speaking, a little bit aways away from you, we're seeing some of the lawyers for the democratic house members who have worked closely with several of the chairs. several of whom had speaking roles, they're leading the beginning of this procession and this day. garrett will stay with us throughout the coverage today. we turn now to kristen welker. this president does many things differently than other presidents. he ran on that type of pledge. and when faced with this challenge, unlike past presidents, clinton, nixon and others, he boycotted the house proceedings which means it will be the first time america hears from them. what do you know about that team he's shaping and what else the white house is thinking today. >> the white house's strategy was to effectively try to block

any senior administration officials past or present from participating. so moving forward as they approach the senate trial, we know so far a few of the people who will be on the team. white house council will be leading the president's defense team. he is really going to be one of the key people who will be arguing. you will hear from them on a daily basis throughout the course of this trial. then jay sekulow. he's the president's personal attorney. remember, jay sekulow has been with him throughout the mueller investigation and so this is someone who the president relies on and who feels as though he's a fighter, someone who he can win with. we know that two of the deputies will be on the team. here are the key questions that remain unanswered. will the president be bringing on gop lawmakers to his legal team? i asked kellyanne conway a little bit earlier today, are they looking to jim jordan, for

example, someone who they feel is good at representing them during the house proceedings, she said no final decision has been made yet. if they did decide to go in that direction, the lawmakers would take on more of a support role. according to my conversations here at the white house today, we should know by the end of this week, specifically, who will be on the president's defense team. president trump remains defiant unlike former president bill clinton. no apologies from this president. yesterday he was here at the white house signing onto the china trade deal, talking about the impeachment proceedings, calling everything a hoax and i think from a political standpoint what you're going to see from this president is some counter programming. we saw that yesterday when he was signing onto that china trade deal and next week he is currently scheduled to go to davos. i will be traveling with him. that will provide him another chance. >> we turn now to chris matthews, host of "hardball."

the senate is supposed to change today as the trial begins. how do you think it will change and how won't it? >> well, i'm really stunned by the language that the sergeant arms of the senate is supposed to read to the senators when they're all in their seats. all persons are commended to keep silence on pain of imprisonment and the oath they have to take is to do impartial justice. and of course this is against the backdrop of what mitch mcconnell, the republican leader of the senate said, about how he's going to be working with white house lawyers for whatever purpose, i assume to get the president acquitted. there's really going to be a shift, at least, in appearance from the politics to now the impartiality demanded by the constitution. there's one thing that -- apart from the law and even the process, what's really missing here is what was there in the nixon era. i remember people driving past the white house when you could

still drive on pennsylvania avenue, right past the white house, blowing their horns, we want nixon to resign. the people were in the streets. this was a national involvement thing with lots of participation in the move to get nixon out of office. nothing like that today. no rallies. no protests, no parades. there's no one in the streets. no one holding signs. the public doesn't seem to be arosed to that level like they were with the civil rights movement -- >> chris -- >> it isn't like that today. >> as you draw that contrast, i should note, our viewers are watching here, paul irving leading this group of the seven house managers, some quite recognizable, adam schiff, hakeem jeffries and several others. chris as we take those in with the contrast that you mention that perhaps it is a very different climate outside of

this building, what comes to your mind in these individuals making this procession here for the last time towards this trial, these democrats pelosi's put in charge. >> it's been a long walk. this has been a long walk. they have been working on the issue of impeachment for months now. in fact a month ago the house voted to impeach. it seems a little bit delayed now. i think that's part of the reason why the drama isn't so public. it's not popular in the country. you don't hear a lot of noise about it. it's in the newspapers. it's happening here as a tne of the down sides of pelosi's decision to hold this up, obviously, is there's a lack of drama. it isn't coming right off of the impeachment vote in the house. it's coming a month later. the good side is for those who want truth and justice is we're getting the parnas interview last night with our colleague, rachel maddow, and you're getting them to come forward and talk about the mob. you're now hearing key players

saying the president knew every single thing that was going on. >> and, chris, let's listen in to leader mcconnell. thank you so much. >> the house of representatives to exhibit the articles of impeachment against donald john trump, president of the united states. >> the hour of 12 noon having arrived and a quorum being present, the sergeant in arms will present the managers on the part of the house of representatives. >> mr. president, members of the -- i announce the presence of the managers on the part of the house of representatives to conduct proceedings on behalf of the house concerning the impeachment of donald john trump, president of the united states. >> on the part of the house will be received and escort today the well of the senate.

>> the sergeant in arms will make the proclamation. >> here ye, all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the house of representatives is exhibiting to the senate of the united states articles of impeachment against donald john trump, president of the united states. >> the managers on the part of the house will now proceed. >> mr. president, the managers on the part of the house of representatives are present and

ready to present the articles of impeachment which have been preferred by the house of representatives against donald john trump, president of the united states. the house adopted the following resolution which with the permission of the senate i will read. house resolution appointing and authorizing managers for the impeachment trial of donald john trump, president of the united states. resolved that mr. schiff, mr. nadler, ms. lofgren, mr. jeffries, mr. crow and ms. garcia are appointed managers to conduct the impeachment trial against donald john trump president of the united states. that a message be sent to the senate to inform the senate of these appointments and that the managers so appointed may in connection with the preparation and conduct of the trial exhibit articles of impeachment to the senate and take all other actions necessary which may include the following, employing

legal clerical and other necessary assistance and incurring such other expenses as may be necessary to be paid from amounts available to the committee on the judiciary under applicable expense resolutions or from the applicable account of the house of representatives. number two, sending for persons and papers and filing with the secretary of the senate on the part of the house of representatives any pleadings in conjunction with or subsequent to the exhibition of the articles of impeachment that the managers may consider necessary. with the permission of the senate, i will now read the articles of impeachment, house resolution 755. house resolution 755, impeaching donald john trump president of the united states for high crimes and misdemeanors. dald j president of the united states, is impeached for high crimes and

misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the united states senate. articles of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives of the united states of america in the name of itself and of the people of the united states of america, against donald j. trump, president of the united states of america, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. article i: abuse of power. the constitution provides that the house of representatives "shall have the sole power of impeachment" and that the president "shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." in his conduct of the office of president of the united states and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of president of the united states

and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, donald j. trump has abused the powers of the presidency, in that: using the powers of his high office, president trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, ukraine, in the 2020 united states presidential election. he did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the government of ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his re-election, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 united states presidential election to his advantage. president trump also sought to pressure the government of ukraine to take these steps by

conditioning official united states government acts of significant value to ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. president trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. in so doing, president trump used the powers of the presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the united states and undermined the integrity of the united states democratic process. he thus ignored and injured the interests of the nation. president trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means: (1) president trump, acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the united states government, corruptly solicited the government of ukraine to publicly announce investigations into (a) a

political opponent, former vice president joseph r. biden, and (b) a discredited theory promoted by russia alleging that ukraine, rather than russia, interfered in the 2016 united states presidential election. (2) with the same corrupt motives, president trump, acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the united states government, conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested (a) the release of $391 million of united states taxpayer funds that congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to ukraine to oppose russian aggression and which president trump had ordered suspended; and (b) a head of state meeting at the

white house, which the president of ukraine sought to demonstrate continued united states support for the government of ukraine in the face of russian aggression. (3) faced with the public revelation of his actions, president trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the government of ukraine, but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit. these actions were consistent with president trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in united states elections. in all of this, president trump abused the powers of the presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. he has also betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in

corrupting democratic elections. wherefore president trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. president trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the united states. article ii, obstruction of congress. the constitution provides that the house of representatives "shall have the sole power of impeachment" and that the president "shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". in his conduct of the office of

president of the united states and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of president of the united states and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, donald j. trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the house of representatives pursuant to its "sole power of impeachment." president trump has abused the powers of the presidency in a manner offensive to, and subversive of, the constitution, in that the house of representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry focused on president trump's corrupt solicitation of the government of ukraine to interfere in the 2020 united states presidential election. as part of this impeachment inquiry, the committees undertaking the investigation served subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed

vital to the inquiry from various executive branch agencies and offices, and current and former officials. in response, without lawful cause or excuse, president trump directed executive branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. president trump thus interposed the powers of the presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the house of representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the "sole power of impeachment" vested by the constitution in the house of representatives. president trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means, (1) directing the white house to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the committees. (2) directing other executive

branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the committees, in response to which the department of state, office of management and budget, department of energy, and department of defense refused to produce a single document or record. (3) directing current and former executive branch officials not to cooperate with the committees in response to which nine administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely john michael "mick" mulvaney, robert b. blair, john a. eisenberg, michael ellis, preston wells griffith, russell t. vought, michael duffey, brian mccormack, and t. ulrich brechbuhl. these actions were consistent with president trump's previous

efforts to undermine united states government investigations into foreign interference in united states elections. through these actions, president trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the house of representatives in the exercise of its "sole power of impeachment." in the history of the republic, no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the house of representatives to investigate "high crimes and misdemeanors." this abuse of office served to cover up the president's own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of

impeachment and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the house of representatives. in all of this, president trump acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the united states. wherefore, president trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. president trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the united states.

mr. president, that completes the exhibition of the articles of impeachment against donald john trump, president of the united states. the managers request that the senate take order for the trial. the managers request leave to withdraw. >> thank you, mr. schiff. the senate will notify the house of representatives when it is ready to proceed to trial. >> mr. president? >> majority leader. >> the information senators pursuant to yesterday's order at 2:00 today the senate will proceed to the consideration of

the articles of impeachment. the chief justice of the united states will preside over the trial as required and article i section three clause six of the united states constitution. also, under the previous order, the presiding officer has been authorized to appoint a committee of four senators two upon the recommendation of the democratic leader to escort the chief justice into the senate chamber. i ask that the proceeding officer do so now. >> the chair pursuant to order january 15th, 2020, on behalf of the majority leader and the democratic leader, appoints mr. blunt of missouri, mr. leahy of vermont, mr. graham of south carolina, and ms. feinstein of california to escort the chief justice of the united states into the senate chamber. >> with further information of senators, there will be a live quorum called prior to the

arrival of the chief justice at 2:00 p.m. today. i ask unanimous consent that the senate stand in recess. >> without objection. the senate stands in recess subject to the call of the chair. >> and there you have it. the united states senate has heard from these house managers that we now see departing that senate chamber beginning the formal process, teeing up the trial of the president of the united states. as you heard the leader mcconnell and senator grassley just state the senate will return as planned at roughly 2:00 p.m. to begin the swearing in of the chief justice and the senators as this senate becomes in the constitutional sense a jury. we're watching the house managers here make their departure. our panel is here and i want to turn to senator claire mccaskill

first for what we're witnessing and what comes next. >> what the senators are doing at this moment is going to lunch. the republican senators are going to the mike mansfield room which is right outside the center doors of the chamber and the democrats are going to the l.b.j. room. and this is where the leaders work their magic. this is where the leaders try to keep everybody unified. this is where they talk about messaging and how they're going to handle this and what kind of things they should be talking about if in fact they're coming on this network or any other networks. and of course mitch mcconnell has a big job. he's trying to hold those four votes for no witnesses which has become much more difficult in the last 24 hours with the parnas bombshells and with the documentation that is now surfacing and the gao determination that this administration broke the law. once we're back in -- and we

have the picture of the senate up, i'll be happy to spend some time talking about the layout of the senate. the major differences you're seeing in the way the senate chamber looks right now, the tables down in front are for the clerks. that's where the clerks both sit. they keep track of who has voted and who hasn't. they work with the respective leaders of the floor for the staffs. then behind them are the employees of the u.s. senate. those are the ones that sit right under the president of the senate's chair. and one of those people is probably the most important person in the chamber and her name is elizabeth mcdunna. she's the first woman parliamentarian of the senate. when senators are speaking from the dais and you see it on c-span, you don't see elizabeth. but she's telling them what to say. >> she's the ghost writer in realtime. >> she's giving them the script

of what the procedural language that must be used whether you're voting on an amendment or trying to determine whether something is in order. so elizabeth is the one who they will turn to when it's time to use the right language, when it's time to ask questions about the procedures. now, the difference is that in this situation everything is up in the air in terms of the rules according to what a bare majority says. within the confines of that room, they can decide to call witnesses, they can decide to dismiss it. they can decide to have live witnesses in the chamber, all determined by 51 votes. and the chief justice can't change proceedings, watch elizabeth because she will be turned and talking to the president of the senate and telling them what to say and do. chuck grassley is up there because he's the most senior member of the republican party.

dianne feinstein and pat leahy will escort -- >> and today senator grassley will yield to the chief justice. >> he will exit as the most senior republican and -- by the way, usually the most junior members are on the chair. you don't want to preside. it's long hours and mostly to an empty chamber and you get a golden gavel if you preside for 100 hours. i managed two golden gavels because i had to preside so often. i was so sick of presiding. >> the entire panel stays. i want to bring back in from washington chris matthews who was speaking to us before this procession began. your thoughts now that we are formally entering the trial? >> you use the word formally. i love the way it was done. adam schiff who is interesting point there, he's the one that presented the charges, the articles of impeachment, and the reason for them, basically, the

charge against the president, the accusation, if you will, the indictment. and it wasn't jerry nadler, the chairman of the judiciary committee. once again the speaker has preferred to use adam schiff. the other thing i noticed was the complete disconnect between the public languages by the president and the formality of the proceedings. i'm looking at somebody named shifty schiff, not the member from california, but shifty schiff and crazy nancy. we have a president who's almost in the clown corner speaking in the language of an 8-year-old about a formal proceeding of the united states government under the constitution. we still have -- we still have that strange disconnect between the weird behavior of this president and the seriousness of what's going on here. >> speak to us before we lose you. you're off to do a few other things on this day. what we're seeing is what is prescribed by the constitution. if viewers feel this is

something we rarely see and it looks even more tradition or old-school than usual, that's because it is. the oath that you highlighted for us chris, the summons by the sergeant in arms. the notion that silence will be enforced by potential imprisonment, these traditions are up against, as you remind us, a twitter presidency. >> and so so much of that building that senator mccaskill served in and i worked in is all about tradition. it's the statues to remind us of the great people of the past to try to inspire us. it's about the great republic we have. everything is to get people to be at their best behavior, to rise above their problems in life and be great people. that's what this chamber is about to try to inspire us. i think we're going to see some of that, i hope, and i also understand that this next couple, two to three weeks, is going to be an opportunity for crazy partisanship because every day will get tremendous press

coverage, nightly news starting at 5:00 will be going right through it. there will be tremendous opportunities for partisanship. i noticed that rand paul is going to be an enforcer for the president, ironically. this is not going to be above partisanship, yet the formality of what we're watching is about how the constitution imagined a great republic would operate. >> we have a lot more today but it was quite a night to watch hardball where you can always catch chris matthews. we lose him, but we go over to capitol hill where garrett haake has been keeping track of everything. how does it feel now that this has begun? >> reporter: it really does feel historic. i've been talking to senators about this yesterday. some were on the floor last night when the house impeachment managers first came over. all of them on the floor for now for this. you can tell there's a change in

demeanor. there have been physical changes around the senate spaces too. they're turning a lot of the rooms around the senate floor into work spaces. they have installed in the cloak rooms and hallways cubbies for senators to leave their mobile devices. there's a photo i took of one, just off the senate floor, before they go onto the floor. they're going to enforce a 21st century version of an 18th century decorum of the floor -- >> we're looking at your photo. you said you just snapped this. and technically, electronics are generally banned, but senator mccaskill was telling us earlier they're really enforcing it this time. what we're looking at is this physical shelf that the senators are going to deposit their phones. it means they're not allowed to talk and text like a very important movie, if you will. >> reporter: that's right. this is a rule that has always been on the books but almost never enforced. you see senators, you know, texting, tweeting, using their

phones on the floor. not taking phone calls, but using them in other ways on the floor all the time. that won't be the case now. in fact, the senate is going so far as to install additional medical detectors to make sure that those of us in the press don't try to smuggle our phones in to aid with reporting or check our instagram accounts, whatever they think we might be doing up there. that's the sense of the morality of this and the physical changes happening all around the building. one other point of this that i don't think we should lose sight of, senators have widely diverging levels of how much they've been paying attention to this. if you weren't on one of the committees dealing with impeachment, you really didn't have to pay that much attention to it until the vote. all 100 senators are going to be forced in a very straight forward way to pay attention to

all of this for a protracted period of time in a way that just hasn't happened yet. for many of these senators, what they know about the trial is what they've seen us talking about the tv. they're not going to be -- >> you make a great point and it goes to what the senate jurors are going to do and, garrett, i'm ping-ponging from you to one of our colleagues, kasie hunt who is with one of those senators. >> we're here with senator kamala harris, a former 2020 presidential candidate and one of the jurors in this trial. can you just start by taking us through what -- the moments that you just experienced on the floor of the senate and what the task is at hand. >> i mean, this is a solemn, serious moment. these are the most serious charges ever brought in the history of your country against a president and the moment that we just experienced is i think highlighting the importance of doing impartial justice and

taking seriously the importance of listening to the evidence and the importance of receiving evidence both in terms of witnesses and in terms of documents because the american people and the constitution of the united states -- in honor of the constitution of the united states require that we demand all evidence so that we can follow the facts and the evidence where they lead. >> do you think the senate is capable of conducting a fair trial? >> if the united states senate cannot conduct a fair trial, then we can talk about the beginning of the end of our democracy and our system of justice. >> what do you think at point democrats would be willing to do in terms of making a deal to hear from witnesses? there have been conversations about mr. bolton but also hunter biden from republicans. is that something you think we may see at the end of the day? >> i don't think this is the moment to make deals. this is the time to be in pursuit of justice and that means bringing in all relevant facts and evidence so we can

determine doing impartial justice, the veracity of the allegations and make a determination of whether the president should be found guilty. >> you've been a prosecutor. do you think that lev parnas is a credible witness for the prosecution here? >> i think he should be brought before us so that we can determine his credibility. there are many ways to judge credibility. but there's no question that the interviews that have occurred in the last 24 hours bring to light facts that should be pursued and should be reviewed by us in the united states senate. >> thank you very much for your time. there you have it, kamala harris calling for additional witnesses. she suggested that lev parnas should be called before the senate. >> kasie, thank you for getting an important interview and as you say, you just broke some news. leader schumer was putting out four witness names, senator harris there adding a fifth as you say. that's news in terms of what

some of the democrats are saying. she's a judiciary committee member. we'll come back to you when you have more. we're going to be coming back to you a lot during this trial. i bring back my panel. and we've talked so much about tradition, decorum, about everything that leads into this trial. i turn to you as a political reporter among other things to talk about what does it mean that donald trump got himself here, the first elected president ever impeached in his first term, someone who delights in the fairest way you could say, he brags about defying norms, rules and laws when he talks about rats, shooting someone on fifth avenue. what do you think of the way that donald trump's conduct got him here? >> donald trump can't break all the norms. as much as he tries, as much as he tried to tear down what america is, at the end of the day there are still some

processes and procedures that he has not been able to destroy and you see that today. the formality, the consistency of it, look, we all know this is going to be a partisan exercise. this is like the pledge of allegiance before a football game. but the president hadn't been able to stop that and i think that's significant. and another step of this that i think is key, we talk about this being a jury. it's not a normal jury. if you've gone through jury duty, you can't use your phone, yes, they're going to hand notes back and forth, but you have senators who have something to say and they're going to be sitting there all day taking notes and rushing for the doors to talk to whatever reporter they can get to. >> i always lean both into our expertise on this panel, but the breaking news, chuck schumer, four witnesses, mcconnell had a plan, zero witnesses. romney and collins are talking about some, certainly not more than four. kamala harris is coming out right now on live television here with kasie hunt with five. she's supporting the schumer

plan plus lev parnas. how unpredictable will that play out? that's something that donald trump appears uncomfortable with which is the idea that some jurors in both parties will take this seriously to find the facts. >> right. and that's the challenge. the president wants this to be a big dog and pony show. unfortunately there are people who are committed to getting this job done. the challenge of course is, again, it's not a fair jury. you have democrats who are running against the president. you have republicans who have already announced no matter what happens, i will never vote to impeach -- >> for all the talk about mitch mcconnell, there are democrats who also have a conflict. >> exactly. elizabeth warren, amy klobuchar, senator bernie sanders. these are all people who would benefit from donald trump getting impeached. but at the end of the day the challenge to this process is to who can message the best way, whether it's the president or the people in the senate, who can message this is a formal, respectable process and that's the challenge on the outside. >> and that's the outstanding

question, basically. i've been thinking about norms too. you see one every day norm of the senate being broken which is all 100 senators sitting there quietly in their seats at their desks listening atentatively. that's not what the senate usually looks like and it certainly signals that this is a very special occasion. but, you know, here we have this formal process that reflects our norms, that reflects our ideals, that is designed to make us think about the best we can be. think about fairness and justice and america and checks and balances and separation of powers and all of that. but the trial is of a president whose whole thing is breaking

norms. in any way he possibly can, in the way he talks, in the way he tweets, in as chris matthews said the nicknames he gives to his political opponents. and so in a few hours, we will literally be able to say that the jury is out on whether -- on where we stand on those norms. you know, has this president and this presidency broken them in a way that will really be difficult if not impossible to repair or do the norms hold? >> i think there are two issues here, one is that when you have a person who in this case happens to be donald trump, who doesn't care about the law, they rarely care about the norms because often our norms are

governed by our laws. we don't want people shooting people in the street which is why we have a law against murder or reckless endangerment. if you don't care about the law, you don't care about the norms. i think the other thing is, what are the ways in which our founders constructed a way of maintaining norms through our system of government? and one of them was that we were all supposed to care beyond party about the constitution itself. we could debate laws, we could debate what laws should be written, what laws should be passed. we don't debate the constitution, we don't debate the form of government in the sense of separation of powers. and what donald trump has essentially done is not just donald trump. it's the republican party saying no matter how much evidence, we don't want to hear the evidence. no matter how much this president violates the constitution in terms of denying

our ability to have any degree of oversight, that, that is beyond a norm. that is the senate being complicit. >> that goes to the question of how the trial runs and what senators have to do. we've been going from the hill, to the white house, to our panelists. and we're now joined by andrea mitchell, host of "andrea mitchell reports," right here on msnbc. and andrea, i'm interested in all of your thoughts on the big day, in addition, your views on some of the developing news in the findings from a government group about whether the ukraine aid was properly handled by this administration and the implications of mr. parnas breaking his silence? >> first of all, lev parnas and whether or not he's going to be permitted as a witness, certainly the documents that were turned over before the articles were actually approved and brought over to the senate,

those -- that evidence can be included. whether he should also be as part of the evidence. republicans already overnight including susan collins saying this shouldn't be part of it. the rachel maddow interview should not be part of it. he is not to be trusted as a witness as senator lindsey graham indicated. there's going to be that fight as well. the ukraine government today announcing an investigation -- >> on that fight, let me play a little bit of the interview for your analysis given your knowledge of all of these players in the state department and as you say the idea that should mr. parnas be on the documents, should he testify? senator harris saying moments ago he should. you'll give us the analysis on the other side. >> president trump knew exactly what was going on. he was aware of all of my movements. he -- i wouldn't do anything without the consent of rudy giuliani or the president. i have no reason to speak to any

of these officials. they have no reason to speak to me. why would president zelensky's inner circle or minister or all these people meet with me? who am i? they were told to meet with me and that's the secret that they're trying to keep. i was on the ground doing their work. >> andrea? >> first of all, what he said about president trump and rudy giuliani fits perfectly with the sworn testimony from state department and national security council white house witnesses during the impeachment hearings. so he has evidence that backs that up. he has documents that back that up. where it gets a little dicey is what was said to brian last night pointing out that he is a cooperator, that evidence has to be brought in as to whether or not he knows what he's speaking about when he talking about the attorney general bill barr,

well, he had to have known. that's secondhand. there is more information coming from that interview about mike pompeo. there's strong, strong criticism of mike pompeo for not having said anything about the allegations that maria yovanovitch, the former ambassador, not only was pressured out of office, we know that, not only did the president criticize her in the phone call to zelensky, but now more accusations that she was actually being surveilled, being followed, that giuliani and lev parnas and this very questionable character robert hyde in connecticut was somehow following her around. they seem to have evidence that they knew where she was, what her movements were. that is a violation of the vienna conventions. ukraine announced an investigation. the gao report is really dispositive. that's a violation of the law. it's saying that the president used -- withheld that money -- and, yes, you could say it's

because of policy, not because of politics, he claims. but the difference is, he didn't have the right to do that under any circumstances. that came out today. can that be part of the evidence supporting the central fact here that zelensky was being pressured and being pressured for the personal reasons of the president. he could say he's not, but we have plenty of evidence from those witnesses that it was. and, you know, finally, new information that we've just confirmed today on nbc and msnbc that senate republicans, the administration, the intelligence community is being pressured by the white house, clearly, to not testify in the annual threat assessment. this is a public testimony. it happens every february. it's all of the intelligence chiefs and then it's the worldwide threat assessment. then there's a classified afternoon where they go behind doors, house and senate, alternating each year, senate versus house comes first. last year, notably, the intelligence chiefs contradicted

the president. they contradicted the president on whether kim jong-un would ever agree to denuclearize, on whether russia was a threat against the 2020 election campaign as it was in 2016, they contradicted the president on whether isis had been completely defeated and that was dan coats and to gina haspel and the others, it's the fbi, the head of defense intelligence. this is a signal moment and that i know reporting, that led to the eventual departure of dan coats at a critical moment. >> you stitch it all together. i know you've been balancing between this and msnbc news today, but what you're stitching together is notwithstanding everyone keeping an open mind as to the trial, which the senators will ultimately discharge their duties. and there are many people where there's criticism of a president that doesn't rise to the extreme

constitutional remedy of removal. what you're stitching together is the evidence that there's a national security issues here that are being revealed through this. before we lose you, i want to also plain germane to your comments about parnas, here was senator collins with regard to witnesses and seeming to kick the can back to the house, quote, i'm perplexed the house is sending over some additional information which should have been concluded earlier. the reporter says it was just made available. the senator says, well, then that means the house rushed this proceeding, doesn't it? i'm curious your analysis of that and parnas before we lose you. >> it makes no sense. she seems to be looking for any excuse to get away from having all of the evidence that could be available and the question that democrats and many republicans as well or

independents are going to be asking, why don't they want to know all of the facts if they're going into a trial? so clearly the republicans are in charge and those decisions will be made by mitch mcconnell. but i understand that the democrats are going to challenge this even up front on tuesday. they're going to be challenging before they get to opening arguments whether or not these witness issues can be determined before they go in. they could lose there because we've heard from collins, from mitt romney and others that they want to have that debate, if you will, a procedural debate after the opening arguments. all of this should be included. and let me say again about the intel, you can imagine what questions would have to be addressed by the intel chiefs if they testify in public which is, what was the predicate for killing soleimani? >> andrea mitchell laying out a lot of interesting facts in evidence. thank you as always. we'll be coming back to you throughout the day. we turn to matt miller, a

spokesman of the justice department. your thoughts on what we're seeing as this trial begins. >> you know, i think the last couple of days we're in the pomp and circumstance phase. but we still have another phase to go to before we to before we get to the substantive phase, it goes to all of the questions that you talked with andrea and other panelists, the process. it is now thursday. we still don't know what the rules governing the trial will be, what the rules of evidence will be, what the rules of witnesses will be. mcconnell keeps saying the rules will look something like the clinton rules, the rules that governed clinton's impeachment, no one on the democratic side and prosecutors that are supposed to bring the case tuesday don't know what they're going to be. there's an old saying in washington that the person that controls the process controls the outcome and mcconnell still keeping this process secret, and the fact that no one outside of

the republican conference, and you know, we don't know how many senators inside the republican conference know what the rules will be. tells me there are real questions that are alive about how much evidence prosecutors or managers are able to present, when they get witnesses, whether witnesses will testify before the full senate, and i suspect that mcconnell still has a trick or two up his sleeve. i hear concerns from democratic senators and people on the hill that this trial may look even less fair than we already think, based on the fact there may be no witnesses at all that are presented. >> which would be a new precedent every other impeachment trial having witnesses, mcconnell and others on the record. people have probably seen clips advocating for them. he did tip his hand, whether you want to call it fair or swift, he tipped his hand in saying he would be open to try to dismiss this outright, he just doesn't have votes. stay with me.

historian on the historic day. what do you see as important for viewers to keep in mind as we're now just about over an hour away from something that people have never seen before with this chief justice, him being sworn in to preside over the senate trial. >> you're so right, ari. we're seeing scenes of history that are somber and unusual. and they're supposed to be because as you know, the framers were worried that impeachment would become something that was almost routine, that it would be like british parliament, if you didn't like a president's policies, you impeach him, throw him out. belying that is the fact only three times in history have we seen a scene like today's. one thing that ceremony does is it conveys a message, and the message i think today was this is not business as usual. the walking the house managers and people from the house from the other side, walking onto the

senate floor, that's something you almost never see. it was almost like a visit from another planet. the language that was being used, the language like threat of imprisonment, that's not something you normally hear on the senate floor. the other amazing thing to me is how much this resembled this scene 21 years ago when bill clinton's trial began. you had house managers walking onto the floor. but this is the year 2020, it's not 1999. you see a much more diverse group, smaller group coming in, and the president pro tem of the senate is not as it was in those days strom thurmond of south carolina. >> one of the things we know, we'll be looking back to what the rules are. this book which we'll be using more and more, there are 26 rules for impeachment trials. as viewers heard, a majority can change, many of them, all but some of the basic constitutional

foundations, but as you know, michael, in the back of the rules section when you read it, there's just a bunch of history, and doesn't say whether you have to follow it or not, it says that back in the day during one other presidential trial the chief justice decided he could cast tie breaking votes. doesn't say whether that's the case starting today, doesn't say whether mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer get to push that history onto chief justice roberts, it just sort of sits there. curious as a historian what you think of that. >> i think what you said was perfect about history. you can follow it or you don't have to, that's what we're going to see in the next number of weeks. the other thing, remember during the last month we heard from a lot of people, it is cut and dry, you know it will happen on the senate floor once the trial begins, the last 24 hours have shown us that that's not true, and another way these trials change, there are votes that change rules so trials can be very different from what's gone

on before. >> what do you think is on chief justice roberts' mind when we know a little bit, we know that he has always positioned himself as an umpire. there are other members of the court appointed by presidents of both parties, whether you look at scalia, marshall, that see it more of a moral conscious. he does not. what does that tell us about his swearing in an hour away? >> an institutional conservative, what we've seen is this suggests someone doesn't like things to get out of hand, whatever his own ideological views is striving for some kind of balance. we will probably see that in hi senate floor, but as you know as much as anyone, ari, he comes into this in a position that doesn't have remotely the power the chief justice does on the supreme court. he is there basically to carry out senate rules and guide here

and there where he can. >> when you put it like that, sounds like he's traded a great deal of power for more scrutiny in this televised role, leading the courtroom usually with cameras off. not a trade he is used to taking. >> it is in the constitution. >> well put. michael beschloss, thank you. chief roberts will show up to the senate in the next hour, escorted by newly appointed senators to swear him in, then he will swear in senate jurors. we have so much more. experts stay. we are bringing in brian williams and nicolle wallace to lead special coverage when we come back after this quick break. r this quick break. i've always loved seeing what's next.

and i'm still going for my best, even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'll go for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk

better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? sharing my roots. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you.

which is why xfinity mobile data,is a different kindent. of wireless network that lets you design your own data. choose unlimited, shared data, or mix lines of each and switch any line, anytime. giving you more choice and control compared to top wireless carriers. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, save even more with $150 off galaxy a70. click, call or visit a store today. ♪ ♪

♪ our coverage continues. good afternoon, brian williams with nicolle wallace from nbc news headquarters in new york. it is hard to overstate the importance of what we're seeing unfold on capitol hill this afternoon. it has happened only two other times in our nation's history. at this hour, the senate is formally in possession of articles of impeachment against president donald john trump, following the process painstakingly laid out in the rules on impeachment. next