americans. now the ukrainians are looking into it. thank you and we are sorry ukraine. rachel's exclusive part two interview with lev parnas is on tonight at 9:00. pop some popcorn, sit down, you won't want to miss any more of that. in the meantime, my thanks to chuck, elise, rick, jason, most of all to all of you for watching all day long. that does it for us. inspect daily with katy tur who has been hackeling me from inside the studio for the last ten minutes is in for chuck todd. don't miss her. she starts right now. ♪ >> heckling and coughing lovingly, welcome to thursday. it is "meet the press" daily katy tur in for chuck todd. this morning senators swore an oath to be impartial jurors in the president's impeachment

trial. that oath was administered by supreme court justice john roberts who will preside over the trial. with house managers set the make their opening arguments just days from now the white house, the president's lawyer, rudy giuliani, the vice president's office and the justice department are trying to distance themselves from a key player in the ukraine pressure campaign. lev parnas is talking publicly pour the first time, speaking the my colleague rachel maddow despite facing felony charges in the southern york for allegedly breaking campaign finance laws. with an impeachment trial now under way over the president's effort to get ukraine to dig up dirt on his political opponents, parnas is implicating pretty much everyone in that apparent scheme, the vice president, the attorney general, devin nunes, and of course the president. >> president trump knew exactly what was going on.

he was aware of all of my movements. he -- i wouldn't do anything without consent of rudy giuliani or the president. >> are you saying specifically -- i want to sort of drill down on that that the president was aware that you and mr. giuliani were working on this effort in ukraine to basically hurt joe biden's political career? he knew about that? >> it was all about joe biden, hunter biden, and also, rudy had a personal thing with the manafort stuff. it was never about corruption. it was never -- it was strictly about burisma, which included hunter and joe biden. >> parnas's public comments come as the house intelligence committee released hundreds of pages of documents turned over by parnas's lawyer. it also comes as a key government watchdog, the u.s. government accountability office, concluded that the trump administration broke the law when it withheld military aid to ukraine. this afternoon at the white house, the president repeatedly claimed he knew nothing about

parnas. >> well, i don't know him. i don't know parnas other than i guess they had pictures taken. i don't know him at all. don't know what he's about. don't know where he comes from. know nothing about him. i don't even know who this man s. i don't know him. i know nothing about him. i don't know him. i don't believe i have ever spoken to him. i don't believe i have ever spoken to him. i don't know him. i have never had a conversation that i remember with him. >> parnas told rachel, quote, he knew exactly who i was, and that is where we begin tonight, breaking down parnas's claims, and his credibility, and what his splits with team trump means as this historic impeachment trial begins. i'm joined on set by nbc news investigative correspond end tom winter who has been reporting on parnas's case since he first emerged as a figure in the impeachment inquiry. carol lamb, and msnbc's danny is a val owes. carol, i want to start with you,

the president said repeatedly, he knows nothing of parnas. we should be clear, he has been photographed with parnas a number of times. the president gets photographed with a number of people but he has been photographed with him a number of times. rudy giuliani would was working with parnas. rudy giuliani is very close to the president. and rudy giuliani sent a letter to parnas's lawyer how the president okayed parnas working by himself working with the president. >> okay. there has been a lot of structure put around the theories about what's going on with the president and zelensky and parnas. but what you see coming out now are just more and more facts that are substantiating what everybody has been saying all along. we have not seen any facts except for denials like the president said today, just sort of broad denials. that's counter-acting any part of the narrative that the democrats have been saying thus

far. and that's what -- you for example at a certain point you have to look at what all the building blocks are building. i think that's what is happening here. there is just nothing on the other side factually to counter-act the narrative that is coming out. >> there are a number of documents, we just said it, that the house has that potentially will back up what parnas is saying. he has notes on ritz-carlton paper from kiev. he's got a letter from rudy giuliani to president zelensky when president zelensky was still president-elect. he has the information. does that make him more credible. >> republicans will say these handwritten notes on the hotel stationery are self serving even if they were taken at the time of the phone call. but a letter from rudy giuliani if authenticated is very damning for rudy giuliani because it is a attempt by him. and the contents of that letter appear -- they open with something that's pretty

incriminating. just so you know, i am not acting on behalf of the president i am acting as his personal attorney. the fact he would say that shows that jool joule knows if he was writing a letter on behalf of the president then that might not be good. you can read that right between the lines that letter is not good for rudy giuliani even if he thinks it exxon rates him. i think i am paraphrasing but he even says i am the president's personal attorney. it is a bit of an,y moron. how -- it's the president. can you separate the two and think about them in terms of his private interest. >> you can say rudy giuliani was totally freelancing and the president knew nothing about it. that's the question. sounds like no. >> right. and at the core we have to talk about the credibility issues. this presents a classic corroborating witness dilemma. a criminal defense attorney would stand up in court and say this person here is charged with a crime. he will say and do anything to save his own skin. but government's traditional response is, look, it takes a

criminal to catch a criminal. this person is doing his penance for the crimes for which he is charged. >> i want to ask this, does this story fit too neatly into the narrative the democrats are pushing? is it too down the line with what the democrats are saying, this was never about corruption, it was totally in the loop, bill barr knew about it. it is the dream testimony for the documents' case. >> i think that anybody, any prosecutor would say you can take this man solely on his word. maybe it does play a little bit too neatly into the narrative. ma last night that are -- you know -- >> that were questionable? >> well, they are a stretch, right. he is saying oh, everybody was in the loop and he's extending and such. but -- and you have heard this probably 100 times today. corroboration is what it's all about. and the notes, the letters, the texts on his phone corroborate

very, very critical points of what he said. >> there was one point in the rachel maddow interview that you flagged for us that you said is dubious. i want to play that portion of the interview and then have you explain it. >> sure. >> so the exchange with mr. fear tash was going to be you provide us information that will be detrimental to the public perception of the mueller investigation, and we, in turn, will get your case dropped at d.o.j. so you won't get extra indicted to the united states anymore dejen have a and miss tensing were going to become his lawyers to effectuate this trade? >> correct. >> and you were supposed to broker this? >> correct. >> what's this $100,000 a month. >> expenses for them. >> you were supposed to negotiate this is what they get paid? >> correct. >> were you getting paid in the interaction, too? >> mine is not in there. they were getting $1 million plus $100,000 a month on expenses. and mine was $200,000.

>> that's a bit in the weeds. it is a bit wonky and names that might be familiar but people don't know. explain. >> joe and victoria, two of the president's most ferocious defenders on fox news. >> often appear together. >> often appear together. whether together or apart they are pro-trump all the way. that's within their rights. but another person, dmitry officer to be, he is somebody close to paul manafort, somebody the u.s. government believes is absolutely at the top rungs of russian organized crimes, somebody who has made hundreds of thousands of dollars in profits, part of reviews we did at nbc news, part of gags trades. this is somebody who makes a lot of money -- one of the things we do when we watch these interviews is look for what people don't say.

lev parnas didn't address that his wife got a, quote, unquote, loan from one of officer to be's cronies a year ago. it went into his wife's bank account. it was spent on flights, and on flat wire transfers of $100,000, in one instance $200,000. when we look at that money flow we start to wonder who is financing this? who is paying for rudy giuliani's trips? how is he able to afford to conduct this investigation? how is lev parnas able to fly around? who is he up to? who is involved. >> you are making an argument to have him testify under oath, have him testify where if he lied about something or untruthful about something he could get more jail tight. he has not testified under oath. >> there is no indication he has a cooperation agreement with federal prosecutors. we haven't heard if he has testified before a federal grand

jury. >> he is also claiming attorney general bill barr knowing about anything, holding the aid in exchange for investigation into the bidens, knowing it wasn't about corruption and knowing it was about furthering the president's interests. >> it is the biggest stretch, the implication of bill barr. basically saying, he must have known about it. as to bill barr, there needs to be a little more corroboration. but you know, what tom just talked about to me was quietly an explosive refuse wlags that people aren't really talking about today. if fur tash needed -- if there was an offer the fur tash, you have got an extradition problem, you are indicted, we are charged with a crime. >> weeks pick it for you. >> we can make it go away. and part of that is that as parnas admitted he would get paid $200,000. if there is a chain from trump to jewel and parnas, and parnas is an agent of rudy, who is an agent of trump then i think parnas just got $200,000 to make

a criminal prosecution go away. in the past we talked about theoretically selling pardonons as being an example of an impeachable offense. i am not saying that's what it is but it is darn close? we have to be careful because we know that victoria and joe dejen have a went to the attorney about push tash's case and he rebuffed them. that is still an open indictment out of chicago. >> that's different. that's advocacy, that's different. >> if they were their attorneys they can talk to the attorney general and talk to the president himself. >> absolutely. >> advocate for that ace. that's fine. important to note bill did not ascent to that, number one. number two, in this particular instance here, the representation is totally above board by joe and victoria. >> carol, in your opinion, what were you do if you were a house manage center how would you use

this information? >> i am going to go away from the bill barr discussion because i think that's stretching a little bit outside of where the impeachment investigation is going. i think -- i don't think you could possibly watch that interview with lev parnas and say, this is not a witness who -- and say this is not a witness who should appear in the impeachment trial. it is definitely relevant information. and you know, there is a -- there's a phrase that courts use when they are deciding what evidence should come in. they often say to the extent it's being attacked or challenged, that goes to the weight of the evidence, not the admissibility. that's up to the senators to decide how credible the testimony is. but it is definitely relevant. >> and listen, if he is testifying, he's under oath or in front of a congressional committee which means he has to tell the truth -- i would love it if nobody could lie to me. but you are not talking to a reporter and you have a reason

to completely tell the truth about everything. we have five seconds. >> we have seen the action that lev parnas has, that federal prosecutors have. it was a thin indictment as far as details on this case. as far as what we know that lev parnas has and more importantly what federal prosecutors have is very limited. >> i think you took 15 seconds but i will forgive you because that is a good point. guys thank you so much. ahead we are going to go to the capitol where the impeachment trial is beginning on the same day a government watchdog says the trump administration broke the law in blocking ukraine aid. and the senators pledge to do impartial justice. >> do you columnly swear in a in all things apertaining to the trial of the impeachment of donald john trump, president of the united states, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws? so help you god?

>> i do. p you god? >> i do. not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa

get a 4-course meal starting at $15.99. treat yourself to the perfect gift today, because the aussie 4-course won't last long! outback steakhouse. sleep this amazing? that's a zzzquil pure zzzs sleep. our liquid has a unique botanical blend, while an optimal melatonin level means no next-day grogginess. zzzquil pure zzzs. naturally superior sleep. >> man: what's my 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. ♪ here, it all starts withello! hi!...

how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! wifi up there? uhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today.

welcome back. as the pomp and circumstance of the senate impeachment trial played out on the hill today lawmakers both in the house and in the senate had major issues to contend with. there is the question of just how much the new information dropped this week by lev parnas will impact the trial, including if democrats will attempt to call him as a witness. there is also the report dropped by the g.a.o., the government accountability office earlier today that said the trump administration's withholding of aid from ukraine was illegal. and finally, there is nbc news reporting that the office of the director of national intelligence asked the house and senate intelligence committees to not hold open threats hearings this year because testimony the intel chiefs gave last year contradicted statements president trump had previously made. joining me now from capitol hill is my colleague garrett haake. garrett, thank you very much.

now that we have seen all the swearings in, all the pomp and circumstance what is are we going to see next? >> next week we will see the start of the trial in earnest. they have to agree upon some kind of rules package essentially an outline for what the trial will look like. we have been told repeatedly by republicans it will look like the clinton trial, in terms of time limits on both sides although no one outside of mitch mcconnell's leadership team has had an opportunity to look at the resolution yet. as for the new information we got today and how it will be included in the impeachment trial that's a bit of an open question. i asked chuck schumer at a news conference about an hour ago whether he would like to see lev parnas called to testify. schumer has been hammering home this idea they want four witnesses and relevant documents. i asked if he would want to have a fifth? he said it is not sure yet he

wants to see more documents and thinks that what parnas said in the interviews strengthens the case for the four witnesses who they already have. democrats i think feel more strongly about the gao report which shows that the administration broke the law withholding this money by violating the impoundment act. that seems to be more along the lines that at least the senators involved on the democratic side would like to see be made to their fellow senators. i think there is a bit of wariness of a parnas-like character being someone who they hang more of their case on than absolutely necessary. >> the argument from the gop has been the president didn't break a law, therefore he can't be impea impeached. but the gao said he did break a law, the impoundment act. -- is that the intelligence community asking the senate and the house to not inform the public because it might i think

aer the president? is that effectively saying we are going to stand by whatever the president says regardless whether it is truthful? >> i hate to try to speak for the intelligence community but that does seem to be the case here. lawmakers have said thank you for your concern but we still expect you to show up. this is one of the very few intelligence oversight activities that the intelligence committees in both houses do in public. so much of their work is done behind closed doors for obvious reasons. they fully expect these open threat marrying to happen in public as they do every year. >> i know that's not the major story today but i feel very strongly that's something that should be known, that we should shed a light on it because that is information in a the public needs to know regardless whether or not the dni or any of the intelligence chiefs agree with what the president is saying. >> it is done in the open for a reason. >> exactly. it is done in the open for the benefit of you and i and everybody else out there. garrett haake thank you very much. good luck out there. >> thanks. ahead, more on the bombshell, the interview that everyone is talking about. and what lev parnas' revelations

could mean for the impeachment trial. plus, impeachment is keeping elizabeth warren and bernie sanders off the campaign trail today. but it is not keeping their fight over electability out of the headlines. of the headlines. i have the power to lower my blood sugar and a1c. because i can still make my own insulin. and trulicity activates my body to release it like it's supposed to. trulicity is for people with type 2 diabetes. it's not insulin. i take it once a week. it starts acting in my body from the first dose. trulicity isn't for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, belly pain,

and decreased appetite, which lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. why fingerstick when you can scan? with the freestyle libre 14 day system just scan the sensor with your reader, iphone or android and manage your diabetes. with the freestyle libre 14 day system, a continuous glucose monitor, you can check your glucose levels any time, without fingersticks. ask your doctor to write a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. you can do it without fingersticks. learn more at freestylelibre.us

it's beautiful. you want to take it for a test-drive? definitely. we're gonna go in that. seriously? i thought we were going on a test drive. we are. a heavy-duty test drive. woo-hoo! this is dope. i've never been on a test drive like this before. this silverado offers a 6.6 liter duramax diesel that can tow up to 35,500 pounds. awesome! let's take these logs up that hill. let's do it. wow! this truck's a beast. are you sure there's a trailer back there? this is incredible. best test drive ever. [chuckle] conditions are protected.. vo: a broken promise. trump repeatedly tried to undermine coverage for 134 million americans with pre-existing conditions. mike: "he just doesn't care if you have a pre-existing condition he wants to deny you access to coverage. if he is re-elected, he'll keep trying to do that

and i think we can't let that happen." vo: as president, mike will lower costs, and protect americans with pre-existing conditio and i approve this message. secretary should consider new evidence as part of the senate trial? >> absolutely not. >> why not? >> because that's not our job. the job is to respond to what we have been given in the case

built by the house. >> we will see. we are about to go into a trial where the house managers will make their case. imagine that they are not going to hold anything back. and we'll listen to it all. i'll listen to it all. i'm very curious. >> welcome back. those were a couple republican senators today on the question of new evidence being considered in the impeachment trial. the question has become even more urgent today after the interview from lev parnas and the watchdog report that the trump administration broke the law by freezing military aid the you crepe. joining me now, steve kornacki, noah rothman, and former maryland democratic congresswoman donna edwards. everybody, welcome. tom, i am going to start it with you. lev parnas's interview, i know there is questions about his credibility. those are valid question, but does that put more pressure on somebody like john bolton to testify? somebody who had those direct communications with the president about ukraine? >> i think it does.

i mean, i think it puts more pressure on anyone who has firsthand knowledge about what happened in the president's attempt to extort the government of ukraine and president dl zelensky to come forward and testify. everybody knows in any given trial there is an opportunity to bring witnesses forward who may not have been available during the investigation, too bring evidence forward that may have come late in an investigation into a trial. trials involve evidence and witnesses and testimony. the american people know that, and they expect that from republican senators. >> let's play that moment from last night. lev parnas and rachel maddow talking about john bolton. wt mr. bowlon knew but i know mr. bolton was definitely involved in the loop because of the firing of marie yovanovich.

also his interactions with rudy giuliani. they started putting heads. >> but you believe he knows what the united states was pressuring ukraine to do? >> bolton? >> yeah. >> 100%, he knows what happened there. >> there are now some senators saying that any evidence that was introduced or has been introduced since the articles of impeachment were voted on should not be admissible in the senate trial. why would they not want everything that's come to light since then to be something that is debated in this official trial of the president of the united states? >> their ostensible reason is that they are not allowed to consider anything that the house hasn't considered. that strikes me as not only unconvincing but politically disadvantageous. john bolton has put republicans in a difficult position. he has said -- he has been consistent, if s&ped, i will testify. no one has yet s&ped him. not the house democrats and not the republicans. they might. >> why not? is it because they don't want to play that game with executive

privilege and go to the white house? >> well, they are going to have to. there was a subpoena for his deputy, kupperman that was withdrawn in november. when the articles were passed the court said essentially the venue is closed there is nowhere for this guy to testify. >> can this all happen in the senate? >> precisely. it will have to start over again. >> or with chief justice john roberts. >> i think they have to go back toll a federal court. >> steve, there is also -- it seems like everybody -- not everybody, a lot of senators are going into their corners on this. i want to play a moment that got a lot of attention that is telling about the ski of some parts of the senate, this is martha mcsally senator from arizona got her seat because she was appointed lost the general election initially interacting with a very well respected reporter from cnn. let's watch. >> should the senate consider new evidence as part of the

impeachment trial. >> you are a liberal hack. i am not talking to you. >> you are not going to comment? >> your a liberal hack. >> i think that was a fair question. i think most people have said that. since she said that trump war room has tweeted it out and told people where to donate for her campaign. i wonder, is this how it is being viewed for some senators to go after the press and fund raise. >> we keep talking about are there republicans in the senate might join with democrats she is from a swing state. she has a democratic pony sneent who is raising cash. >> a ton of money. the fact that before this trial begins she went out of her way to make that type of public statement. the trump team immediately jumped on it. i think it speaks to her aligning herself. i think you take her off the list when it comes to the idea. also, others in the same position, corey gardner,

colorado, susan collins. i am not saying they are going to do what mcsally did, but if she's making that statement in arizona in a swing state, i am not sure it is going to be different in colorado or maine. >> it was clearly a decision she made knowing full well it would get out there. donna, what about you? >> i have been looking at senators other than some of the swing state senators because i don't think that those senators really have any place to go other than to double down with donald trump. i am looking at mitt romney or, you know a richard burr. senators like that, lamar alexander. >> people retiring as quell well? >> who are retiring or who are in a position you know to have some independence, a measuurkom from the president of the united states. at least to ask for witnesses. it is not asking for removal yet. it is saying we want a fair trial and there should be witnesses to examine this

testimony and whether that information and that evidence is newly available in any court. john roberts has presided over trials. and he knows that evidence can come to light at the 11th hour in a trial. and it's up to the court to hear that evidence. and i think the american people understand that. and i think some of these senators are going to be very, very hard-pressed to say, no, we don't want to hear -- you know, hear no evil, see no evil, and let's double down with donald trump. i think it is going to be an ununtenable position. >> noah? >> imagine a world in which articles didn't pass in december. the last month has been very impactful, the case of impeachment. this month would have consisted of buyer request that released e-mails from officials pinning this on president trump, the g goa. now we have to litigate these

things and venues in which we cannot compel the truthful testimony. we sort of just have to rely on media interpretations of these events. and democrats have sacrificed the control. republicans have to face the exact same political hurdles that democrats did. if they are seen seen to rush this as democrats almost certainly have. or if they seem to rush to acquit. they will face a political backlash. >> from the republican voters. >> no. >> from the more moderate voters. >> we disagree on whether or not this means the president should be ejected from office. but there is little debate whether the president conducted himself in a matter unbefitting the office. it is whether or not the republicans want to conduct themselves in a mat ter befittig

their position. >> rand paul saying it has been echoed. if you are a republican who is about to break with donald trump on the question of calling a witness trump does not want called, do you have to make up for it politically by then voting for the -- i think doing that would then put pressure to go along with the rest of the party on that. on this idea of republicans feeling the political pressure i think there are a couple, maybe romney, maybe murkowski. look at the house. there were moderates, republicans not running for re-election, going off into retirement to open the inquiry. i am not talking about imimpeachment. to open the inquiry. >> look at -- he got slammed by the republicans and by the president and ultimately voted not to reopen the inquiry. >> look at the history of the

last couple of years of republicans who have been trying to thread that needle. both sides hate of the them. democrats said you are doing this. you are not doing that. >> mark sanford. stay with us. at the latest -- excuse me, and the latest episode of steve's article two inside impeachment podcast is now available. go get it. ahead, what to expect from next week's impeachment trial from somebody who knows. i am going to ask bob barr. we've got barr. he's coming up next. k bob barr we've got barr he's cinomg up next. get ready for the insurance-themed experience

of a lifetime. it's "progressive on ice." everything you love about car insurance -- the discounts... the rate comparisons... and flo in a boat. ♪ insurance adventure awaits at "progressive on ice." tickets not available now or ever.

the sergeant at arms will make the proclamation. >> hear yes hear yes hear yes, all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the house of

representatives is presenting articles of impeachment against donald john trump president of the united states. >> that solemn ceremony marked the formal beginning of impeachment of the president of the united states, donald trump. now the trial against, and president's attorneys and house impeachment managers have the next four days to prep their cases, which will be presented starting next week. at tuesday starting at 1:00 p.m. the senate will reconvene. and that is when we expect the rules for the trial to be determined. that resolution should include details like how many hours each side will have to present their case, how many hours of questioning each side will have, and whether witnesses will be allowed. here to give us an idea of the next steps is bob barr, he served as one of the impeachment managers during the clinton impeachment trial. welcome. we appreciate having you here. you are in a unique position right now. we are all trying to compare this trial to what happened in

1998. but there are not a lot of us out there who remember vividly what the trial looked like. 24 hour cable news was in its instantsy somewhat with msnbc and cnn. fox news had it for a time obviously. walk us through, what do you expect it to be like. as a house manager how much pressure are these folks going to be under starting on tuesday? >> they will be under a lot of pressure in a sense, katie, even more than we were, as you say, because of the, you know, the prevalence of 24/7 news and social media reporting and so forth. so that does increase to a degree the pressure on them. but the one thing to keep in mind, as i learned very early on, before we went over to the senate in january of 1999 as managers was that the proceeding in the senate, even though it is called a trial, it is not really a trial in many ways as i was

used as either a criminal defense attorney or as a united states attorney. each impeachment is very different. there is no set of rules that apply from one to the other other than just general rules such as for example, the senate, if it decides to, can call witnesses. but whether to call witnesses, whether or not to have any testimony in addition to what was already included in the house proceedings, those are questions that remain open. and in our case in 1999, the senate said no live witnesses, and they never allowed any live witnesses. they said no evidence other than that which was already in the public domain from the house side can be introduced. so we were under very, very limited circumstances. and that's the primary difference between a trial in court and a trial in the senate. >> times are even more partisan today than they were in 1998, which is hard to believe. how do you, as a house manager, make an argument that is of

senators who might walk in thinking they want no part in this and they have already made their decision on how they will vote? >> well, you have put your finger on the key difference between a real trial and a senate trial n. a real trial, of course, you make every effort in the voir dire or questioning of potential jurors to ensure that you don't have jurors that have already made up their mind. in a senate trial such as we are going to see next week, every one of those 100 men and women or very close to 100% of them have already pretty much made up their mind. so your job is made very difficult to convince any of them to move off of the position that they have already taken either publicly or just in their mind. so there's really very little room to maneuver which is why i think the democrats are so interested in trying to get new

evidence and witnesses, because they realize that without that things are going to remain pretty much as is and the president will be acquitted. >> are you making your case to the senators, though, or are you making your case to the american public? >> we all like to say we are speaking to the american public. but they are talking to the senators. the senators pretty much as i say have already made up their mind. and what the job of the managers really is to try to identify those two or three or more senators that they really have an opportunity to sway them to their 150id. so there is a little bit of room to maneuver, but not very much. but theory and hypotheticals aside those managers are speaking to the senators to try to sway a few of them to their side, which is very difficult. >> just to add a little color. you said back in 1999 the senators had very little interest to the case. it was apparent to us in those

days preparing our case they had no interest in matter but did so because of the importance to dispose the impeachment according to its constitutional responsibilities. the next big fight is going to be about rules. one of the big fights is whether there will be witnesses. mcconnell says he is going to adhere closely to what happened in 1998. what does that mean for witnesses? >> it means there likely will be no live witnesses, exactly where we were in 1999. we had no live witnesses. one way sort of out of this m a morass that they find themselves in would be to apply rule 11, rule 11 of the senate rules on impeachment allows for the venue to be transferred to a committee of the senate. that could be the judiciary committee. and under senate rules already, that committee could receive new evidence, hear testimony from live witnesses, and then simply

report its findings back to the full senate. so that would be one way to have live witnesses, but not before the senate itself, which a lot of senators don't want. >> bill clinton impeached in 1998. the troil was in 1999. excuse me for misspeaking. former congressman bob barr. bob, thank you for joining us. we appreciate your expertise. ahead, the tense moment where elizabeth warren accused bernie sanders of calling her a liar. and how progressive democrats are responding. "1917" has been nominated for ten academy awards.

including best director, best original screenplay... there's only one way this ends. and best picture of the year. last man standing.

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. ♪

a lot will happen in your life. wrinkles just won't. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair's derm-proven retinol works so fast, it takes only one week to reveal younger looking skin. making wrinkles look so last week. rapid wrinkle repair® pair with retinol oil for 2x the wrinkle fighting power. neutrogena® you should be mad your neighbor always wants to hang out. and you should be mad your smart fridge is unnecessarily complicated. make ice. making ice. but you're not mad 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 and start trading

commission free today. i think you called me a liar on national tv. >> what? >> i think you called me a liar on national tv? >> let's not doet right now. you want to have that discussion, we will have that discussion. you called me a liar. you told me -- we won't get into that discussion. >> i don't want to get in the middle, i just want to say hi bernie. >> hi. >> tom steyer is my favorite, hi bernie. the rift between elizabeth warren and bernie sanders has some progressives in panic mode less than three weeks before the iowa caucuses. today a campaign was launched called progressives unite 2020 in hopes of easing tensions between the two candidate supporters. steve kornacki, noah, and donna are back with me. the tension between the candidates looks high in that

video. but that is nothing compared to what you are seeing, especially on line between of elizabeth wa and bernie sanders. it is very ugly. >> well, i've been seeing that, too. even in my social media traffic. what i will say, with the hot mic aside, i thought elizabeth warren dealt effectively with this issue of women's electability during the debate. i think it will be really important for progressives to come together. for democrats to come together after a really contentious campaign season if we are all united behind the idea that we have to defeat donald trump. i think that becomes increasingly more difficult to the extent that these tensions continue. >> they knew they were still on mic. when you have a microphone on, you have to assume somebody is recording. >> they knew or they didn't know. i'm not really sure about that.

i will say that it was important for to us dispense with this idea of a woman's electability. i think amy klobuchar said over time, too. and i've been seeing a lot of social media traffic that is trying to interject for progressives. but for the russians, this whoa question and discussion would be moot coming out of 2016. understandably, there are tensions. elizabeth warren and bernie sanders are fighting over some of the same voters. so i fully expect that. but joe biden and pete buttigieg and amy klobuchar are also fighting over some of the same voters. i don't see anything that stands in the way of us being able to come together once democrats have a nominee. we all recognize the bigger on fight. >> let me put up the latest des

moines poll. it shows the closest of the candidates. sanders, warren and buttigieg. they're all very close. if you look at the first and second choices. second choice, warren, 33%. similar for everybody. it does seem like a toss up in iowa. what will be difficult for sanders and warren and klobuchar. maybe they can to go iowa for a day trip but they'll be confined to the senate. >> you've heard talk of them flying out and having late night rallies. maybe that would get a big crowd. we'll see what they come up with. the tension that you see underscores to both sanders and warren. the same voters and the same strategy. put the first two together. get a bandwagon effect where you absorb the bulk of the other supporters and that shot at biden who presumably would be

weakened by losing the first two states. they're both looking at the same thing. there is all that history and lure of the iowa caucuses. you've had candidates who have gone after each other in the closing days and weeks of iowa campaigns and taken each other out. howard dean, richard agagephard hart. they went after each other. >> iowans don't generally like it when they fight over each other. you try to stay away from attacking your opponents because it turns them off? what might turn them off is what turns me off. this is most trans parent condrivance. there were two people in that room. somebody released this and it probably wasn't the guy that it reflects poorly on. >> could it be that she told friends? >> possibly. and then she delivered a very

good speech for the moment that she orchestrated during this campaign. the moderator handled it rather well. and then while the mics were on and everybody knew it, she went forward and proceeded to litigate further this claim, which i think is rather hard to believe. the notion that bernie sanders is anti-feminist when he's been an outspoken feminist since the '80s. that he secretly harbors -- >> specifically it was a female candidate in 2020 going up against donald trump. it wasn't, i don't think a woman can win the presidency. it was this specific time with donald trump. >> you're making a very fine disfinancial the warren campaign i don't believe is making. >> in the initial story it was. >> it was. and i think that's what elizabeth warren is saying. she is saying that bernie sanders contended that going up against donald trump in 2020, a

woman could not do that. this was, keep in mind, the conversation was in 2018 in anticipation of an upcoming election in which both of them would be candidates. look, i think the larger question here is going to be, especially in this next couple weeks of iowa. which candidate has the organization that it will take on the ground given that three of those senators are going to be pretty much stuck in washington in impeachment proceedings. >> predict it all for us. >> i have a good track record. the one thing i've been flagging. iowa is doing it differently. we keep talking about the winner of iowa. there is a possibility that there will be multiple candidates claiming to have won iowa. the votes, the caucus results will be counted in the way we're used to. a very convoluted -- >> a four-part calculation. we've been reporting the win per nobody understands.

that's how we normally do it. this year they are also going to release at the same time, what amounts to the popular vote. so there is the possibility when you see polls that close, that bunched together. that somebody wins this and somebody else wins that and two candidates are up there. >> i'll bet there is a lot of history with the caucus. it is so confusing. to go a polling booth and vote. we'll be right back. h and vote we'll be right back. through ancestry i learned so much about

my grandparents that i never knew. i'm a lawyer now, but i had no idea that my grandfather was a federal judge in guatemala. my grandfather used his legal degree and his knowledge to help people that were voiceless in his country. that put a fire in my heart. it made me realize where i got my passion for social justice. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com it's red lobster's new three-courfor $14.99.east choose soup or salad. one of seven delicious entrées - like new hawaiian-style garlic shrimp. and, get a sweet dessert. three courses. one amazing price. so come in today.

that's all for tonight. chuck will be back tomorrow. and don't miss part two of rachel's exclusive interview with lev parnas at 9:00 p.m. eastern. "the beat" starts right now. >> hi. briefly, will part two be as explosive as part one? >> i do not know. but interesting news from senator collins, she's speaking on the record what she believes and she is saying, she tends to believe that having additional information is helpful and it is likely she would support a motion to call witnesses just as in 1999 which is after the house has argued their case. >> are you saying that senator collins are saying her witness standard will party like it is 1999? >> that's exactlily what she's saying. >> we have a lot on that