impeachment trial starts all the latest reporting and analysis this tuesday morning after the holiday. 9:00 a.m. eastern. i'm peteral xanlder in again for nicole wallace and will be back do you want witnesses? next week. "mpt daily" with chuck todd >> well, we have discussed as a starts right now. conference how to proceed with that and we have decided that we ♪ want to hear the phase one arguments first and then, of course, there will likely be a vote on whether witnesses will welcome to friday. be brought forward or not. it is "meet the press daily." i think we should be looking at i'm chuck todd here in wa wra the record that the house is presenting. they did not call forward the witnesses that they're asking whe for in the senate and i don't washington where the impeachment trial will begin and start in believe that it is our job in earnest on tuesday and yet so the senate to do the work of the much about it remains a mystery, even what we see on t house. >> welcome back. that was republican senator ernst of iowa making an argument story is clearly incomplete. you will likely hear from other just the last 24 hours we have senate republicans to walk this seen new e andal lagss of line on witnesses on that front lev parnas about the pressure but also avoid the introduction campaign and then the of new evidence per se at next

nonpartisan government accountability office determined week's senate trial and a sign of how perilous the politics the white house broke the law by could be for a lot of withholding military aid to impeachment jurors. ukraine. joining me former democratic make no mistake, there's evidence beind the house's senator from north dakota byron impeachment case and also a lot of loose ends and unanswered dorgan and here with me "the questions. on top of all of that, many washington post" white house questions of the trial itself correspondenter and geuran and that remain unanswered. what will the rules look like? will witnesses be called? how much of it will we actually matthew continetti and nera see televised? that's another issue. one pressing question was tanden. answered today when we learned you have a lot of titles here. we have to decouple this who will comprise parts of president trump's defense team. mouthful. we have to shorten them. white house counsel pat ann, i thought that joannie gave cipollone and personal attorney of the president jay sekulow to us a hint at sort of the lead the team. two people to see the most. republican conference is but nbc news learned it will agreement on phase one. right? that's the sense i got. include former special counsel is that matching your reporting? >> yeah. she says as much. ken starr whose investigation of it makes perfect sense. president clinton led to the last impeachment and the right? it gives them a way to start president tapped alan dershowitz who has represented among other with as little ran kcor as they folks in the news jeffrey possibly can. >> senator dorgan, i know you

epstein. another pressing question, what heard the argument about -- i does president trumpredent is p think we will hear other senators make the argument which is, the trial you were a juror for the senate to dismiss the case altogether. in, the witnesses interviewed, some republicans are reportedly called a bunch of times. looking at see here. you saw a few of them and it feels like it's still an active investigation at times, right? well today while hosting the still more new stuff coming in. national champion lsu footbal fe national title the president once again used that opportunity what's your interpretation of om what you believe the senate's role is? >> we'll take pictures behind are you full pledged jurors, this is the house's case, or do the resolute desk. a lot of presidents, some good, you believe the senate supposed some not so good. to have a role in helping with the investigation, as well? but you have a good one now. >> well, i think the senate even though they're trying to impeach the son of a bitch. should have a -- supposed to have a role in the can you believe that? can you believe that? investigation. got the greatest economy we have you know? in the case 20 years ago, we had ever had, joe. we got the greatest military. ken starr do three and a half years of work, $80 million and we rebuilt it. we took out the terrorists like he had everybody, every potential witness, all the the football team would have documents under oath in front of taken out the terrorists, right? the grand jury so that's a

>> for more on this, i'm joined vastly different circumstance. now, we have a situation where by leeann wald well and at the the president blocked documents, white house is hans nichols, blocked witnesses so the house also a colleague of ours. did what they could and even leeann, let's start with what is then they found what they sensed tuesday going to look like? to be something very, very because tuesday itself appears serious and worth impeachment that we are going to have the vote and, you know, as you come first of what will be i think to the senate now starting next many debates about the structure week i think the democratic senators are, as well, aligned of this trial. on an issue. >> reporter: yeah. they believe they want to find i laughed a little bit, chuck, out how this thing is going to end. will they be able to call the because tuesday, what it is going to look like, only witnesses or will we continue to anyone's guess really so what we see a kind of cover-up so that know is the first thing they the people who really know what have to do is they have to vote happened will never be able to on this organizing resolution testify? >> look. we can backseat drive to death written by mitch mcconnell saying he has enough votes, but i'm just curious. republican votes, to pass it. do you think the house should have kept the investigation and what we know about this organizing resolution is it going? >> well, i don't -- we can doesn't address the issue of always second guess that. witnesses at this point. i think they would have learned more had they kept it going for so they're going to vote on this and we know that democrats are a lengthier period of time but going to try to amend this the -- listen. ses that the senate understand resolution. they want to force this issue of witnesses and new documents at

the beginning of this process might vote on. and so there could be vote after it's also there's a removal vote as you know in 9 1/2 months from vote. we don't know what forum it's now and the american people will going to take. need to know, as well, exactly we are expecting it to take a what happened. very long time. and that's part of what the could last the whole day. senate is about, too, they'll could last until the night and have their first vote and if he is not removed there's a second could last into wednesday. a way it's described to us is removal vote and the american people deserve to know what it's a chess game. each side has their plays and happened. >> matthew, walk me through the they have to wait for the other side to make a move before they politics on the right on this. can really tell on how this is joannie has certain things to going to play out so it could be really messy on tuesday, chuck. worry about. gardner different. >> no. i have a feeling -- i don't think people realize. co this is not a clean start to everybody has different politics perhaps they're tiptoeing around this trial but a lot of process here. how should we watch the hand wringing. the other side of the republican moves here over the next couple of weeks? pennsylvania avenue. >> i think senator collins' hangs statement was important. we learned more about the she said she is inclined to president's team and i want to ask in particular, the picking support a motion to call of both, i mean, look. it is not surprising the witnesses. that's one vote. president prefers brand names and i know he thinks starr, >> is it, though? seems like she left herself a little wriggle room. dershowitz, brand names. >> little. >> more than a romney for sees them on the favorite cable instance. >> if you have one, you still channel all the time and likes need three more and i think that idea but people inside the that's where we're all going to white house apparently pushed be looking over the course of

the next week. back on particularly dershowitz do the democrats have the given the jeffrey epstein business. why would you want to bring -- additional three votes from the republican conference to call even have that baggage even witnesses? floating around? and i don't think they do at >> reporter: dershowitz seems this point. more puzzling than ken starr. >> how important is it for the house impeachment managers to how ken starr made his way on almost tailor parts of their the team is clear. case essentially to your lamar that is that in conservative legal circles the reputation is alexanders? making the case to the sterling and worked with pat handful -- there's a group of say a dozen that could be the cipollone and jay sekulow. they have relationships. fourth vote. that seems pretty obvious how making almost more to them, like thinking about i got to -- i'm you'd bring in ken starr and that is reputationally he comes talking to lamar call xander highly recommended from people here, corey gardner and not that are advising the president. talking to everybody else. dershowitz is a little bit more >> yeah. it is a different audience for people who are not running for complicated and the president gutim in the past, re-election and may never run for re-election and really this how much he admires him and appreciates the defense of the may be the most important vote president but you have always heard a little bit of pushback they take for the history books. than for people running for from senior officials like, well, we re-election. i think what's bizarre about this debate about the evidence and everything else is the white officials of dershowitz it is a house obstructed any document. similar type of conversation talking to them on whether or not rudy giuliani is still the the clinton investigation had

90,000 documents. president's attorney. they almost seem to have him the white house has offered zero sequestered and they say, well, documents. you know we don't know where so the whole idea here is the that stands or rudy's the president's personal attorney. white house and mitch mcconnell dershowitz is in that category. would like to do the basic following thing. dershowitz is trying to cleave have a trial that doesn't -- himself off and an interview that exonerates the president, exonerates and not really have a this afternoon he said i'm not trial but i think actually the on the legal team but making an american people and this is one of the reasons you see such argument in the defense of the constitution and presidency and bipartisan support and the fact he doesn't seem to want to be it's bipartisan support that's associated with team trump. the pressure. we'll see how the president most people understand a trial reacts if that's explained to has witnesses and evidence and him in that lang wang. also i think they're also likely chuck? >> leigh ann, going back to sort to punish people in their own of behind the scenes on the party who they look -- when it looks like it's covering up for trial here, so explain to me how the president. >> byron, i'm curious. we think this witness vote -- i you know, yes, the white house mean, because we are going to have one fight about this on obstructed. should the house have, you know, tuesday but won't it get tabled gone harder in the courts? and then we have another fight about it two weeks later? and sort of waited for some of >> reporter: yeah. the court battles? >> i'm not going to be critical absolutely. democrats want to put of the house but i would have republicans on the record right gone further and harder on those now early on, on where they issues but nonetheless the

stand on witnesses, but then you have this group of moderate impeachment donlcuments are the republican senators, the susan before the senate and the senate collins, mitt romneys of the has to try to understand exactly world who say, yes, they want to what happened, get the full vote on witnesses but don't want story. some generous truth serum with it right now. we want it later on in the the right witnesses would do process and a vote on witnesses, wonders so the american people on if they're even going to move understand exactly what happened with respect to the telephone to have votes on specific call and the threats that witnesses, so this is going to existed with respects to funding happen very likely twice in this and other things. >> i want to talk about the president's decision to put ken process. and you know, there's reports starr and the ken starr thing i that republicans want to have a have been surprised at. very quick trial. forget neal talked about some things but the tenure at baylor this is something that is not new. they have been talking about really bad. you know? having a quick trial as much as >> absolutely. possible but there are so many >> it was a rough period. a lot of bad things happened undecided and unanswered while he was there, while he was questions as you said in this running baylor. mr. starr demoted from all process, like how they're going to adjourn at the end of the day could be an issue of contention. they need support. except -- did little to respond they need a majority at the end of the day. to accusations of sexual assault this could be really, really that involved many football messy, chuck. >> yeah. every single little thing that players. then the dershowitz bringing the they try to do in that senate epstein stuff up and the chamber is going to need 51

reputation is what, ann? times to be the lawyer that votes and it could be ugly, for people hire if you're perceived to be guilty. right? started. with me now is nealty. not a great like -- that's the one thing. that's not his -- ann? okay. i want to first start with the >> i just interviewed him actually about a completely democrats' case and start with the lev parnas evidence. different case that you remember if this were a normal court of the kosher meat packing guy -- law and your trial starts >> yes. in iowa? tuesday. lev parnas dumps all this. >> yes. the largest kosher meat packing you have a hard time making use plant in the country, only of it right away, right? >> it would be hard. orthod you certainly could. orthodox jew in iowa prosecuted for all kinds of things and who one very important point if this does he hire to try to get were an ordinary trial not limited to the stuff you didn't clemency from donald trump? alan dershowitz. know about beforehand and would >> interesting. be able to use new evidence. >> also o.j. simpson case. >> right, right, right. that happens every day in the >> yeah, yeah, yeah. but be that as it may, all of courts but you are right to say you want sometime to process the things that you could count this and particularly if the against these three, you know, reason you didn't get this information ahead of time has to starr, ray and dershowitz, do with the defendant's conduct starting with each of their and here, of course, that's what has been going on, the president pasts, one thing is more overridingly important to the gagged every witness and every president. among the three of them, they document from coming out in the house proceeding. have been on fox news 365 times

>> so that's on a normal -- in the last year. >> taking a count. let's say the house impeachment >> one of my helpful colleagues managers invoke some of the lev at "the washington post" counted parnas evidence. today. can somebody make a motion and so yeah. they're up there, they're in his say, no, can't include it? >> they could. field of vision. but that motion would go to the >> is this a weird way of the chief justice and then first president sort of -- not that he instance under rule 7 and 16 of doesn't have confidence in pat the impeachment rules which have cipollone but doesn't think he has star power? been laid down since andrew is that the president's way of saying that? >> cipollone doesn't do many tv johnson and i suspect the chief justice would say is this rev appearances and this is a president who values an ability rant and material to the inquiry to perform on television and he knows that this is going to be a and the answer is question. trial that's a spectacle and so >> he is not the final word. >> he is not. the senate could by a vote of 51 he has in his mind the a-team votes overrule the chief justice. i think that's an of, you know, anti-impeachment extraordinarily hard thing to do on a matter that's within the lawyers now there arguing the case. >> i have a very different chief justice's kind of zone of interpretation. >> a lot of baggage. competence. >> cipollone, i agree they have >> this gets at, too, i think that's going to be the question a lot of baggage. >> on trial. >> the president is. here. i feel like democrats are >> um -- >> effective lawyers. gambling that republicans are >> i would say -- going to be uncomfortable >> they have been. >> cipollone has knowledge overruling roberts. >> well -- >> i don't know why there's that directly of the case so i think confidence out there. the challenge of cipollone

i kind of think that first of forward is that senator schiff all he is going to try to can be like, what exactly make -- avoid making rulings happened on this day? because he doesn't want to be -- he is a congressman. but he can look at -- they can why do you think that assumption? become part of the fodder and >> there's two different pieces the idea that a lawyer connected to jeffrey epstein should be to this. part of this is the he clerked himself for william rehnquist and had a lot of respect for rehnquist and foxification. >> this is a case where it's rehnquist at the end of the almost like he's worried about clinton impeachment said i did the jurors not in that chamber. particularly little and i did it very well and i think that chief senator dorgan, if you hang justice roberts will be guided around with me, ann, matthew and to that -- >> do you blame him? in this situation. nera. stick around. >> exactly. this is america's third but then the other side of it is impeachment trial and for most of the jurors it is unchartered there are some pretty strict legal questions like relevance territory: i'll talk with a senator who's about to do this and immateriality and the question of witnesses because for the first time. that's next. the existing rules in the senate do allow the chief justice to ♪ do you recall, not long ago make the first determination and ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪ so as you were talking about with your colleagues earlier -- >> okay. ♪ all around the wind blows so let's walk through. okay. ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ so somebody calls for -- who will call for a witness? >> so here's how i think it ♪ blow a kiss into the sun plays out. we will have the debate on ♪ we need someone to lean on

tuesday. they were just talking about should the rules guarantee ♪ blow a kiss into the sun witnesses? let's say that doesn't come out in the democrats' favor and ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ silent. then the existing rules say it's ♪ ♪ up to the chief justice and so ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪ the democrats, the house managers, can call any particular witness they want, bolton or whomever, the republicans can object or president trump's team can ♪ object and then it goes to the chief justice for the initial determination. >> do you expect that's a ♪ moment? >> that will be a huge moment. i can tell you that having argued 41 cases before this ♪ chief justice, i think he's profoundly fair, someone obviously to listen to both ♪ sides and i don't think he's kind of in the tank for one side ♪ or the other. something like this. don't get mad. get e*trade, dawg. >> scout the president's legal team. all right? meaning you see what they're doing. led by cipollone and sekulow. i think the more we're learning about the roles of starr and dershowitz feels more like designed to be a shiny metal object but perhaps they play roles. what do you think the president's up to here with this

legal team? >> i think it's worrisome that try eucerin advanced dry srepair lotion. cipollone is lead lawyer. this is a guy who wrote a memo a it helps stop dryness from recurring by going beyond ceramides couple months ago basically with natural moisturizing factors found in skin saying the president doesn't have to cooperate at all with eucerin advanced repair lotion impeachment, declares the whole for healthier looking skin. thing illegitimate saying i won't give witnesses or documents. something no president has done in american history and the idea that a lawyer for the white house did that is i think incredibly worrisome. >> explain how -- i am surprised that a white house counsel is the lead because i've always been told that the white house counsel is the lawyer for the office of the presidency, not the person who occupies the office of the presidency. >> that's a great question. you're 100% right. that's the way every white house that's ensure max protein, counsel i have ever worked with, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. republican and democrat alike, took that job seriously. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! this one doesn't. he signed his name to that memo i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. and if you'll sign your name to whoa-hoa-hoa! that memo you will sign your 30 grams of protein, name to anything to defend and one gram of sugar. donald trump. ensure max protein. >> you believe he is essentially fundamentally redefined this

interpretation of a white house counsel? little things can be a big deal. psoriasis, >> yes. as is the president redefined that's why there's otezla. the presidency. otezla is not a cream. >> very quickly on ken starr. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. that one particularly surprised with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. you because -- >> because it opens the door to don't use if you're allergic to otezla. allegations of hypocrisy. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. every time starr defends president trump there's going to otezla is associated with... be a quote from him saying the ...an increased risk of depression. opposite. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression so, for example, republicans with the rules of law issued an or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. ad quoting starr in the clinton your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. impeachment saying this guy abused executive privilege, upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. that's an impeachable offense tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. and trump is orders of magnitude otezla. show more of you. of that and an unusual choice. >> like there's always a tweet with ken starr and always a clinton anecdote. >> exactly. >> neal -- >> thank you. >> first of many conversations to have on this topic over the coming weeks. enjoy the last weekend before this gets started. "the new york times" said it best. bad timing for jury duty.

how will the senators running for president handle the impeachment trial without losing momentum? the supreme court moved today, the move today could be the first step in electing a president by popular vote. yes, that might happen. i'll have more for you later. america isn't just sick of donald trump, america's getting sicker. welcome back. the senate impeachment trial there are one million more uninsured americans that begins in earnest tuesday foreign territory for the vast every year under trump. and he's repeatedly tried to repeal obamacare. majority of sitting u.s. senators. 15 of them were jurors in the mike bloomberg will make sure everyone without 1999 clinton impeachment trial health coverage can get it, so they all know they're gearing and everyone who likes theirs, keep it. up for a historic undertaking while capping fees to lower costs. and there are a lot of unknowns so joining me now is a senator as mayor, he helped expand coverage to seven hundred thousand more people. that took the oath yesterday for the first time. and championed women's reproductive health. rhode island democratic senator as president, he'll give access to everyone. whitehouse. senator whitehouse, one of the i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. most interesting anecdotes you hear from former senators about when you ask them about the time wean air force veteran made of doing what's right,. in the senate if they served in not what's easy. the clinton impeachment hearing, all of them -- i think byron so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. dorgan would confirm this.

that's how you do it right. earlier he was telling me usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - stories, russ feingold. it is a really different experience than the other part with hassle-free claims, he got paid before of the senate career. his neighbor even got started. what have you learned as you have studied this? because doing right by our members, that's what's right. >> well, it's obviously different in the sense that we usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. take a separate oath. it doesn't feel as different as usaa you might expect yet on the senate floor. we haven't gotten into the presentation of the cases yet. we will see how things go and the partisanship that has been shown by the majority leader is still pretty relentless. we have not had the separate all senators meeting in the old senate chamber the way they did in the clinton impeachment to try to bring people together and to get behind that first rules resolution that was agreed to (whistling) unanimously. one very big difference is that mitch mcconnell is still holding the rules resolution as far as i know when we started on air, no nobody's seen it yet. the house managers are going to

be asked to file their brief tomorrow and they don't know what the rules are of the proceeding they're going into so walkabout wednesdays are back! we're seeing these little get a sirloin or chicken on the barbie, obstacles, little inconveniences fries, and a draft beer or coca-cola - being thrown in front of the all for just $10.99. house managers and so it doesn't hurry in! feel like we have come together wednesdays are for outback. outback steakhouse. aussie rules. as a sort of a solemn jury yet although there are early traces of it but still i think what we are seeing is partisanship, partisanship and more partisanship. >> what is tuesday going to look like? other than banging your fists on the table, if you don't have the votes, what can you do? >> well, i think the american public has a reasonably good idea from, you know, perry mason forward what a trial is supposed to look like. the trials have witnesses. the trials have evidence. and i think one thing we can do is to point out what a really gross aberration this is. i've been in a lot of trials. i have been on criminal work.

civil work. i have done administrative proceedings that are contested. wherever you go to keep out evidence, one of two things is true. either excludable because it's cumulative or prenlgds sjudiciau don't know it's out there and there's a law about body of evidence found later. here for the fist time in american legal history in my view nonexcludable evidence that we all know is there is being kept out of the tribunal. that has no precedent. >> you believe when you say non-excludable evidence, what is that evidence that's in your mind non -excludable. >> clearly the testimony of mr. bolton, the testimony of -- >> gotcha. >> -- mick mulvaney. >> yeah. >> the testimony of the assistants. probably tens of thousands of documents, all the materials that the white house has

obstructed, the vast majority of that evidence is not excludable. it is relevant. it's not improperly -- >> let many ask you this. how would you handle the lev parnas stuff? >> i will leave that up to the house. i think it's most significant affect right now is that, again, going back to my point that this never happened before that known evidence is being kept from a tribunal, republicans are being asked to vote on something that's really an aberration. and because they know the evidence is out there, they also have a heightened sense it's probably going to come out some day and lev parnas is living embodiment of new evidence coming out in unexpected ways and execed like bolton's book probably full of materials. so they're looking at taking a vote to keep out evidence that may very well be public before the election. and that they know perfectly well is there and that's kind of a toxic combination for them.

i think the more we highlight that the more we steer it towards a real evidentrial with evidence. >> at the beginning of the comments you seem to indicate there's not been too much of sort of feeling of the moment but maybe a little bit. sounds like green shoots of where you're acting like one chamber. what's the little green shoots that you have seen? >> well, nub one of us have electronics and we are looking at each other and the proceedings. >> that's a good lesson for all of us there, senator. >> yeah. and there are very few sidebar conversations usually the senate floor is a and get work done with the colleagues over there. the seeing the chief justice in the robes in the chair is a different look from

the colleagues up there in the suits and ties. >> well, think up with thing you have made me think is i'm curious and to see if you have sensed any sort of change after 15 and 20 hours of sitting there without your electronics. >> we will see. >> senator whitehouse, enjoy your final weekend for a while and we'll see all back here on tuesday. thank you very much for sharing your views. >> up ahead, how the impeachment trial impacting the 2020 race even before it starts, plus, the supreme court will hear a case that could end up eventually changing how we elect presidents. ok everyone! our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition... for strength and energy!

whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-seven vitamins and minerals. ensure, for strength and energy. with td ameritrade tools, and help from pros. it's almost like you're training me to become

an even smarter, stronger investor. exactly. ♪(rocky theme music) fifty-six straight, come on! that's it, left trade right trade. come on another trade, i want to see it! more! ♪ 80s-style training montage? yeah. happens all the time. ♪ 1917 has been nominated including best cinematography, best director, and best picture of the year.

you know, it is my constitutional duty and when i can go campaign in the early states including nevada and south carolina, i will. but when i have to be there i will. >> out of my control and i have obviously got to be there to fulfill my constitutional

responsibility but when i'm not there i'm campaigning. >> let me just say this. i'm here in d.c. between you and me i would prefer to be in iowa and new hampshire. >> between you and me on an open mic camera. anyway, welcome back. call it jury duty happening at the worst possible time. four democratic senators jumbling the campaign. and the new hampshire primary shortly after the iowa caucuses, they have to be in two placeses a one time. still with us, former senator dorgan and with me is ann, matthew and neera. what kind of empathy do you have for the fellow democrats there and the way the trials works? do you have any advice how to try to do two things at once that way? >> well, in the last trial 20 years ago, we didn't have smartphones and as you know things have changed. we didn't have social media

around so i think with social media and other devices they can be communicating still with the constituents in iowa and new hampshire but look. those four have to stay in the senate. that's their duty. they understand it. that's where they will be. snow biden on the other hand, i support joe, i should say. i think he'll do well but he will be able to be out there campaigning and we'll see how this affects the politics of it but they don't have a choice. impeachment trial is a big deal. >> thank you for being fort coming about who you support there. important for viewers to know. it does seem as if of the timing of the sanders/warren spat, feud, whatever we want to call it, coming when it is just when they have to be pulled off the trail that -- it is a rough period for both warren and sanders to be off the trail. >> yeah. although what's been weird about the race for most of the year is the race has been highly

nationalized so more than any primary i have seen iowa voters are really paying attention to who's doing well in the national polls and what their coalition is. the fact that iowa voters concerned that people can or cannot attract people of color to vote for them or whether they put the coalition together. i mean -- >> pundits. >> all basically super pundits and beat trump and put the -- so actually, you know, i think the bigger constraint is not being part of the impeachment is actually acting look a juror. if you could go on tv and beat the crap out of trump every day for what you're hearing that would be -- i actually think an asset to the iowa voters but i think the idea is they should behave like jurors because the republicans particularly aren't acting like jurors. >> to the two of you, ann and matthew, i think the one who's hurt the most is pete buttigieg because biden, the reason we're here is due to him. the senators have a role.

he sort of -- you know, one hand, yes, left alone and doesn't have a way into the national conversation right now. >> i was thinking it's klobuchar the most. you have to be in the state and going to events across the state. >> especially the mid western thing. >> exactly. >> be there. >> i can understand the buttigieg argument, as well. i do agree that in the sense politics are so nationalized now. the media culture so uniform now. you are checking in on how msnbc is covering the trial and if they interview the jurors you will be present there. i don't think it will have that much of an effect. >> ann? >> michael bennett is hurt that you left him out there. >> i'm sorry. >> he's -- he's hurt, too. but i was going to point to the president's tweet from earlier today where it's clear that he is trying to make this about bernie. he said they're rigging the election against bernie sanders

and nancy pelosi decided this to help her friend sleepy joe. just like last time he said. that's a little -- i mean, without getting too meta about it, he is talking to bernie voters who felt cut out by the process. sorry. >> yeah, no. i see -- i know what is happening. >> that is more than a dog whistle. >> byron dorgan, seasons you're supporting joe biden, how much do you think biden should be responding to what's happening in that trial? how much do they totally ignore it? and should he sort of embrace if he gets subpoenaed? >> well, the trial is the story. the trial is a -- significant national issue and so i don't think he can ignore it and i don't think he should but let me also go back. i agree that everything is nationalized in politics and with respect to iowa and new hampshire, both of them see

themselves as retail political states and they want retail and local issues and important and it's an advantage for joe biden to be in those states. perhaps while the others are serving their time in the senate. but you know, this whole impeachment issue cannot be ignored by joe biden or anyone else. you have to be involved in the issues. >> i think that this week what i thought was interesting about parnas is that testimony and that whole interview made clear really sort of biden's argument which is that trump is obsessed with beating or hurting him because he's worried about him. people have been surprised. they thought it would hurt biden. >> may not. hasn't yet. >> i think that people recognize that -- democratic voters recognize it makes the argument ironically enough which is that trump is most worried about -- >> why don't democrats call the

republican bluff and say, go ahead, subpoena biden? >> i think his unfavorables have risen. >> sure. >> inside and outside the party. >> not more than any other democrat. >> the margin against trump shrank. >> not double digits in these states. >> i believe this -- >> still has a higher margin. >> it shrunk and hurt him. >> he's still beating him. >> the story beat him. >> byron dorgan, go ahead. do you believe this has hurt biden or not? >> i don't think it has. i don't think -- joe biden is not under investigation here so, you know, i think you proceed with the impeachment trial the with an i that most americans expect you to do that. you know? be serious and sober and understand the gravity of it. and then have witnesses and have a vote. i really worry, chuck, that next tuesday what might happen is to see a chaotic chamber. wasn't the case 20 years ago because we had the plans and the

template and the rules and they were all agreed to 100-0. but i think that coming back on tuesday 100 senators, senators aren't wallflowers. they don't want to let things happen and without rules in place that 100 of them agree to i think it could be chaotic starting next tuesday. >> might as well be the tease for every television network. tune in. it will be chaotic on tuesday. anyway, byron -- >> like the trump presidency. >> yeah. thank you. before we go, let me give you a plug. you are author of a new book, "the girl in the photograph." by senator byron dorgan there. thank you all. and up next, we're going to the supreme court. for the latest on a case that could be a game changer. not for the 2020 election per se but for presidential campaigns going forward. vo: at 39, mike bloomberg

was fired. he turned around and started his own business - now with 20,000 employees. determination - it's the way mike will get it done. mb: i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. why are we doing this? why are we doing what? using my old spice moisturize with shea butter body wash... all i wanted was to use your body wash and all i wanted was to have a body wash. ♪

♪ ♪ everything your trip needs for everyone you love. expedia. 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.

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. build a clear plan for retirement. one that covers health care costs, taxes, and any other uncertainties. because when you're with fidelity, a partner who makes sure every step is clear, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward.

a partner who makes sure every step is clear, 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. have health care coveragerkers because mayor bloomberg got it done. he'll build on obamacare with universal coverage and lower the cost of prescription medicine. mike will get it done. mb: i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. . if you're an electoral college historian or geek, you're going to want to follow this case. welcome back. a potentially big move by the supreme court that could have major electoral consequences. the supreme court decided to take up the case of the so-called faithless electors to determine whether thor electors in the electoral college can side with a different presidential candidate than the

one who won the popular vote in their state. states have been binding their electors by law. not every state does it but for the most part in some ways for years, it has never made it to the supreme court and here we are. joining me now for more on this move, pete williams. pete, i'm going to take a, i'm just going to take a theory here and let you tell me why it is wrong. if this feels like the most open and shut case on these faithless electors as there is. if they've agreed to take up the case, it means the binding of electors is gone. tell me why i might be overreacting on that. >> because we don't know. there are two cases here. you might say that if there was just one but two cases with different outcome. a faithless elector's case was thrown out. he sued and won in the tenth

circuit. in washington state, three sued and lost. the washington state supreme court says yes, you have to vote as the popular vote does. the tenth circuit said no. the supreme court took both cases. so which case did it take to overturn? you can't do it that way. as a practical matter, you would say, yeah, the supreme court will not say that any elector can vote however he wants and just create chaos in thecollege. that seems unlikely as a practical matter. as a legal matter, there is a pretty convincing argument that the founders never meant electors to be bound by the popular vote. they meant them to be wise people and make a wise choice. 32 state laws have laws that bind the electors. so the question is are those constitutional or not? and i think the goal of the people who are filing these lawsuits, and bringing them to the supreme court, is eventually, they know it would be a tall order to get rid of

the electoral college. you would have to amend the constitution. they would like the see the states to go this compact system where it is proportion al. the electoral vote is proportion al to the electoral vote in the state and i think that's where they would like to see it be. but this question -- >> let me pause you there. so if they decide you can bind your electors, does it become then, it has made me think that's the only way the compact could work. if they say you can't, then the idea is out the window. it's dead. >> that's a good point. on the supreme court is fascinating. it has only given one major decision on the electoral college. that is to say, yes, states can require their electors to take a pledge saying that they will vote as the popular vote does. what the tenth circuit court

does, okay, they can do what they want in choosing the electors. when they show up on the electoral college in december to cast their vote, they become in essence federal officers and the state can't touch them at that point. >> that's why it sounds like an open and shut to me. pete williams, we'll be right back. thank you. williams, we'll be r back thank you. ♪ hi dad. no. edon't try to get up. hi, i'm julie, a right at home caregiver. and if i'd been caring for tom's dad, i would have noticed some dizziness that could lead to balance issues. that's because i'm trained to report any changes in behavior, no matter how small, so tom could have peace of mind. we'll be right there. we have to go. hey, tom. you should try right at home. they're great for us. the right care. right at home.

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. don't get mad get e*trade and start trading ♪ do you recall, not long ago ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪ ♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun

♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ ♪ ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪

a busy week that began with a candidate dropping out and

ended with the full beginning of the impeachment trial. don't miss that. "the beat" starts right now. i see you tonight and i have a feeling i'm seeing you a lot starting tuesday when we do the impeachment coverage. >> you and me together and a lot of our colleagues. a all hands on deck story and i'll be watching. appreciate it. >> thanks to you at the home for tuning in. we're covering these major developments. the president officially served with a summons as he now adds new people to argue on the president's behalf as this trial hits next week. plus a key witness revealing new information that could arise in the trial. and there are signs impeachment editors will be working