edition of msnbc live. i will see you tomorrow morning on today. "andrea mitchell reports" starts right now. >> right now on "andrea mitchell reports," tomorrow is the day, so says nancy pelosi, as the house prepares to send the two impeachment articles to the senate. after holding them back for nearly a month. >> i think we have a speaker that knows exactly what she's doing. russia, are you listening? the same russian military spies who hacked the dnc in 2016, targeted the ukrainian energy company which once employed joe biden's son. >> we know the russians will leak and disclose this information to try and interfere in the 2020 election. and family feud. going into tonight's democratic debate, the last before iowa, a fight breaks out between bernie sanders and elizabeth warren over whether a woman can win the

presidency, as sanders's aides go into damage control. >> those conversations can sometimes get misconstrued. ♪ good day. i'm andrea mitchell in washington where nancy pelosi says the house will vote tomorrow on impeachment trial managers and sending those articles of impeachment to the senate but she's keeping secret the now of the names who she's choosing to run the trial. this has leaders saying they will not move to dismiss the case. mitch mcconnell's highest priority appears to be to protect vulnerable republican senators up for re-election against charges that the trial is just a sham. joining me now, kasie hunt, michael steele, and adam

jentleson, a chief of staff to harry reid. welcome all. kasie, what's the latest? >> reporter: andrea, we just actually saw the speaker walk right behind here. she neglected to answer the question as to whether or not she was ready to name the impeachment managers, but that's the next step we're waiting for. tomorrow she will formally name the managers on the floor of the senate. and that will be kicked off in a resolution on the house floor. they still have to vote on that to officially trigger sending those articles across. and when that happens, you're going to see a really formal process. this is all laid out very carefully in what reads like a pretty arcane set of rules that have been laid out to do this. it's all very steeped in procedure and tradition and history and has obviously only happened really one other time in modern times, of course, when we would have had any television

cameras, an ability to see as the public -- what is occurring here. so we're waiting for all of that to start to unfold. she's keeping her cards very close to the vest. we have a general idea of who these managers might be. adam schiff is at the top of the list. she and schiff conferred privately for quite a while after their meeting this morning with the broader democratic caucus. he really is the one that she is spending the most time with. we know jerry nadler, the judiciary chairman also likely to be involved and there are a few others as well likely to be included. in the clinton trial, as you know very well, there were 13 managers that were sent over by the house. there seems to be a feeling here that would be too many. so i would be surprised if you saw that many named as a part of this. but of course, again, nancy pelosi being very careful to keep her cards close and not let this get out into the public

until she's ready for that to happen, andrea. >> and the calendar makes it complicated for senators who are jurors as well as running for president. so the house republican leader, kitch kevin mccarthy, created some problems this morning by suggesting that maybe joe biden should suspend his campaign in fairness to his senate colleagues. >> if there's anyone who gains from this, it would be anyone who's running for president that's not in the u.s. senate. with iowa quickly upon us in early february, those four senators who are running for president will now no longer have a voice. if you look at the true political of nature of why, to harm one campaign and give a benefit to another. the only rightful thing of joe biden is to make a pledge not to campaign while bernie sanders cannot. >> michael steele, as a former

republican national chairman, i'm sure joe biden is taking advice from the house minority leader. >> after they heard that, they said, that's a good -- maybe we should think about that. >> let's drop out for now. >> the timing can be a problem. it will be a problem for those senators who have to sit silently. it gives an opening for joe biden. but, look, joe biden doesn't need to have this trial to be a boon for him. he's watching what elizabeth warren and bernie sanders are doing right now. so from his perspective, look, they're going to campaign and do what they need to do, with the iowa caucus coming on the heels of all of this. republicans know they control as much as they want, but they also have something they're up against the wall too, the narrative that the speaker has put in place has taken a bite out of their energy going into this. it is now begun to -- as we've seen and you've reported and others, created some movement

among some republican senators to possibly think about calling witnesses. this is going to cut both ways potentially, politically, for both parties. >> and, adam, you've watched the senate for so many years, mitch mcconnell is a master technician, he's pushing back and saying they're not going to move to dismiss before the opening arguments, something the president tweeted would be a great idea. mitch mcconnell has to protect vulnerable republicans who are up for re-election. >> that's true. if he had the votes to move to dismiss, he would have done it. he tries to give the impression that he's in control. but i think that, you know, a quick trial would not have been easy for vulnerable republicans but a long trial might not also be easy for them. it might give them more political cover to hear witnesses and hear the substance. ultimately, if he had had the votes to quickly just dismisses

it and move on, he would have done it. >> i think john bolton might be the game changer here. lamar alexander was the last to speak with you. let's watch the senator who's not running for re-election and has always been an institutionalist. >> we're not going to dismiss the case, we're going to hear the case. we have a responsibility to be as impartial as we can under these circumstances. no motion to dismiss and yes on a guaranteed vote on whether we need witnesses or other documents. >> kasie, who are the others, i would assume susan collins, lisa murkowski, a couple of others, adam suggested that mitch mcconnell doesn't have 51 votes to cut it off before they get started. >> my sense is that adam has the

right sense of things here. to the extent that mitch mcconnell says things in public and with confidence reflects what he is hearing behind closed doors. if he's not saying he's going to put on a motion to dismiss out there, that's what he wants to do, it's going to be because he doesn't have the backing inside his conference. we've learned that from talking to these senators and our team as you point out, spoke with, lamar alexander, he's an interesting one. he reflects something that has kind of gotten lost in the last couple of years of covering the trump administration and it's the idea of the weightiness of the history of it and a pretty sincere, it seems to me, reflection on what this moment in history means and what we have seen unfold. the partisan -- i got a little bit of a chance to watch this from afar when i was on leave with my son the last four months. and the ranker that we have

descended into as a country, it's impossible to miss and stepping back into it just has been a very harsh reminder of how difficult things really are. lamar alexander has been somebody who's close to mitch mcconnell. and mcconnell is a fighter, somebody who puts the politics above all else to very significant effect, franklin. senator alexander is very close to him. and he's reflecting the weighty sense of history that i do think the senate is going to start to feel here even amid all of the partisan ranker and harshness. when you go back and read -- peter baker has quoted from the diaries of many of the senators who were here during the clinton impeachment, they've thought a lot about it. i think there's significant pressure -- yes, political pressure, but also a sense of

personal history and import among these republicans that we're talking about. >> i think everyone should take maternity leave for a while and gain some perspective, kasie, because you had that wonderful time at home with your infant son. and michael steele, she's so right about how toxic it's become, even more so than the clinton impeachment which i was here for. mitt romney is another republican senator who has so much at home in utah that he doesn't have political worries. but without that, he has been saying, let's all slow down and take this seriously. >> the test for me -- i take to heart everything that casey just said. but i can't help falling back on the men and women i know in that senate on the republican side. i ate lunch with them for two years and got to know their thinking and watch that ark of

pure partisanship get stronger and deeper among them. and that's going to be hard for them to overcome. folks like lindsey graham and even mitch mcconnell himself have set the bar so dangerously low to irresponsibility or from the public's perspective, a lack of trusting any particular outcome here, that it's going to be hard for them i think to really step into that history and do the right thing at the right moment and overcome the partisan call not to vote for witnesses, for example, and instead go, no, what i've heard from the house despite how crazy they get to their conclusions, calls on me now to want to ask for questions and inquire from others about how this whole thing fell apart or came together. >> adam, the john bolton factor, they're going to have to look people in the eye and say, i don't want to hear from a

first-hand witness who was quoted in sworn testimony as saying, i don't want any part of this drug deal. >> what you're saying, i think what it all comes down to is that there's going to be no viable reason for republicans -- senate republicans at the end of this trial to vote to acquit except for pure partisanship. i think over the course of this trial, the case that's going to be laid out is going to be so ironclad. the question of having witnesses like bolton is going to be tilted strongly in favor of having him testify, if you're going to side with trump on these things, the only reason you're going to be able to do it is because of pure partisanship and i think that's going to come through the public. >> thank you so much for joining us. and kasie hunt, thanks very much, kasie. and coming up, back to the future, signs that russia may be trying to interfere in the 2020 election with a new hacking

attack right in the middle of this impeachment inquiry. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc. ♪ when we see you enter through our doors. we don't see who you're against, or for. whether tomorrow will be light or dark. all we see in you, is a spark. we see your kindness and humanity. the strength of each community. the more we look the more we find the sparks that make america shine.

♪ and mine super soft? yes! with the sleep number 360 smart bed, on sale now, you can both adjust your comfort with your sleep number setting. can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. and snoring? no problem ...and done. so, you can really promise better sleep? not promise... prove. only at a sleep number store save $1,000 on the sleep number 360 special edition smart bed, now only $1,799. only for a limited time and now for their service to the community, 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. ♪ or here on a wifi hotspot. lte xfinity mobile has more coverage to keep you connected to what matters most. that's because it's the only wireless network that automatically connects you to millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, save even more with $100 off galaxy a50. click, call or visit a store today.

stunning new allegations today that russian military hackers were targeting the ukrainian gas company at the center of the president's impeachment trial. burisma holdings was the apparent target of a phishing

campaign by the same russian military agency indicted for its role in the 2016 hack against the dnc and john podesta. joining me now is kristen welker at the white house. this is extraordinary. and now we understand from ken dilanian who has done an interview with the top intelligence official against election hacking, they're investigating this as well. >> reporter: they are investigating this as well. it's an extraordinary development. let me tell you what we know so far, we know that these most recent attacks began in early november. that's just as congress was holding impeachment hearings. the goal was apparently to trick employees into giving up their account information like usernames and passwords. important to point out, andrea, it's not clear what the hackers were able to find or exactly what they were looking for. but it comes as president trump is facing an impeachment trial over his efforts to pressure ukraine to investigate former vice president and his son joe

biden and his son hunter who served on an ukrainian energy company. the bidens have said, they've not done anything wrong. overnight, adam schiff stressed how concerned he was about these revelations and he said it's exactly what bob mueller had warned the russians would do, that they would try to meddle yet again in the u.s. election. the biden campaign is responding to this report saying, quote, donald trump tried to coerce ukraine into lying about joe biden. now we know that vladimir putin also sees joe biden as a threat. i've reached out to multiple officials here at the white house, andrea, so far no response. but, again, as you say, that top dni election official did tell our ken dilanian that the u.s. is tracking the gru having activity including those efforts to hack into burisma. and as we are on the air right now, just moments ago, hillary clinton tweeted this, russians

appear to be rerunning their 2016 hacking playbook once again to benefit donald trump. she goes on to ask a series of questions including will the russians help pick our potus again. she's already weighing in as we continue to drill down on specifically what may have happened here, andrea. >> kristen welker, thank you so much for that update. and joining me now is eric swalwell who serves on the intelligence and judiciary committees and was running for president yourself this year. first of all, what do you know about this recent report? >> not enough, andrea. that's the problem is that myself and especially the gang of eight were not told either. but it's clear that russia is still listening. russia is still attacking. and as far as i see it now, knowing that this president in the past has invited, welcomed and planned to benefit as a candidate from russia's help, if

he does not condemn this, i and many americans will hold him as complicit in any attack on any candidates that seek to benefit donald trump. >> congressman, one of the things that was stunning about this, we first learned it from the "new york times," just as rachel maddow was going on the air last night, she had both senator schumer and adam schiff, who both are members of the gang of eight, the top eight leaders in both parties who are supposed to be notified of critical intelligence, and they read about it in the "new york times." how can the administration defend the intelligence community defend not having alerted them to something this important? >> we can't. and this is exactly what happened two weeks ago with the iranian attack where we took out general soleimani, where the president did not tell the gang of eight, he told the gang of mar-a-lago, where he was telling his friends and other senators there and his son who put out a tweet saying this was coming.

the president has cut out congress. and you have to conclude that that's because the congress has continued to hold him accountable. he's not just punishing and hurting us. he's putting our troops at risk and putting our democracy at risk if we're not able to help defend them. >> do you think that adam schiff should subpoena or your committee should subpoena others to talk about this and this apparent threat? >> chairman schiff has said he's going to do everything possible to make sure we're in a position to defend the upcoming election and is we're not helpless as we were right after donald trump was elected. we have the majority now. there's a lot we can do and i'll leave it to mr. schiff as to what exactly that is. we will be better able to defend our democracy than we were in the first two years of the trump administration. >> you were in the caucus, obviously, with the speaker today and i know he's not naming the managers yet.

it's clear that adam schiff and jerry nadler are going to have big roles. how many managers, how quickly can this all get started? when would you have the trial first starting, do you think? i know it's the senate rules. but you have a pretty good insight. >> my sense is that as soon as the articles are transmitted, they are taken over to the senate and the senate would begin the trial. now they could of course wait a couple of days until they actually receive evidence or opening statements. but what's most important to me is that in the last few weeks, while we've held onto the articles, we've achieved a lot more the american people. 70% of americans want a fair trial. we've talked about this rigged outcome. two, you have a witness like john bolton who was saying i was not willing to testify before, but i'm willing to come forward now. and third, we've seen more and more documents that back up that the president was running this corrupt scheme, including

documents that came out two weeks ago showing that 90 minutes after the phone call, the aid was cut off. we've received a lot. and hopefully we have a better and more fair trial when those articles are sent over. >> can you do two things at once? can you subpoena john bolton while the senate debates or doesn't debate whether or not to have witnesses and get his testimony on the record before the trial is over? >> we don't want to do that but we're not going to rule that out. also, a quinnipiac poll yesterday, when asked about whether john bolton should testify, 66 americans said he should. hopefully three other senators on the republican side join senator romney in calling for john bolton to come forward. he's a relevant witness who could aid the investigation. >> congressman, thank you very much. >> of course. my pleasure. coming up, slash and bern,

fireworks expected tonight as bernie sanders and elizabeth warren face off over her charge that he told her back in 2018 a woman couldn't win the presidency. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports." stay with us for his response. >> man: what's my safelite story? my truck...is my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. ...with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

fine, no one leaves the tablefine, we'll sleep here. ♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win.

and just hours ahead of the last democratic debate before the iowa caucuses, a major clash between long time allies, elizabeth warren and bernie sanders over whether sanders warned warren back in 2018 not to run because he thought a woman could not win. senator sanders is categorically denying that assertion. his campaign manager telling nbc news, i believe strongly what we are talking about here is a lie. joining me now from des moines is nbc news political reporter shaq brewster and karen tumulty. we have the two of them going at each other. let me read what warren said in defending her claim that this actually happened.

bernie and i met in 2018 to discuss the 2020 election. among the topics that came up was what would happen if democrats nominated a female candidate. i thought a woman could win, he disagreed. bernie and i have far more in common than our differences on punditry. if she was going to be that categorical about it, there's so many ways to cast this, yes, we're friends, we talked. i thought that trump was going to go after any woman running. but he flatly denied it. now it's an issue of character. >> reporter: that's right. this is something that has caught both the campaign and i think senator sanders himself off guard. this is not what they wanted to be talking about as they headed into this debate. you've seen a shift in how the campaign is responding this issue. you saw the forceful response from senator sanders saying it was ludicrous that he did not

believe a woman could win this election. his campaign manager came out and said that it was a lie, a total fabrication. but then you had that statement from senator warren which completely contradicted what they were saying with this. if you read that statement as you just read that statement, that last line where she said she's not looking to talk about this anymore. you're hearing that similar tone from the sanders campaign. they want to move beyond this. they wanted to come into tonight's debate with the target on vice president joe biden. we've been talking about iran and the military escalations over the past couple of weeks, that's what they wanted their attention to be on. this morning they released an ad focused on sanders' support of women's issues, family paid leave, protection of planned parenthood, for example. they want to move on beyond this and i think this is a situation that took them a little bit off course. you're seeing them course correct at this moment, andrea? >> karen, do you understand the

calculus behind warren letting this -- putting this up there on the eve of a debate? >> sure. this is a -- we're under three weeks out from the first ballots being cast. iowa is extremely fluid right now. in the last four polls, we've had four different front-runners. but this is a dangerous thing for both of them. the history here in iowa has been when two candidates go at it like this, for instance, dick gephart and howard dean did this, this is probably at this point could actually help joe biden. >> and, shaq, what about joe biden? is bernie going to pick that fight with him voting for the iraq war? isn't that ancient history to a lot of voters?

>> no, not at all. and the campaign actually just released an ad on twitter, a video, not necessarily a paid advertisement, but a video on twitter that put bernie sanders up against vice president biden, comparing their records. if you go back to before this latest episode with senator sanders' campaign and the warren campaign, that's where senator sanders was focused on, on the trail. he said he wanted to come into tonight's debate focused on joe biden. he wanted to have the discussion about their records. he was going on vice president biden on his iraq war vote. this kind of took them off course. and you see them trying to pull it back in, trying to refocus. that was the message from the campaign manager on twitter last night. he said stay focused and that's what they're trying to do right now. >> and, karen, in the latest polls for both iowa and new hampshire, you've got a difference with sanders on top and one and not in the other case. sanders doing very well.

warren down some. and joe biden doing well in that monmouth university poll. the fact is, it's a cluster of four. does amy klobuchar have a chance to punch through tonight? is this her last chance to kind of show her stuff before iowa? >> you know, i have found out here just talking to people sort of observationally, i think amy klobuchar has a lot of support here that is not necessarily showing up in the polls. she has a lot of support of people -- state legislators, people who are on the ground across the state. and you have to win the iowa caucuses like the electoral college, you have to win everywhere. i think amy klobuchar will have the potential to surprise. i don't think she wins it, but i think she does better than what a lot of people are expecting.

>> that's what she'll need to keep the money flowing in for new hampshire and beyond. thanks so much, karen and shaq. we'll talk to you after the debate. coming up, the credibility crisis, why can't the president and his national security team get their stories straight about why he ordered the killing of a top iranian general? you're watching "andrea mitchell reports." stay with us right here on msnbc. stay with us right here on msnbc. taken a penny in contributions from any special interest. ever. independence - it's the way mike will get it done. mike: i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message.

this round's on me.eat. hey, can you spot me? come on in. find your place today, with silversneakers. included in most medicare advantage plans.

enroll today by calling the number on your screen or visit getsilversneakers.com ♪you got to ac-cent-tchu-ate the positive♪ ♪ e-lim-i-nate the negative ♪ and latch on to the affirmative ♪ ♪ but don't mess with mister inbetween ♪ ♪ you got to spread joy up to the maximum ♪ "it's okay, you got this" ♪ bring gloom down to the minimum ♪ "slow it down a little" ♪and have faith, or pandemonium "it's okay" ♪liable to walk upon the scene♪ have health care coveragerkers because mayor bloomberg got it done. he'll build on obamacare with universal coverage and lower the cost of prescription medicine. mike will get it done. mb: i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message.

big questions about the president's credibility when he claimed that he ordered the killing of iranian's top general because of an imminent threat to attack four embassies. on sunday, the defense secretary said he's seen no such evidence and william barr tried changing it saying it was because of the long-documented terror attacks. >> i do believe that this concept of imminence is something of a red herring. when you're dealing with a situation where you already have attacks under way, you know there's a campaign that involves repeated attacks on american targets, i don't think there's a requirement, frankly, for, you know, knowing the exact time and place of the next attack and that certainly was the position of the obama administration when it droned leaders of terrorist organizations. >> a couple of things about that, joining me now is jeff

mason, white house correspondent for reuters. jeff, as you well know, it was the administration who raised the subject of imminence, that's the standard that they put out there, pompeo and of course the president himself, and expanded on it. if he can talk about it on fox, how can mike pence say we can't talk about what the justification is? the droning of terrorists is not the same as droning and killing a general who is part of a state government. >> sure. >> there's a legal distinction there. >> and you have to listen to william barr's comments. it made me think they're showing a little bit of regret not saying at the beginning this was not about imminence. what you've heard trump say, repeatedly, this is a bad guy, we needed to get him. for something as weighty as potential war with an adversary like iran, they didn't have a

clear and still don't have a clear, consistent explanation for why they did that particular attack. >> and, you would think that their messaging would be coherent. here they are at the dribrink o something, went from all that we've seen now from northern iraq, you've seen the pictures. the iranians did attack sleeping quarters on a base and it's only because we had this early warning system, our own very sophisticated warning system of incoming missiles that they were down in the bunkers. >> absolutely. i was standing in the white house the day that the president same out and made his remarks after those attacks and, you know, there was a sense the night before and the night -- or that morning of, you know, we could be at the brink of war. and messaging matters. at that point and on everything else. but in this case, it's really -- it's really been something that

has failed them. and they have created some tension, actually, with some of the president's supporters as well and some of his outside advisers have thrown up their hands and said what's the deal here in the weeks and days around that announcement. >> and my reporting is there were no alerts to the embassies, none of the required warnings that would indicate that they knew of an imminent threat, other than the previous attack on the baghdad embassy. >> yeah. >> jeff -- >> more to come. >> more to come. exactly. thanks so much. and coming up, our viewer's guide, how is the upcoming impeachment trial going to play out? stay with us on "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. let me tell you something,

i wouldn't be here if i thought reverse mortgages took advantage of any american senior, or worse, that it was some way to take your home. learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse mortgage loan to cover expenses,

pay for healthcare, preserve your portfolio and so much more. a reverse mortgage loan isn't some kind of trick to take your home. it's a loan, like any other. big difference is how you pay it back. find out how reverse mortgages really work with aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage guide. with a reverse mortgage, you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait, and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. discover the option that's best for you. call today and find out more. i'm proud to be a part of aag, i trust em, i think you can too.

that's unnecessarily complicated. make ice. making ice. but you're not because you have e*trade which isn't complicated. their tools make trading quicker and simpler so you can take on the markets with confidence. don't get mad get e*trade. so you can take on the markets with confidence. breathe freely fast, with vicks sinex. my congestion's gone. i can breathe again! ahhhh! i can breathe again! ughh! vicks sinex. breathe on. tit's great actually, i've been listening to audible. it's audiobooks, news, meditations... gotta go! ♪ ♪

hey! you know, i do think it's weird you've started commuting when you work from home. i'll be in my office. download audible and start every day off right. once the house votes to send the articles of impeachment to the senate tomorrow, what happens next? the calendar is very tight indeed. the actual trial is expected to start next week which would leave two weeks until the iowa caucuses, followed by the preside

president's state of the union address. the following week, the year's next landmark political event, the new hampshire primary. bill clinton's impeachment trial was under way when he delivered his state of the union speech. that was not an election year. joining me now is harry litman, a contributing columnist for "the washington post," and brian fallon, former spokesperson for senator schumer in the senate. you've never seen this, you weren't there for the clinton trial, but you know the rules of the road. mitch mcconnell really has all the cards. does schumer have some leverage if he wants to fight for a floor vote? >> he does. we've seen a show of force by mitch mcconnell. he came out last week bullish and confident saying he had the caucus aligned to begin the trial on his terms. and that's true. so when the articles of impeachment come over, they're

going to be able to begin the process, he has mitt romney aligned behind him. what's been interesting is we've seen a softening among republicans on the question that for now they've punted which is, will they allow for witnesses later on in the process? that's not going to be contemplated in the original resolution that mitch mcconnell sets up to begin the trial. but you've seen senators come forward and sayi at a later point, they might be open to voting for witnesses. and really, he's got a lot of points on his side. we've never had an impeachment trial in the senate that has not had witnesses and you've seen polling showing that 60% of the public believes there should be witnesses that puts people like susan collins and cory gardner in colorado in a tough political situation. >> and harry litman, as a former prosecutor, you know this is not a trial-trial, it's a political trial. and the jurors are the 100

senators. they're going to take an oath of impartiality even though mitch mcconnell has said he's made up his mind and so have many of the others. >> i think that will be the initial skirmish and we'll see how ugly and political this will be. i think you'll see a motion to actually disqualify mcconnell on the ground that he can't be impartial, and it will be the first of many times the chief justice roberts is put in an uncomfortable position. and just to echo, brian, i agree with him completely. the road is being paved now for witnesses and it's hard to imagine what would happen in the opening statements that would make the romneys of the world say, now we don't need to hear them. i think in the last week or two, the behind the scenes movement has been in favor of hearing bolton and some witnesses that the republicans want like hunter biden. >> well, can you imagine,

though -- harry, let me ask you about that. hunter biden arguably is not relevant to what the president of the united states did. so would there be a relevance argument as to -- thim as a wit. >> he doesn't meet the low threshold of relevance. in the senate, 51 senators can call noon-midnight, they prevail. it's still possible and it might be a political deal. but you're totally right and there will be a motion that will go to chief justice roberts saying this guy is not relevant and will, again, on the -- in a place where he really doesn't want to be, but i think there will be such rulings that come to him. >> and if we take our queue from mitt romney and several of the other republican senators who are either not feeling -- well,

who are not feeling the white house pressure so much as the pressure of re-election or mitt romney who's trying to do his job, john bolton is a game changer. it seems to me, seems to me it' difficult, brian, for them to say, nah, i don't want to hear the guy who was in the room, who called it a drug deal, who knows first has been what happened and is writing a book and talking to high paying clients. >> the important thing is chief justice john roberts. people are underestimating the role he may play because they think back to rehnquist who was mostly a potted plant in that proceeding. but he was able to be a potted plant because the two leaders, the democratic and republican leader, agreed on how the proceedings would occur so he could sit back and let the two

work it out. here you have the two leaders at war with each other so there's nothing to stop democrats from making motions to john roberts directly and trying to get him to overrule this fracas. i think he's loath to be seen as part of mitch mcconnell's sham trial. so that's an added source of leverage i think for chuck schumer, the fact that he can play upon john roberts' desire not to be dragged in the middle of this. i think john roberts will be sort of ex parte, having conversations with mitch mcconnell, saying figure this out with chuck schumer, i don't want to be in this position. >> boy, this is loaded with drama. thanks so much. big news to share about a short documentary film we previewed at the "meet the press" film festival, an extraordinary film called "learning to skateboard in a war

zone if you're a girl." it's been nominated for an academy award, one of three shorts to be nominated on a list of only five. it documents the tentative steps towards physical freedom of young girls in kabul as they learn to break cultural and religious norms for women and fly fry. their exuberance is infectious, inspiring, and touching. check it out online, you'll love it. we'll follow its success, we hope. coming up next, a bridge to far. a return to bridge-gate with pete williams, coming up next. t. t. one more bite! ♪ kraft. for the win win.

this morning, i terminated the unemployment of bridget kelly effective immediately. i terminated her employment because she lied to me. i would never have come out here four or five weeks ago and made a joke about these lane closures if i had ever had an inkling that anyone on my staff would have been so stupid but to be involved. >> well, they were. bridgegate is back, the scandal that dominated national politics six years ago, marking the beginning of the end of new jersey governor chris christie's

presidential aspirations made its way to washington and the supreme court, that's where the former deputy chief of staff and port authority executive are fighting their convictions for violating federal fraud statutes. nbc correspondent pete williams joins me. i hear there was a surprise guest in attendance at the court? >> reporter: governor christi was here. normally you prosecute a public official for corruption, it is a classic case of sticking your hand in the till, taking public money, using it for themselves or having the plow for the mayor's house. when these two officials declared three lanes to fort lee closed in retribution for the mayor of fort lee not endorsing

chris tee's re-election campaign, they were taking authority to close lanes by claiming it was a traffic study and that was a lie, and that's the government's theory here, that they misappropriated a public resource with a lie. the problem with that of course is that they didn't take anything for themselves. nonetheless, that's the prosecution's theory. i would say the supreme court was skeptical about that today. i think many of the justices feel this would turn the federal fraud statute into as one of the lawyers for one of the two said, would make the government the ministry of truth and lead to prosecution of anytime public officials fudge, give an incorrect reason for something that they have the authority to do, say, for example, the city sends the plows to plow the street first of political supporters of the mayor, but says we're doing it for public benefit. that's not misuse of the plows, they're plowing public streets

but would be a false statement about why, and i think it is that kind of thing the supreme court is worried this prosecution could lead to. i would just say, andrea, that there's a pretty good chance, i can't say for certain based on questions, there's a good chance the supreme court may toss the convictions out. >> have they served time or paid penalties or was it pending appeal? >> she hasn't yet. baroni started a sentence, was out on bail and will be out on bail until the supreme court rules on the case, if it throws out convictions, he won't go back. >> pete, fascinating case. pete williams at the supreme court. thank you so much. that does it for us for this edition of andrea mitchell reports. more news with ali velshi for "velshi and ruhle." >> have a great afternoon. it is tuesday, january 14th. coming up on "velshi and ruhle," lawmakers are gearing up for president trump's impeachment

trial. also breaking down the evidence against donald trump so far. and iran is facing a new crisis related to the passenger jet crash last week. some arrests have been made. how much will this strain the public's trust in leadership. hours away from tonight's debate. could help decide who wins iowa. watching for that as six leading candidates take the stage. we're getting a clear picture of president trump's impeachment trial. nancy pelosi says the house will vote tomorrow to send two articles of impeachment to the senate, and that's according to several sources in today's meeting. pelosi will also announce the house managers, who they will be that will prosecute in the senate. a number of lawmakers speculate what the next few days will look like. >> there are a number of maens fully qualified to do it. obviously leaders will be schiff an