably pretty soon. in fact, if you look back to the clinton impeachment, he was impeached on december 17th and the imagers weren't appointed until january 6th. so i imagine over the next couple days it will all sort out. one of the big issues is will there be witnesses. mitch mcconnell pushed very hard for witnesses in the clinton impeachment, andrew johnson, i think there were 46 witnesses. we'd love to hear -- i think the american people would love to hear from people like bill barr and mike pompeo, rudy giuliani, people that were withheld, the president forbid from testifying before the u.s. house. >> do you think the speaker will hand over those articles if mitch mcconnell says, no, there

is no way there are going to be any witnesses at this trial? where does she go from there? >> i don't want to prejudge what nancy pelosi will do. clearly we don't want to impeach the president then not have a trial. that would be only doing half the job. you know, we've decided like a grand jury that there's a reason for removal, but he is due a fair trial and the senators get to participate in that. she definitely will send them to them, but she'd like to know that there is going to be a fair process put in place by mitch mcconnell. >> but it seems pretty clear that a standoff is already under way and doesn't seem like either side is going to break here. so somebody is going to have to, either he gives up the witnesses or she gives up those articles. >> yeah, and i don't want to pre judge what's going to happen because i just don't know, but i am confident that there will be a trial, hopefully it will be the way we'd like to have it, the way we think the american people will gain from it, but we're not going to hold it indefinitely. that's just not -- that doesn't

make any sense for everything that we've tried to do so far. >> if democrats happen to get their way and witness testimonies are allowed, republicans will also have their pick of witnesses, but congressman adam schiff just said on friday that he won't testify. let's listen to a little bit of sound of that. >> there's no basis to call me as a witness and i think even mcconnell and the republicans have recognized that. you know, the only reason to even put me on a list is because donald trump thinks it's a good rhetorical attack. the reason they would like to call me as a witness is just to have a chance to attack me. nothing more. >> so, congressman, do democrats have any leverage here? is there a way for them to get the perspectives that they want without having adam schiff taking the stand? >> i think so. but, you know, if we are going to insist on witnesses for our side, it would be reasonable for

the republicans to insist on witnesses for their side, too. it's very difficult to understand what adam schiff brings to the table because he wasn't part of the decision to withhold aid from ukraine in ponce to an investigation. so part of this i think that's just politics rather than trying to get to the truth. >> all right. how will impeachment -- this impeachment case affect democratic lawmakers in swing districts, in your own state congresswoman abigail pan berger represents a pod rat district, unseat add republican last year and has faced heated questions from voters back home. do you think there is any concern that she and others like her are more vulnerable now that they've voted in favor of impeachment? >> yes, absolutely. in fact, i think many of these freshmen members that are in very vulnerable districts, districts that trump won, are going to be awarded profiles in courage in the years to come. they clearly were not doing this because it was the smart political thing, they were doing this because they were honest,

they were courageous, they were honoring their oath of office. in the long run we don't know how it's going to work out, but, you know, because the politics are so uncertain, even dangerous, it was really important that people followed their conscience and i think that's what abigail, elaine luria in virginia beach have done. >> how about impeachment impact the party come 2020? do you think it's going to help or hurt democrats in congress and the democratic candidate that emerges to run for president? >> you know, i always distrust the conventional wisdom. i think on the one hand heavily republican districts, places that trump won, might be less likely to reelect a freshman democrat. on the other hand, they're changing the character of the districts by the leadership that they're offering. by all of the bills that we're passing in the house on domestic violence, on trying to give the dreamers a path to citizenship, we just ratified the usmca trade treaty with mexico and canada.

we're doing a lot of really good things. perhaps at the end of the day it won't have an impact at all. the american citizens have relatively short memories and with this president there are likely for more out rages between now and november. >> congressman, thank you so much for joining me this morning. >> thanks, phillip. as the drama plays out in washington over impeachment, another quieter but critical story is playing out. this past week the senate confirmed 13 conservative judges nominated by the president. in total the president has been able to get 187 of his judicial nominations confirmed. joining me now to discuss a trial lawyer and msnbc legal contributor katie phang and former federal prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst glenn kirschner. thank you both for joining me this morning. glenn, i want to start with you, several of the confirmed picks are considered not qualified by the american bar association. is that right? how does the aba rate the judges in the first place?

what makes someone unqualified? >> well, one thing that makes them unqualified, phillip, is some of them have never set foot in a courtroom. they have never litigated a case. you know, they probably can't tell a courtroom from a boardroom some of these unqualified judges that frankly mitch mcconnell has crammed down the throats of the american people. i have some optimism, though, when it comes to these unqualified judges because there is a judicial disability and misconduct committee that takes complaints about medical judges who are basically involved in misconduct or who are not up to the job. i have a feeling some of these unqualified judges are going to have an uphill battle performing once they actually hit the bench. you will probably see a flood of complaints coming in against them and, do you know what, they may not all be long for the job. so this may be a short-term win

when trump and mcconnell push through unqualified judges, but it may not be a long-term win. >> it doesn't matter what their rating s right, glenn? he can nominate anybody he wants, right? >> he can, but usually there is an advice and consent function that the senate performs and they over time have tended to weed out those unqualified nominees. now, typically when the aba rates somebody unqualified, you know, we have had in the past presidents who have withdrawn those types of nominations because they actually care about the quality of justice that is doled out from the federal bench. trump and mcconnell, not so much. >> katie, we are talking lifetime appointments here when it comes to these seats here. talk about the impact that that will have going forward. >> well, you said it right there, phillip, it's a lifetime appointment. you can say what you want to say and do what you want to do and

subject to some type of regulation and some type of oversight that glen just mentioned, the reality is all of the biases and prejudices that are supposed to be left at the door when a judge takes the bench really can come out and they can let that fly. there's something that we joke about as trial lawyers, black robe-itis, whether or not you actually have the appropriate judicial temperament. there was a huge argument against bret cavanaugh because he did not exhibit the appropriate judicial temperament. donald trump his lasting legacy may not be the asterisk for impeachment but may be the fact he has appointed these 170 something federal judges. two supreme court justices can be appointed during the administration of donald trump. fundamentally the problem exists in two things, one, people need to get out and vote. when you vote you get people into office that end up being the legislatures that end up -- legislators that end up being in the senate, because mitch mcconnell he basically has

invoked the nuclear option meaning he has reduced debate time for these judicial nominees down to two hours only. there used to be a filibuster on judicial nominees but by invo invoking the nuclear option which means it involves a simple majority to change the rules now they only spend two hours debating these judicial nominees. so mitch mcconnell who has said leave no judicial vacancy behind he has now shoved all of these federal appointments into america and basically has left these people to be able to preside over cases that dictate what happens to all of us. let's not be confused by the reality of what's going on, phillip. you know, these are federal judges, they listen to the cases that are of importance. now, there are state court judges, sure, but these federal judges are basically legislating from the bench, they are not supposed to be activists and they are because a lot of them are anti-minority, a lot of them are anti-lgbtq, a lot of them are anti-abortion and why?

because they are basically carrying the banner for the trump administration and so that should leave people very concerned. >> we appreciate the sense of the bigger picture here. katie phang and glenn kirschner, thank you so much. you might call it an unfolding natural disaster. new warnings about the quickly disappearing amazon rainforest. up next, why it's happening and what can be done to stop it. what can be done to stop it.

♪ 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 ♪

new information on breaking news reporting from chicago. 13 people have been shot at a house party in a south side chicago neighborhood, all are being treated at an area hospital, four of them are in critical condition. police say the shooting began after an argument at a party which then spilled into the street. >> we had an incident where there was a party at that address, inside there was a dispute where shots were fired inside, several shots, the people started to spill out -- and i'm going from what i saw on the pod video now -- people started to pill out and as they spilled out more shots were fired. we saw an individual on the pod firing. at that time more shots were fired at another location. so we have about three scenes of different shell casings and different scenes where people were shot, but it was right there in that location and stemming from that party. >> the victims here range in age

from 16 to 48. investigators believe that this is an isolated incident. very turn now to the dire warning about the amazon rainfore rainforest. top scientists say it has reached into a tipping point where it could turn into a savannah, a grassy plain with few trees and release billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere. joining me now is kendra pierre lewis. >> thanks for having me. >> how bad is the situation right now in the amazon in what are some of the main causes for this. >> so it's really bad based on this editorian. the big driver is human deforestation. so the amazon makes its own rain because of the shear size of it but as you cut away at it it's less able to zak that zone rain so it will start getting drier and drier, and you end up with a savannah. people think of the amazon as

the lungs of the earth, but it is a massive sink for greenhouse gases. it absorbed carbon emissions we've been pumping out. as the amazon disappears it begins to leak so it starts releasing -- it releases them through the fires but also as it transitions to savanna and those trees die off and soils change it will go inn to release greenhouse gas emissions. >> the wildfires we saw, that was a big story this year, how much does that exacerbate the problem? >> it's a huge problem. it's completely human driven. we are cutting down the trees and the fire are the last step in the soil. the wetter season they drop down the trees, let it dry out and during the dry season they set them on fire. the loss of those trees is a huge driver of what's happening to the amazon. it's not natural. >> researchers have said it is responsible to slow the transformation through reforestation. >> right. >> there r. there in i signs that this will happen. >> no, because bolsonaro is pro

chopping down the amazon. under the president of brazil under his tutelage or power the speed at which the amazon has been deforested has gone up, not down. >> this is beef and sugar are the two main drivers here. >> yeah. >> i mean, if there were a demand reduction would that help the situation at all? >> i mean, in theory it would, but the demand reduction would have to come to china and europe. americans are not eating brazilian beef. >> really? this is all about who is getting it. >> who is getting it. >> we need the chinese to become vegan and who else? >> a lot of europe. >> it's not just the amazon, though, green land's ice sheet melting at an accelerated rate, one scientist said the worst-case scenario is business as usual. >> right. green land is melting at a huge rate. our immediate reaction would be why do i care? i don't live in the arctic. as green land melts it raises sea levels that's a huge issue for anyone living near the

coast. as the arctic thaws it creates methane. i want to be clear. there's 97% scientific consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening, the vast majority of americans now acknowledge that climate change is happening and we're seeing the effects, we're seeing the if ekts from the midwestern floods this year to the california wildfires to what's happening in australia. so it's completely driven by us burning fossil fuels, burning coal, oil, natural gas and we're not doing anything about it. in fact, emissions went up this year, not down. so the problem is getting worse and we're pushing a lot of these ecosystems to the tipping point where they are going to feed into what we've been causing. >> why are they not able to do anything about it? 97% of scientists agree on this and the majority of americans understand this is happening. >> it's political will. in brazil it's the current administration is haste thing the speed of deforestation, in australia where they're burning from wildfires they're doubling

down on coal and we republished our roll backtracker under the trump administration and we are rolling back all of the protections from fuel efficiency standards to reduced greenhouse gases. so there is no political will even though citizens are demanding action. >> this is a topic that cannot be covered enough. all right. kendra, thank you so much for helping us understand this. all right. borrowing from the past in the battle over impeachment, up next, how accurately did lawmakers cite our founding fathers? >> benjamin franklin. >> thomas jefferson and james madison. >> alexander hamilton. >> alexander hamilton. >> alexander hamilton. >> alexander hamilton. >> thomas jefferson. >> alexander hamilton. >> james madison. >> benjamin franklin. madison. >> benjamin franklin 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

as the impeachment embroils both parties on capitol hill, congress members from both sides every day are invoking the founding fathers to bolt sister their cases for or against impeachment. >> benjamin franklin cautioned when asked what he had given us a republic. >> i don't think they would be pleased to see congress subverting the will of democracy by holding impeachment vote because they cannot accept the 2016 elections. >> alexander hamilton wrote in the federalist papers. >> that impeachment would be drench bipartisan animosity.

>> one of our founders warned. >> thomas jefferson said i know of no safe depository but the people themselves. >> that is why alexander hamilton wrote. >> james madison. >> a republic, as benjamin franklin once said. >> benjamin franklin said they had just created a republic if you can keep it. >> allen predicted impeachment. and pretkeubldicted every elect since 1984. which party do you think leaned on the founding fathers correctly? >> well, i think the biggest mistake was made by the republicans. they totally distorted the meaning of impeachment. they said it represented the

cancellation of an election. wrong. the framers put impeachment into the constitution advisably as standing equal as a constitutional means for deciding who is fit to be president. in fact, it was a legal, orderly and peaceful means for dealing with a rogue president as an alternative to the remedies of their own time, which was assassination or revolution. and, remember, this notion of the people deciding, the framers very clear that the people would not elect the president. the electoral college would elect the president. and in those days, in the states, the electors were not chosen by the people. they were chosen by state legislative legislativers. the only federal officials directly chosen by the people were the members of the house of representatives to whom they gave the sole authority for impeachment. >> is there a one prevailing thought that you heard, that you

think had the final say in all of this? >> well, i think the final say is that impeachment does not necessarily involve a statutory crime. in fact, there weren't federal statutory crimes at the time of the framing of the constitution. i think the best definition was indeed given by alexander hafplt when he said it proceeds from an abuse of power that directly injures the society itself. noah feldman made the incredible point that there isn't impeachment until the articles are transmitted to the senate claiming that impeachment was a process. of course there's no such word in the constitution. the constitution gives sole authority to the house. and if the house says a president is impeached, the president is impeached. >> there was that discussion. does it not become official

until she turns it over. we now have definitive word he has been impeached. the prediction of what is going to happen in the senate? >> well, i think it's very important that be a real trial with witnesses like there was in the case of andrew johnson. there was 40 witnesses. there were videotaped witnesses in the clinton trial. we are already seeing new information coming out through these males released through the freedom of information process. and the republicans have put us at an incredible catch-22 claiming your case is weak because you don't have enough witnesses with direct contact with the president. but we won't let you call such witnesses in the u.s. senate. that's why nancy pelosi is absolutely right to withhold the articles until there is a real trial in the senate. >> we have 15 seconds. i want you to tell me who is

going to win the democratic nomination. >> well, get out your checkbook you to pay me a lot to get that prediction. and i can only tell you this, the impeachment does turn one of my keys to the white house, but it's not enough to predict the president's defeat. forget the polls, the pundits. the election is too close to call right now. and neither party should take any solace from what they see. >> all right. we will start a go fund me page to get that answer eventually from you. thank you so much for joining me today. what would it take for the majority of evangelicals to abandon the president. we have answers ahead on "up". . when you shop with wayfair, you spend less and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life

and save in more ways than one. for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com you suryes.out this? [ suspensful music playing ] no! we need to keep moving. the whole things coming down.

come on! i can't see. i can't see! you need to trust me. jump! hi, i'm joan lunden. when my mother began forgetting things, we didn't know where to turn for more information. that's why i recommend a free service called a place for mom. we have local senior living advisors who can answer your questions about dementia or memory care and, if necessary, help you find the right place for your mom or dad. we all want what's best for our parents, so call today.

some things are too important to do yourself. ♪ get customized security with 24/7 monitoring from xfinity home. awarded the best professionally installed system by cnet. simple. easy. awesome. call, click or visit a store today.

all right. that wraps up this hour of msnbc live. it is time now for "up" with david gura. >> this is "up". i'm david gura. as chuck schumer demands testimony from witnesses we have not yet heard from, new information on what the office of management and budget did to freeze aid to ukraine. dozens of new administration emails made public and important insight into what they are thinking. congressma