trump on trial this sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern. i got some very special guests. if you can't catch it live, consider dvr it. you can do it right now just before "hardball." i'll see you tomorrow at 6:00 p.m. as mentioned, chris mathews "hardball" begins now. >> can the trump defenders handle the truth? let's play hardball. ♪ good evening, i'm chris mathews in washington. today marked a solemn beginning to the senate's impeachment trial of president donald trump. for the first time or just the third time actually in american history, the members of that historic body lifted their right hand as the chief justice of the supreme court swore them to be impartial. yet, amid the pomp and circumstance the day showcased a real tension between form and

function. we saw the form today, but the function of a trial is to get to the truth. and that prospect is in question tonight. with the new revelations from lev parnas, it's becoming harder for them to ignore the new rush of everyday against the president. that's because as rudy guiliani's right-hand man, parnas was central to the crime, itself, not an incidental bystander and he confirmed to rachel mad dough last night all their efforts were aimed at joe biden. >> it was all about joe biden, hunter biden and also rudy had a special thing with the manafort stuff, the black ledger. that was another thing that they were looking at. so, but, it was never about corruption, it was never, it was strictly about burisma, which included hunter biden and joe biden. >> well, it should be noted that parnas still faces serious criminal charges and was arrested while trying to leave

the country. while his allegations might still be corroborated, the trove of documents he's provided to the government is harder to dispute. it contradicts the defense that trump's quest for dirt in ukraine was a part of the u.s. effort to root out corruption. as guiliani said, just to be precise, i represent him as a private citizen, not him as the president, not as president of the united states. most explosive is that parnas says he personally relayed an ultimatum to the incoming relation over ukraine, announce the investigation of biden or vice president pence will not attend the inauguration. he told zelinski. >> i told him pence would not show up, nobody would show up to his inauguration. >> unless he announced an investigation into joe biden, no u.s. officials, particularly

vice president mike pence would not come to the inauguration? >> particularly mike pence. >> i believe it was the following day, in fact, vice president pence's visit to the inauguration was cancelled? >> it was after my phone call. when they get word, he's not coming. now they realize what i was telling was true. >> in his interview last night, parnas implicated attorney general bill barr among others, his documents show he communicated regularly with numerous trump allies, to reveal how expansive this scheme was. susan collins of maine issued her possible witness of testimony statements. once arguments is made, it is likely that i would support a motion to call witnesses at this point in the trial. that's a big development i am joined by peter baker, betsy woodriffe, of course. politics reporter for the "daily beast" and frank guzzi assistant for counterintelligence at the

fbi. i want you to hear the solemnity bass ritual, a sacramento today watching it the way the chief justice was sworn in and how he sworn in all those senators, all hundreds of them i think were all there with their hands in the air all taking the oath of office. yet, there is a question whether form is going to lead to function. are we going to get truth? are we going to get witnesses and documents to fill the vacuum of information so we can have a real trial? >> reporter: yeah, i think that's a great question. are you right. the solemnity of the moment was striking, powerful. the arrival of the chief justice and that oath brought home to everybody who was there in the chamber including all 100 senators this is a serious moment and issue under our constitution. that doesn't mean suddenly there are not going to be political or partisan. it doesn't mean they have suddenly given up the point of view they brought onto the floor. they may swear to do impartial

justice, but the truth is all 100 are partial in some fashion or another. it's a political process, after all. i think that you are right, senator collins saying she wants to hear witness is important. we will see if there are enough other republicans that agree with that lev parnas' comments and revelations under score the gaps in the story we know so far. maybe house democrats should have spent more time on the investigation maybe they were thwarted by the president of the united states who tried to block them. either way, there are questions we haven't gotten answered yet. the biggest question is whether the senate will try to answer those. >> well, this may be too metaphysical, i will throw it at you, peter, what about partial when everybody is voting party line? i'm thinking in 2000 the recall vote when the same ballot would come up, won would say that's good morning that's gore on there what is purely partisan? >> it's fun in i to ask senators to be impartial when, of course,

they're not. look, the history of this, these are not regular jurors, they're not excluded because of bias. for instance in the andrew johnson trial, his son-in-law was a senator who voted to acquit his father-in-law. another senator would have become president had andrew skronson be johnson been convicted. he would have been the next succession of order. senator schumer already voted on the articles of impeachment as a member of the house and got elected to senate and cast judgment on the very same articles he had already voted on. tim hutchison was a member of the snarkenate, even though his brother was a manager. there is no conflict of interest that gets these senators off the hook. they are partial. they do come at this with a political perspective and other biases. i think taking the oath does remind them at least for one day, anyway, they have the obligation to go beyond their

party and at least consider what they're up to and what's at stake here. is you know the very nature of our constitutional system. accountability, separation of powers. and you know how we run our democracy. >> thank you so much, peter. despite you here last time, it's good to have that perspective, you hear it in the clinton affair anyway, despite growing conflict. the president insists he doesn't know lev parnas. >> what is your response to lev parnas that says your efforts in ukraine were all about 2020? you just wanted joe biden out? what is your response? >> well, i don't know parnas other than they had pictures taken which i do with thousands of people. i don't know him at all. i don't know what he's about. i don't know where he comes from. i know nothing about him. but i can tell you this. >> it's more than taking pictures. >> i don't know him. i don't believe i've ever spoken to him. >> he said you were on the phone with guiliani, he said -- >> i don't believe i've ever spoken to him.

>> responding to parnas' lawyer a tweet of a video showing parnas right there with the president of the united states. he is very recognizable. there is also an e-mail showing the president gave his former lawyer the okay to work for parnas. while trump's current attorney wrote john dowd says the president consents to allowing your representation of mr. parnas. betsy, the stuff goes back to the old stuff of the communists, the hearings back in the early '50s. you don't say you don't know somebody as your defense when it's clear you do know them. you can argue when you are aist communist or perjury, that's how you end up in prison. why is he completely denying somebody he clearly does know? what's the point? >> it's certainly unusual. i spoke with lev parnas this afternoon here in manhattan. we specifically talked about the fact that trump said he doesn't know him as well as other sort of issues that informed parnas'

confidence about frankly about going public, including first on this network. parnas told me that some contributing factors to the reason that he now is speaking out publicly, one, of course, was the fact that the president said he doesn't know him. parnas is emphatic that that's a lie. but in addition to that, he also told me that the silence from some of his former friends was really galvanizing for him. over the course of the entire ukraine situation, he worked really closely with rudy guiliani as well as with a husband/wife legal team in washington. joe dejen have a and victoria tonzi. when he was arrested on campaign finance charges, he realized that none of those folks had spoken out in his defense. he told me these are three lawyers who are often very confident, engaging to defend controversial people on tv. they're not media shy. but in his case, parnas said they were radio silent.

he said it felt like his family had abandoned him. that's a part of the reason he's gone public now. his going public is an entire moment. it's really amped up the pressure on senate republicans to potentially vote in favor of having witnesses in the impeachment trial, whether or not that trial has witnesses, of course, is a definitive issue in how this impeachment process moves forward? did he take any heat last night after being on rachel's show? >> reporter: he hasn't heard from them. it's been radio silence, guiliani says he feels bad for parnas. he thinks he's a liar. but that's a dramatic change from someone who was working with this person you know multiple days a week, who was traveling with him, in constant contact with him. as soon as somebody gets arrested, to turn around, he got charged with a crime, he must be a liar. if anything, criminal attorneys are supposed to be the least to

assume it's true. but in this case, that's a part of the reason as lev described it to me that he felt so surprised by what he characterized as real abandonment. >> let me go to frank. it does remind me of opening up the whole map of the mob of the la casa nostra. here's a guy a part of the crime. he was not a bystander, a relevant, he was the guy doing the business, the translator for rudy guiliani and all this dirty business how powerful is this evidence he brought forward in document and public testament on television now? >> parnas has become a posterboy on why the senate need to consider witnesses. he's exhibit a for the argument that not only do we need witnesses, but we need the senate to consider new evidence as dwoipts during the trievelop trial. americans know what a real trial

looks like, it's when you have witnesses and you have corroboration. so it's not only parnas that need to testify, but it's all the people that he's pointing us towards. it's, he's talking about pence. he's talking about july yaevegu he's talking about barr. we need the people and the senate consider his objectivity and his credibility. if he's not credible, so be it. but, chris, i can't remember 25 years in the fbi when i had to put an eagle scout on the stand as the lead witness in a criminal trial. you don't get, it doesn't work that way. these are exactly the people you need to hear from. as you said, he was in the thick of it. >> to your point, here's what pa parnas said vice president pence ask if his inauguration was can selled? >> do you know if vice president pence was aware that that was the individual pro quo, that was

the trade and -- that was the quid pro quo? >> i will use a famous quote by mr. souther land, everybody was in the loop. >> according to parnas, everybody there including attorney general bill barr. >> did rudy guiliani tell you he had spoken to the attorney general specifically about ukraine? >> not only rudy guiliani, victoria and joe they were all best friend. i mean, barr was attorney general barr was basically on the team. >> well, last night a spokesperson for attorney general barr k5u8d parnas' -- called parnas's allegations 100% false. peter it bothers me when public officials play the role of flax when you have one of these cases. i don't know why somebody in the justice department has the job of putting out something as nonsensical, he was not in the loop. they are covering for somebody in not a criminal case but certainly a scandal.

public officials doing this for their living. >> yeah. right. i think what we've seen unfortunately in the last few years is that there is no sense of the justice department being a neutral actor anymore. the president. thinks the justice department ought to be his function on his behalf basically as much as the country's. he's, you know, repeatedly crossed over lines, other presidents saw there, so i think that the problem is, there is credibility issues when you have a justice department statement at this point. >> how do we know so much more than the senators are intended to know? the way this senate so-called trial is cooked up, put together, connexted -- confected as well, blinders are these senators, they're not supposed to know what we know, what we are talking about now. this is the craziest trial in

the world. everybody in the country knows what's going on is making a judgment based on everything available. senators are told you cannot have that. mitch mcconnell says no new witnesses, there will be argued like rhetoric back and forth. that's what mitch seems to want a rhetorical debate? yeah, i mean, these senators won't be recuse. it's not like they won't be watching rachel mad dough's show or seeing articles in the newspaper. if you don't just having witnesses who have apparently testimony to give, evidence to give that we haven't heard, john bolton, of course, comes to mind, the president's former national security adviser. we heard from other witnesses he rejected to the campaign as a drug deal and thought rudy guiliani was a hand grenade that was going to blow up. we haven't heard from him on a public interview much less in a house hearing or senate trial. what he talked about with the president of the united states about this. did the president order him to, to, to suspend the aid to

ukraine, explicitly in order to get information about the democrats that will be harmful or did he not? we don't know. and to have john bolton offer to testify and to have nobody take him up on that, it means are you leaving information on the table intentionally undiscovered and we'll have to wait until he put his book out, i suppose. but that will be long after the trial is over. >> if we don't get this testimony and these do you mean itse documents. this is what they say will be a foss. thank you, coming up, the democrat's case for impeachment may have gotten a little stronger. independent government accountability office confirmed today the trump administration broke the law by withholding critical military aid from ukraine. does this crank up the pressure any higher for those republican senators to allow for witnesses to be called? after we get new evidence that matters. one of the jurors by the way on

the democratic side joins us next. plus, will the gop put loyalty to trump above the oath of impartiality, you tell me. what can be coming down with a showdown of rules and witnesses? what kind of role will chief justice john roberts plays? i hope he plays the good judge and gets the facts out. we have a lot to get to tonight. stay with us.

when you move homes, you move more than just yourself. that's why xfinity has made taking your internet and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.

. the impeachment is a big hoax. it's become a laughing stock all over the world. there was nothing done wrong. the two articles that were sent are not even serious and by the way, they're not a crime. >> there is nothing wrong. did you hear that from the president. that was president trump just last week on what he expected from the senate impeachment trial. apparently nothing.

the president and his republican allies appear to argue he did not practicic the law. here it comes. but today, a non-partisan government watchdog says the trump administration broke the law in freezing millions of dollars of u.s. military aid to ukraine. in a decision released today. the government of accountability office, they report to congress, say faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policies for the law. the office of management budget spokesperson said, we disagree with gao's opinion, omb uses it's apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent, get this, consistent with the president's priorities and with the law. in other words, it's up to the president. we request they look into the withholding of aid last month. thank you for doing this. first of all, what is the implication as you see it of the fact that the president broke the law here?

>> well, it's good to be with you. this is a big deal because as you know the government accountability office is a non-partisan independent entity. and they came down with a block buster decision beyond a doubt that the president's administration violated the law when they withheld money, it was an illegal act. we also know it was president trump, himself, who gave the order to thing as to withhold those fund. so he ordered his agencies to commit and illegal act as a part of his overall scheme with respect to ukraine. so this is a very, very big deal. it's not democrats saying it. it's not republicans saying it. it's an independent non-partisan entity. >> you have been sworn in as a juror. >> yes. >> will it have an impact the fact that the law has been broken in the act that he is impeached for? >> you should, you would think

republican senators would agree. this was a law broken as a part of the president's overall abuse of power. it just showed he was willing to violate the law here and there in order to accomplish his overall goal of trying to pressure the government of ukraine to involve itself in the election for him. so i don't know, but the first question is the one you have been talking about. the first test for our republican colleagues before we get to the final verdict. i will wait to see all the every day before rendering a final decision. the first task is whether they will support the calling of fact witness and relevant documents, because you can not have a fair trial without that. >> well, today's senate minority leader democratic mike schumer from lev parps a strengthens democrat's push for witnesses, in his interview with rachel maddow, he said former national security adviser john bolton would be a key witness. >> zell ski was supposed to make another announcement and that

didn't happen. that's when bolton, secretary bolton went over there and i think he has a lot to say. i know mr. bolton was definitely involved in the loop because of the firing of may yovanovitch also his interactions with rudy guiliani, they started butting heads. >> you believe he knows what the administration was pressuring ukraine to do? >> bolton, 100%. >> what would it be like to have him testifying to you guys in the senate, you jurors? he seems real, this guy. >> no, he does, i got to tell you, chris, i watched that whole interview with rachel last night. my jaw just drochltd i went, oh my god -- my just a just dropped. i went, oh my god, after seeing that, it would be a gross dereliction of duty to say we can't call witnesses. it's not unusual at trial to have new information and new evidence and documents that are important to come forward. you know the house managers will

have to decide whether they want to call him as one of the witnesses. but the bigger task is going to be republican senator, bolton, mulvaney, president trump back on december 3rd said he wanted nick mulvaney to testify at his trial. all of a sudden his lawyers are saying way too dangerous if sworn in under penalty of perjury. >> it reminds you of opening the books from the mob. you don't want to talk to the guy? anyway, senators took an oath to render impartial justice as jurors in the senate trial. last night texas senator ted cruz argued this impeachment is a partisan sham. >>. >> i don't know if there is going to be 51 senators to bring in witnesses or not. i think there are plenty to reject these ridiculous articles of impeachment. if they are going to bring witnesses in, we won't do what the house did, a one sided show

trial. at a bare minimum, if they bring john bolton, president trump can bring a witness. he can bring in hunter biden. >> what do you think of this? because i heard about this from a senator the other night, democratic senator. the word out that mitch may figure out okay, you guys want witnesses, ail give four of mine. two of mine, two of yours. i'll give you mick mulvaney and john bolton. suppose you are confronted with that? would you take the whole slate? >> we all know that joe biden the whole request is a red herring when it comes to who had knowledge about president trump's decision with respect that withholding. >> he was the president's target. >> yep, but it's what's at stake here in the articles of impeachment is his abuse of power. look, if mitch mcconnell and republicans want to call joe biden, we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. but there is a big difference between relevant fact witnesses, which is what we've asked for.

nimick mulvaney, john bolton. >> wouldn't you want to ask senator biden just to give am chance to clear yourself. did you ever talk to your son about taking that contract with burisma? did you ever tell him not to do it? did he ever call to you ask you to do a favor for it? these seem to be relevant questions, germane. >> look, it's a total side show and detraction as you know. >> this whole thing is the republican attempt to smear the bidens. you have to say, were they fairly going after him or unfairly going after him? i think the president was unfair, when you say all i want is an announcement from the president of ukraine, we're investigating the guy. he doesn't want the truth. >> so right. what the president wanted was to withhold taxpayer dollars that ukraine needed in order to get them to interfere on his behalf. with respect to witnesses, if republicans get to the point where they're willing to get relevant fact witnesses and documents, then let's have a conversation. mcconnell has been the one stonewalling it. right now they have been

conspireing with the president to rig the trial. they shouldn't be doing that. that is a violation of the oath they took today. >> is he going to get away with it? >> who's that? >> mitch, he always seems to get away with it. >> the issue isn't how mitch votes. the issue will be how some of the republican senators vote. their public will hold them accountable in a lot of these states. they will be asked, why did you vote to conspire with the president, rig the trial and deny the american people a fair hearing with all the evidence. >> i'm betting on it. i'm hoping for lamar alexander, murkowski. i'm hoping for mitt. i think we have three there, maybe collins. >> we're watching closely. >> you know these guys very closely. thank you, up next, the state is shaping up for a real fight over witnesses and documents in the next couple days. how many if any republican senators will put their oath of impartiality and their loyalty to donald trump.

you are watching "hardball. " e watching "hardball ly squeezed orange juice. now no fruit is forbidden. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn? for all-day, >> man: what's myction. 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. ♪ (honk!) i hear you sister. that's why i'm partnering with cigna to remind you to go in for your annual check-up, and be open with your doctor about anything you feel - physically and emotionally. but now cigna has a plan that can help everyone see stress differently. just find a period of time to unwind. a location to de-stress. an activity to enjoy. or the name of someone to talk to. to create a plan that works for you, visit cigna.com/mystressplan. cigna. together, all the way.

visit cigna.com/mystressplan. ♪ limu emu [ siren ] give me your hand! i can save you... ...lots of money with liberty mutual. we customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need! [ grunting ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. america's getting sicker. sick of donald trump, there are one million more uninsured americans every year under trump. and he's repeatedly tried to repeal obamacare. mike bloomberg will make sure everyone without health coverage can get it, and everyone who likes theirs, keep it.

while capping fees to lower costs. as mayor, he helped expand coverage to seven hundred thousand more people. and championed women's reproductive health. as president, he'll give access to everyone. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. and when you open a new brokerage account, your cash is automatically invested at a great rate. that's why fidelity leads the industry in value while our competition continues to talk. ♪ talk, talk while our competition continues to talk. you spend less and get way more., so you can bring your vision to lif. for small prices, you can build big dreams. spend less. get way more. shop everything home at wayfair toda.

. welcome back to "hardball" with the impeachment trial under way, all eyes are on a quintet of republicans, five of them, who could determine whether the senate hears new witnesses or not. it's a topic becoming increasingly relevant with john bolton's willingness and that trove of documents about lev parnas. and this evening, names

republican senator susan collins came the closest she's ever been to saying she'd vote yes for new witnesses. in a statement put out this evening, collins said, well, i need to hear the case argued and the questions answered. i tend to believe having additional information would be helpful. it is likely that i would support a motion to call witness as i did in 1999. collins said she decided to clarify her statement. a lot of mischaracterization and misaudien understand misunderstanding of my position. she questioned why the parnas information was released so late in the house, even though it had only been recently made available by the courts who have been holding it. this puts collins much closer to utah senator mitt romney explicitly said he'd like to hear from bolton and two out of the four republican votes democrats need to call witness. they got 47 democrats. they need 51 altogether, four

republicans needed. alaska's lisa mur cao ski, tense temperatures's lamar alexander retired have said they are open from hearing from witnesses. there is speculation about corey gardner who consistently refuses to answer questions about where he stands. mitch mcconnell made it clear he'd rather not extend the trial by asking witnesses at all. that's not what he argued in clinton's impeachment. we didn't catch the disconnect between the old miss and the new mitch. i like the old mitch. that's up next.

dad, if you want to talk, i have a break at 3:00. okay, okay. i'm going. i'm gone. like -- like i wasn't here. [ horn honks ] keep -- keep doing it, buddy. switch to progressive and you can save hundreds. you know, like the sign says.

welcome back to "hardball" many senate republicans have made it clear they want this trial as short as possible. that's not what mitch mcconnell said in 1999. >> there have been 15 impeachments, two were cut short by resignations and the other 13 impeachments they were witnesses. it's not unusual to have a

witness in a trial. it's certainly not unusual to have a witness in an impeachment trial. >> i am joined by michael steel, rnc share and the former chief of staff to nancy pelosi and former spokesman. you have done everything for dick durbin. you know he wanted to know all the nitty-gritty of bill clinton's malfeasance. monica, he wanted lots of information. not this time. he wants a shorty. >> he wants to control the process and put this under the rug and move on. look, his, this is not going to change until his senators, those four or five you talked about come to him and say senator, we need this for our re-election and they're starting to feel the heat and maybe senatorial sander. >> he's got values. >> that's exactly right. but you have senators like paul, senator paul threatening. >> why is, what's your hunch about why rand paul, a real

independent, a libertarian, why does le be him the hatchet man for the president in making sure he will punish every republican for voting for witnesses. >> it's the whole thing with iran. now we're swinging back the other way. so i'm going to stand and defend the president on this idea of not having witnesses come to the sable, whereas, last week, he was out there slamming the president for his ventures into iran. so, folks you see the politics here for what it is. none of this is being taken seriously by republicans at this point. i think to your point, the sooner we get it done, the better, is sort of huddling together to protect the clan as it were, keep it protect, everyone inside the room and so it's going to be important if a murkowski or collins, lamar alexander comes and says, that this is bigger than what you think it is and we need to have the witnesses, we need it for our own protection at home, but

i think we need it for the country as well. >> i think a couple guys that come forward, mitt romney and lamar. it's a partisan comment, you think they're only going to save their butts. some actually have consciences, i think mitt romney flirts with greatness, he doesn't get there. he likes to get around the edge. i think he will push for witnesses. will he push for other members to get the four we need or the three we need? >> i don't know, i think what the senators are grappling with is an oath to president trump or an oath to the constitution. i think that's -- >> well said. this morning, a cnn reporter got an unexpected response from arizona republican senator martha mcsally when he dared to ask her about whether we need new everyday, here goes. >> should the senate consider new everyday as a part of the impeachment trial? >> man, are you a liberal hack, i'm not talking to you. >> you are not going to comment? >> you are a liberal hack. >> shortly after that she

doubled down, tweeting at the reporter that you are a liberal hack. mcsally may have been hoping to rile up trump's base there because she's out there fund raising off the comments she made to that reporter. the trump campaign war room tweeted, three cheers for martha mcsally, donate now. what do you make of this? >> one word, re-election. >> she's never been elected, though. >> she's worried. >> she's appointed. so she is worried. she is worried about 2020. she's trying exactly that. >> you think she picked a fight with that reporter? that was a reasonable question. he wasn't snarky. >> no, absolutely not. >> i think it's certainly behavior unbecoming for sure. look, you are an elected official, more importantly, are you a united states senator. and so, what this says to me is that senators like mcsally feel that they need to show their behinds like donald trump does every day and get down in the ugly and think that that's going to be, somehow cool and keeps

their base htight to them. but your election is in trouble. she knows it. this will fund raise off it. there is applause back in very small corners, but the broader electorate she has to face this november when her opponent is playing this videotape over and over again and saying, is this really what we want in washington? what we want in washington? these folks aren't thinking about what trump does to them longer term. and they're all right in the moment. they're feeling all the juices. >> arizona is not a wild state. there are retierees there. they don't like this behalf-your. >> absolutely -- behavior. >> absolutely not. if you are a senator, you have to be thinking what you are saying, not just to your voters, but 50 years from now what are they going to say about you?

>> i don't think your boss nancy pelosi would say, i'm not talking to you right wing hack. she'd probably say i'm not talking. up next, supreme court justice john roberts will play an essential role, or will he? will he be there as a potd plant or a good judge? clarifying what he could. who you should and could next. a little prediction, will he be the big star of this or not? usaa mornings were made for better things

than rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. when considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr. ♪

i like working.

what if my retirement plan is, i don't want to retire? then let's not create a retirement plan, let's create a plan for what's next. i like that. get a plan that's right for you. td ameritrade. get a plan that's right for you. >> 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?

judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. judges are life umpires. umpires don't make the rules. they apply them. the role of an umpire and a judge is critical. they make sure everybody plays by the rules but it is a limited role. nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire. >> welcome back to "hardball" earlier today chief justice john rock roberts stepped into his role. in that capacity, according to the senate rules and impeachment, they shall direct all the forms of proceedings while the senate is sitting for the purpose of trying an impeelt. during the trial, according to those same rules, he will have the power to rule on all questions of everyday, including

but not limited to questions of relevancy and materiality and redundancy of evidence unless some member asks to overrule a justice. in a few days, we'll see what kind of justice, what kind of judge the chief justice will choose to be. we are joined by caroline frederickson, a former president of the constitutional society and susan page, washington chief for usa today. there are questions of law, constitutional and in light as a student of john roberts, the chief justice, how much do you think he will play the traditional role of judge? will he say, if adam schiff, the chief manager says, i'd like to bring in evidence now some documents involving mr. lev parnas that had just been released to the public. i'd like to have mr. parnas come into this hearing. what does the chief justice have the liberty to decide tant? right now, to get this information to the jurors? >> the state rules make it clear

he has the power to admit evidence. he can actually issue subpoena. he has an extraordinary amount of power under the way the proceedings are constructed. the senate can overrule him. but i think if that were to happen, well, actually, i don't think it's going to happen. i think will you have senators like susan collins and corey gardner and the others think about what that will mean for their constituents if they vote to overrule this chief justice on a vote so important as to whether to admit evidence that's clearly relevant. >> so he can make the first call? >> yes. >> susan. >> i think it would be surprising if he chose to exert those powers. i think he would vote on whether to keep these witnesses coming in. he has the power to do that. but he follows the example that justice rehnquist did in the clinton impeachment, he would see his role as minimalist, not maximalist.

>> he could certainly do that i think that would be such a punt in this case. in the clinton impeachment, remember, there was a general agreement among the managers of how to proceed. in this case, we clearly don't have that. we have all sorts of new evidence that's come evidence that haz come forward. he's been very outspoken, including his annual report again this year, talking about how important it is that judge provide equal justice, what could be a better example than issues a ruling on evidence that's clearly material. >> there's one thing that i think the founders had in mind when they made the chief justice the person who would preside. that was tounder score the important, the solemnity of this exercise, and i think that happened today. you know, we've had this heated ferocious debate over impeachment that makes it seem like a sporting event, but when

we saul the articles brought over and we saw the chief justice come in and swear in the senators, i think it took on a bigger moment than it's had the last few weeks. that's why i think we should expect the chief justice lives up to the oath that he also took, which is to do impartial justice. let me ask you a big question, it has to do with philosophy. i think a real conservative, a true conservative, maybe in the british sense, is someone who wants to keep the society together. that's the chief goal of a conservative. keep things together. or fragmentation, or massive bitterness, try to hold the country together. what is more unifies, a time that gets evidence, or they slam the door with no evidence and no

witnesses? will that keep the country unite united i think this is likely to divide us no matter what, but i think -- they already have had mitch mcconnell announce that the proceedings already rigged. >> that he's rigging them. >> that he's rigging them. this is why i go back to certainly my hope, but a demand i think of the chief justice that he make sure it's not a rigged process. >> if he makes the first call and mr. schiff, bring in your first witness, we're not going to follow the rules set by mitch mcconnell that we're going to wait -- after all the discussion and arguments, then we'll decide whether to bring witnesses in, but suppose the judge says, no, we're not going to wait from the end. if you want to overrule me, go

ahead. is that possible? >> absolutely. he has plenary -- whether or not to have witnesses, whether he can subpoena himself. it's sort of implies in the way so there is so much new evidence that what a sham it will be if that's not heard. >> here's a journalist question. howo how do you close the door when the flood gathers are open. this thing last night with rachel maddow, imagine that happens on the senate floor. >> even if the senate decides to not have witnesses, we'll continue to hear from these people more of this story will come out in a remarkable way that the democrats started to build and comes up with more and more evidences about the

president's. >> i don't think anybody can deny there was a cabal here. the only question is, is that impeachable? the facts are plenary, they're all over the place. thank you caroline and susan. what did they show us when they thought we couldn't hear them. you're watching "hardball" you're watching "hardball" at fidelity, online u.s. stocks and etfs are commission-free.

and when you open a new brokerage account, your cash is automatically invested at a great rate. that's why fidelity leads the industry in value while our competition continues to talk. ♪ talk, talk while our competition continues to talk. try eucerin advanced dry srepair lotion. it helps stop dryness from recurring by going beyond ceramides with natural moisturizing factors found in skin eucerin advanced repair lotion for healthier looking skin. if you have moderate to severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla.

it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. when youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one. for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com 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.

. politicians are people first. the best of them have ply in their words, pride in what is said about them by people they respect. two nights ago we saw elizabeth warren and bernie sanders try to downplay their dispute over what he told her or didn't tell her two years ago, that a woman can't beat donald trump in 2020. that might have been the end of it. it wasn't. following the debate we heard through another mi dr. her personal indig nation and bernie sanders' retort in kind. >> i think you called some a liar on national tv? >> what? >> i think you called me a liar on national tv. >> let's not do itting now. >> i don't want to get in the middle. i just wanted to say hi, bernie.

>> both seemed well to make that claim and move on, but that was politics. both thought they had bigger fish to fry. besides iowa voters are celebrated to penalizing candidates they see going negative. as the great senator from new york f. patrick monihan, we are we are entitled to our opinions, not to different facts. on tuesday night, before a huge debate a yes, sir, he died ever saying such a thing. it seems that she didn't expect this, didn't expert her colleague to make such a sharp denial, to the point of her words, call her a liar on national television. i suspect the reason is she believes senator sanders said what heside, and he would confess to it when face-to-face.

senator sanders said all this is being driven by, as he put it wednesday night, some of thia. that's not what it looked lick when both thought the mic was off. that's "hardball" for newell. thanks for being with us, convulse "all in" starts in and out. \s. the impeachment trial begins. >> president trump warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualifications to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the united states. as lev parnas aftershocks reverberate. >> i don't know parnas other than i guess we had pictures taken. the allegations. >> president trump knew exactly what was good on. the vice president. >> everybody was in the