that is our show for today. "a.m. joy" will be back next saturday, 10:00 a.m. eastern. up next, my friend alex witt. >> ayanna pressley, she is stunning. that's just the superficial. she can speak so beautifully. she's so impassioned and intelligent. elizabeth warren has nothing to worry about with ayanna pressley on the stump for her. >> this freshman class of 2016 -- >> so accomplished. >> -- of 2018, are probably the best all-in freshman class since 1992, the most inspirational class. she is at the top of that class. she's brilliant, she's a voting rights activist. she's just an advocate for people, an intersectional advocate. it's not political, i'm not even from her state, but as a human being. >> does she represent your alma mater? i know she is in the cambridge area. >> you know what, that's a good

question. i'm not sure. but they would be lucky if she did. she is phenomenal. she has an endless political opportunity in her career, she'll go anywhere. >> i got to the studio early so i could plug in and listen to you, because you're not in the studio today. i've got two words for you, maxine waters. good day from right here, msnbc world headquarters in new york, high noon in the east, 9:00 a.m. out west. two days until history. washington gearing up for the third impeachment trial in american history. this hour, the key questions about whether there will be witnesses and how the president will defend himself. >> there is ample evidence, overwhelming evidence. any jury would convict him in three minutes flat. >> i think it's an illegitimate process in the house. they did not give the president due process. >> the vote was to impeach on

abuse of power which is not within the constitutional capacity for impeachment. >> if there's evidence out there that exonerates the president, we're still waiting to see it. the tangled web around lev parnas. plus the price tag of the royal breakup. the price of freedom for meghan and harry. but first this hour, history in the waiting. the presidential impeachment trial set to begin tuesday. the unfolding battle already starting this weekend with a glimpse of what we can expect from capitol hill and the white house. the democrats in a 111-page brief released earlier outlined their case on two articles of impeachment. the white house firing back in a very pointed six-page brief countering the house democrat charges. meanwhile, senators lending perspective to the moment. >> history has its eyes on us. how are we going to operate. we can't careful to partisanship

and tribalism. it's destroying our nation. in this moment we've got to let our highest selves come through and sit in those seats and uphold the oath we all just swore last week. >> i hope at the end of the day republican senators understand that history will find you. make sure you make a decision you can live with in terms of the constitution and your own professional career. >> one of the key battles and a major point of contention, the question of whether the trial of president donald trump will include witnesses. here are the republicans. >> there is not going to be a process where the democrats get their witnesses and the president gets shut out. here what's identifyi i'm going. i want this trial to get over with as soon as possible. >> are you still open-minded on witnesses? >> well, i am, only within the

scope of these two articles of impeachment. my personal preference, chuck where would be to see this thing dismissed out of hand because i think it's an illegitimate process in the house. they did not give this president due process. >> on the other side of the aisle, a starkly different view. >> imagine that you're a juror and the judge comes into the courtroom and says, look, i've been in consultation with the defendant, i'm working hand in hand with the defendant and we've agreed i'm not going to allow the prosecution to call any witnesses and i'm not going to allow the prosecution to show you any documents. no jurors have ever heard that kind of thing from a judge because it would be absurd, it would be a mockery of a trial, not a trial. that's what senator mcconnell to date is proposing. >> i don't know how you justify not calling witnesses and not introducing new information if it's related to this trial. >> meanwhile, one of the biggest questions still remains whether democrats can convince enough

republican senators that trump's actions warrant conviction and removal from office. >> i asked if it was okay to shri solicit. we've seen the president ask the ukrainians and the chinese to get involved in public. >> those are just statements, political. they make them all the time. >> so it's okay? >> i didn't say it's okay. i said people make them, meme do things, things happen. >> this is the president of the united states. >> well, he's still the president of the united states, he's human, he's going to make mistakes of judgment and everything else as both parties have from the beginning of our republic. >> so you say it's a mistake but not necessarily impeachable? >> i say i don't believe, like professor dershowitz at this point, that it rises to the standard of an impeachable offense. >> as promised, joining me now, congressman maxine waters, democrat of california, chair of the financial services committee. congressman, big welcome to you.

you're there in los angeles, my hometown, so i'm glad to have you. as you listened there to senator shel shelby, of course one of the senators who will be voting whether or not to convict this president, what is your reaction when republicans make the argument that the president's conduct as outlined by democrats does not warrant conviction and removal? >> thank you very much for having me on this morning. i'm delighted to give my opinion and my evaluation about what's going on with those senators. first of all, anybody, including their lawyers and that would be dershowitz or any of the senators who say that what we have brought forward are not impeachable offences simply do not understand the constitution. the constitution gives to the members of congress the decision to determine what is impeachable. and so when they talk about high crimes and misdemeanors, they're

talking about anything that they decide, that we decide as members of congress, falls within high crimes, misdemeanors, whatever it is we think falls within that description is what is impeachable. it is not that there are specific laws that are outlined in the instituticonstitution. it's not that the constitution says what is and what is not. it's what is decided bit congress of the united states. >> all right. and so clearly they're setting up the way they're going to go in the senate, at least the republicans. but with respect to witnesses, republicans are arguing that any additional witnesses should have been called during the house hearing testimony, knowing of course that the president blocked a number of those close to him from testifying. do you wish, ma'am, that the house had kept its investigation open in hopes of getting more witnesses? it could have taken a talking point away from republicans now,

if nothing else. >> we absolutely did what we thought was necessary to inform the american public about this dishonorable president and what he has done. yes, he blocked, he intimidated, and he made sure that those people with information about him and what he has done did not come from the congress of the united states and testify. and so he basically obstructed justice. he obstructed the congress of the united states of america. and he worked very hard to keep those with information from coming before us. why would he do that? only a guilty person would do that. why didn't he cooperate and say, you can have whomever you want as witnesses, because i know that i have not done anything wrong, i did not try to get the president of the ukraine, for example, to create this false

investigation of the bidens, i was not acting in my own best interests, i didn't do any of those things. they don't have a good defense and so they have to come with things like process and they have to come with the idea that somehow we are outside of the constitution and that we don't have what it takes in order to do an impeachment. and so they're at fault. they don't want any witnesses to come now. just as you said a moment ago, he has been working with the defendant and he came before the american public literally in a way that says, i don't care what you think, i am not impartial, i am going to work with the president and we're going to make sure that we do what he wants us to do. it is absolutely outrageous. >> if the senate agrees to call witnesses, including some of the democrats want to hear from, john bolton, even mike pence,

rudy giuliani, even though that would be a long shot, would you be okay with the republicans call joe biden or hunter biden, would that be a fair exchange? >> they can call whoever they want to call. we know if they call joe biden, they're attempting to distract attention away from what the president is accused of. absolutely, we should have mulvaney and pompeo, those who absolutely know and participated in what was going on. this little game of his friends and members, people in his cabinet, basically have created a criminal enterprise in the white house. yes, we want to hear from them, they should be witnesses. they can try and call whomever they want to call as a witness. i feel can we that we're on the right track, that we are doing what is negatives to do as responsible members of the congress of the united states when the president of the united states has put us in a position

of not being secure, in a position where we have to deal with lies from him every day. and so let them call whomever they want to call. but if we can get the witnesses, they dare not lie when they come before the senate. and we will get down to exactly what this president has done. and people will realize how dangerous and irresponsible he is. >> so to that end, if someone like, say, john bolton testified, do you have an envisioning of a scenario where republicans could abandon the president? look, it happens to richard nixon. as you know, evidence surfaced that was impossible to ignore. do you think there is the same level of evidence now against this president but republicans are just ignoring it, they're trying to rush this through before you can get to it? >> well, the republicans who don't have the guts to stand up to this president, allow themselves to be intimidated,

will basically suffer his lies and his distortion, do not deserve to be reelected to their offices. it is absolutely ridiculous, in the face of the information that we have, in the face of the evidence that we have, that they could simply ignore that in the interests, they think, of being reelected, because they stuck with the president. it's going to backfire on many of them. and they're going to stick with the president who is going to cause them to be questioned by their constituents and be asked, why didn't you consider the evidence that's come forward. and so they can continue to do that if they want to, and they can believe that somehow this is going to get them reelected. i think it's going to backfire on some of them. >> what about if the president is ultimately acquitted by the senate? do you see the house potentially taking up other articles of impeachment against him? you are the chair of the financial services committee. there has been plenty of talk of

emoluments clause violations. might those potentially be stronger than what we've seen here, could that be taken up? >> let me just say this. all of us have the responsibility for oversight. yes, i have subpoenaed documents from deutsche bank. yes, i am concerned about the financial affairs of the president of the united states, including money laundering. and i'm continuing with that. as a matter of fact, the subpoenas that i've issued that's gone through the lower courts are now going to be heard at the supreme court in march. we will not stop. whether or not that leads to another impeachment activity, i don't know. but i know we must continue with the work that our constituents have elected us to come to congress to do. >> indeed, carry on, ma'am. congresswoman maxine waters, very good to speak with you, thank you so much for your time. >> you're welcome, thank you.

josh lederman, on capitol hill, the week of impeachment is under way, tell us what's going on. >> reporter: weld actually have some breaking news, we've spotted several of the house impeachment managers walking into congresswoman pelosi's office on the other side of the capitol. they are having some meetings today. we spotted four of them so far, including chairman schiff of the intelligence committee, congress m congressman crow, congresswoman val demings, congressman garcia. we believe they're likely discussing which role the various impeachment managers will play when that senate trial kicks off. so i want to walk you through what the next week is going to look like, because it's going to be very busy here in the capitol. it's going to start here in the senate on tuesday. that's when they will have a debate and vote on a resolution for what the first rules to

guard the first part of the trial are going to look like. and then we're going to kick off the 24 hours split over three days when the house impeachment managers, the democrats, will be able to make their arguments. following that, the president's legal team will have their 24 hours split, also over three days, to defend the president and make their rebuttal. that's the point when senators will then have a chance to ask and have their questions answered by the two teams. and following that, there's going to be a vote on whether to allow witnesses and new documents to be included in that second phase of the trial, the big debate we've all been discussing for the last several weeks. and in the meantime, there's some other procedural steps that are also really important. starting noon tomorrow, that's when the white house has a deadline to submit their full, thorough legal brief in defense of the president. then democrats will have one day to provide their response to that. then on wednesday, that's when the action really is going to

start, where the house managers will be coming over here to the senate, making their live presentations before the jurors, the senators. and friday, the president's legal team getting their first chance to start their presentations. so a packed week full of a lot of action here in the senate. buckle up, alex. >> absolutely. i also want to ask you, josh, about the reporting that you've been leading on lev parnas, the associate of rudy giuliani who has been indicted, he's been accused of breaking campaign finance law. he was arrested this fall at the washington airport with a one-way ticket out of the country. we have to put that out there to offer perspective. as you know, parnas, this guy loves selfies. he's taken photos with a number of people in the president's inner alburquerqucircle. but the two top men at the top of the screen, they have one thing in common, texts about having former ambassador marie

yovanovitch under surveillance. >> i don't believe it's true, i think he's either drunk or was trying to make himself bigger than he was, so i didn't take it seriously. >> this went on for seven days, he couldn't have been drunk the whole time. >> no, he's drunk the whole time. >> you didn't believe he actually had the ambassador under surveillance? >> absolutely not. >> you didn't worry that she was in physical danger? >> no. >> because you didn't believe mr. hyde? >> i didn't believe mr. hyde, no. >> and two days later you got reaction from the second man involved here. what have you found out? >> reporter: in his first response to us, he denied it. he confirmed that this congressional candidate robert hyde had asked him for information about yovanovitch but said absolutely that would have been illegal, i didn't do anything like that. then these house documents came out that showed text messages corroborating that's exactly what he had done. in a followup email to us just

yesterday, he completely changed his tune. he apologized, said yes, i did send these messages but suggested it was just ridiculous banter that he was just joked around, didn't actually have yovanovitch under surveillance. so we know the investigation is ongoing, not only by the state department but also by ukraine's interior ministry which has opened up a criminal probe into this very alarming development. >> i don't know, it seems this guy and the president have very similar tastes when it comes to comedy, when they don't like what's being said, they say, eh, it was a joke. josh lederman, thank you very much. joining me now, a reporter from "business insider." you wrote a story saying that the president is reportedly picking his defense team based on how they perform on tv. what's the president's perspective? >> the one biggest tag line for

this presidency would be showmanship over substance. that seems to be the route he's going here too. he apparently -- and he could be partially right, but he does believe that the senate impeachment trial is not happening in a coveurt of law, it's happening in a court of public opinion. so it really matters to him how he looks to the public because of course the public's perception of him is going to affect how senators vote on whether to convict or acquit him. so his thinking here is that if he can hire people who make him look good on tv, it doesn't matter what the facts are, as long as they portray him to be innocent and absolutely, completely exonerated of any wrongdoing, then he cannot be impeached by the senate. >> okay. there are reports that the white house lawyers advised against tapping alan dershowitz. >> dershowitz has been at the center of a number of controversies especially in recent months. he's no stranger to representing

controversial figures, o.j. simpson, jeffrey enterprise, not to mention his recent entanglement with the jeffrey epstein scandal in particular, d dershowitz is at the center of a lawsuit from a woman saying she was offered to dershowitz for sex. >> thanks for weighing in as always. >> thank you. very stable genius. omarosa and sam nunberg will weigh in with their insider slufs weigh in with their inside sluf views. views. wow! that's ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana!

bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein. until i found out what itst it actually was.ed me. dust mite droppings! eeeeeww! dead skin cells! gross! so now, i grab my swiffer sweeper and heavy-duty dusters. duster extends to three feet to get all that gross stuff gotcha! and for that nasty dust on my floors, my sweeper's on it. the textured cloths grab and hold dirt and hair no matter where dust bunnies hide. no more heebie jeebies. phew. glad i stopped cleaning and started swiffering.

when the president's impeachment trial formally begins on tuesday, a shocking new book will hit the shelves. "a very stable genius" by "washington post" reporters

portrays the president as erratic and at times dangerously uninformed. according to excerpts released in "the post," at one point the president did not seem to grasp the fundamental history of the attack on pearl harbor and that he had a lack of understanding of basic geography. he tells the indian prime minister, quote, it's not like you have china on your border. joining us, omarosa manigault newman, author of "unhinged," and former trump campaign adviser sam nunberg. i'm glad to have both of you. on maros omarosa, does anything here surprise you? >> it doesn't surprise me, this book has covered since my

departure and it's much of the same. donald trump is clearly not equipped to be president of the united states. some of these stories gave me ptsd because it reminded me of what it was like to sit in those cabinet meetings or in the oval talking to adopdonald trump, whd the attention of a fruit fly. these stories capture what it's like to have him as leader of the free world, and it's alarming. >> in your perspective, your experience, what is it like when this president has one of his angry fits, gets upset, and sam is smiling as well so i can ask you both, is it well-represented here in "the washington post," does he go off the rails? >> oh, he does, he goes from zero to 200 over the most

trivial things. he starts to scream, he turns orange red, he starts to emote, and he doesn't want you to leave, because everybody wants to kind of edge away. he would have these tantrums and there was no way to calm him down. and then an hour later, he would call you and try to have a normal conversation. it was not normal at all. >> sam, you want to add to that? >> in my experience, it's been the same. when i got those normal conversations, maybe omarosa would agree with me, it was more him trying to kind of apologize, even though he knew he blew his gasket, he would speak to you as if nothing happened or occasionally he would say, i want to make sure you're following up on what we talked about. there were some instances in this book where phillip rucker, who i've dealt with, i've never dealt with miss leonnig, the

president didn't deal with them, he didn't do an interview for this book, some of these people have sour grapes, some shouldn't have been in the administration to begin with such as the former secretary of state who was put in there by condoleeza rice. if people didn't like the fundamental views the president came in with, they should have resigned. some things they're complaining about such as the president telling the pentagon, look, you don't know how to win wars, i don't agree with what you're explaining to me about why we have certain bases or relationships, this was, as omarosa would tell you, for better or worse, adjudicated in the election. he spoke about this in the primary. >> but a lot of these things were kind of cowardly, sam, you have to admit. the man has a fear of firing people face-to-face. >> true. >> so he has these antics. he talks about his love for the military but he has disdain for these generals. >> but i would say there is a distinction there, respectfully,

omarosa. he respects the armed forces. but when we saw the president such as barack obama and george w. bush have suffered under the pentagon leadership when they're lied to and the public is lied to about how the occupation of afghanistan is going. >> but sam, to back up what omarosa is saying, he's saying to the generals, i wouldn't go to war with you, you're a bunch of dopes and babies. this was a fit. it happened at the 2017 meeting at the pentagon that was set up after trump's military leaders were concerned about what they thought were his gaping holes in his knowledge of america's key alliances. i mean -- >> and i think it's time for us to stop apologizing for his bad behavior. sam, you saw it up close and personal. i think it's time for us to ring the alarm that donald trump is dangerous and he is damaging our democracy. some things that i witnessed, particularly the cabinet

meetings and how he talked to people, i saw in this book, they were referencing how he talked to kirsten. there is no excuse for how he belittled her and put her down and talked about her looks. and not necessarily about her performance, because she pushed back. but there is no excuse for the way this president has behaved. and we have to stop try to protect him by coming up with those anecdotes like you shared, sam. >> but i would say too the -- >> i want to ask you this, before you say that. do you think the president has gaping holes in his knowledge relative to the job that he was elected to do? do you think he is dangerously uninformed in those areas? >> i think that he is dangerously intellectually uncurious. i think that the president does know what he doesn't know and he doesn't care. i had this problem with him, i mean, it's in michael wolfe's book, when i was trying to teach him the constitution or go over certain debate questions. >> he doesn't know the

constitution. >> does this relate to the job he was elected to do? >> look, i wouldn't want to ask the president about his education policy and what is going on with betsy devos. i wouldn't necessarily ask him what is going on with certain other departments that aren't coming to my mind. on the other hand if you ask him about trade, if you ask him about tax relief, if you ask him about the budget, if you ask him about immigration, he would. so once again, he is not intellectually curious. if there are certain issues that are not -- that he can't substitute for his life experience, he won't listen at all. >> did you listen in on this 2017 meeting, omarosa? because you were still on staff at that time. >> there is something neurological going on with donald trump. i am not a doctor but i'll tell you what i observed in 2003 when

i first met the man and when i last spoke to him. there is some disconnect with his ability to process basic information. it's not that he doesn't know the basic terminology of the government, of its structure and functions. he makes statements that have impact around the world. that's what he doesn't grasp, his ignorance is destroying our country. >> can i ask you guys quickly, i'm being told in my ear we're running up against time, sam, impeachment trial, a couple of days away from that getting under way, what do you think the mood is in the white house? >> i'm sure there is apprehension. the president has assembled a team he's comfortable with that he's watched on television. the ultimate issue is whether or not the president will say, i'm going to decide to go down and speak, i don't care what justice roberts says, i'm going to speak

and i'm not going to take questions. what i see here, the president needs to be worried about how independents take this. republicans have one point of view and democrats have one point of view. the fact of the matter is there's a third to 45% of independents that have been flipping on and off about whether or not the president should be removed. i hope that he would listen to his legal team and let them make substantive arguments. you saw a concession by the president that he needs to allow the senators that are going to vote to dismiss him, and they will, probably by party line vote, to have a constitutional reason to, substantive reason to. >> can i speak to that? as a staffer who worked in the white house, i can tell you what it's like to go through this every day, the clinton impeachment started out as a real estate deal gone bad and turned into something else. everyone knows this is not a done deal although we keep hearing that narrative from the right. anything can happen in this hearing that could actually remove the president from

office. and that's what hangs over their head every single day. >> omarosa, sam, very good conversation, guys, thanks so much for sharing is your insights, i appreciate it. coming up next, what could be the hardest part of the democrats' impeachment case against the president. nt case against the president. very fir, your move-in-day feast, your bold canine caper, your dinner in the dark, your mammoth masterpiece, (whispering) your 3:47am snack, and whatever happened here. oscar mayer is found in more fridges than anyone else, because it's the taste you count on. make every sandwich count. 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. ♪ patients that i see without asking yabout dry mouth. about xeljanz xr. they feel that they have to drink a lot of water. medications seem to be the number one cause for dry mouth. i like to recommend biotene. it replenishes the moisture in your mouth. biotene definitely works. [heartbeat]

on a flexible wealth plan. and with new brokerage accounts, your cash is automatically invested at a rate that's at least 20 times more than other advisory firms. personalized advice. unmatched value. at fidelity, you can have both. fthe prilosec otc two-weekymore. challenge is helping people love what they love again. just one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn. because life starts when heartburn stops. take the challenge at prilosecotc dot com.

new insight now into how the president's legal team will try to defend him. alan dershowitz was asked this

morning if he thinks the president should not be impeached even if all the arguments laid out by the house is accepted by fact. >> let's say you have a lot of evidence but the grand jury diets for something that's not a crime. that's what happened here. you have a lot of evidence, disputed evidence, it can go both ways, but the vote was to impeach on abuse of power which is not within the constitutional criteria for impeachment and obstruction of congress. those are both the kind of things that led hamilton and madison, talk about nightmare, to regard that as the greatest nightmare. number one, giving congress too much power to allow the president to serve at the will of congress, and number two, as hamilton put it, the greatest danger is turning impeachment into a question of who has the most votes in which house. >> joining me now, joyce vance, msnbc contributor and former u.s. attorney. what's your reaction to alan dershowitz there? >> well, i think he's wrong for

a lot of reasons. first off, we all have common sense, right? we can use our common sense. we understand that abuse of power by a president is a very serious matter. what dershowitz is trying to do here is what lawyers in a civil case would call a motion to dismiss. he's saying even if the president did everything he's alleged to have done in the articles of impeachment, legally he shouldn't be impeached because it's not in a criminal case a crime. here he's saying it's not an impeachable offense. and he's just wrong. the text of the constitution itself makes that clear. >> you know what's interesting, i was sharing with you in the commercial that i was communicating with laurence tribe yesterday after my show, and here is something that he sent me. he said, there is no basis at all for the claim that the framers rejected making abuse of power impeachable. what they rejected was making their policy disagreements impeachable. they sharply distinguished doing that from removing those who use their public power for private gain.

do you agree with that? >> i do. professor tribe is exactly right here. we know that the development of the common law, of course, which impeachment was drawn from as a remedy, there was hot debate among the founding fathers over whether impeachment belonged in the constitution. they concluded that it did. and when professor tribe says -- and we've discussed a lot, alex, you have to faithfully execute the duties of your office. when the president subverts national security and the powers of his office for his own political gain, he's crossed that line. and professor tribe is exactly on target. >> we should also say another behind the scenes, before you came on the show you told me about a comment that was made by one of our colleagues, paul butler, an msnbc analyst.

let's play some of what he said yesterday on our air. >> alan dershowitz was a first rate professor of criminal law. i'm glad i didn't have him for constitutional law, because here he's just wrong on the merits. it's clear, if you look at the federalist papers, if you look at what the intent of the framers was in creating the impeachment remedy, it was for this kind of public corruption. it was for when people take the enormous power that they're given in state office and use it for their own ends. so i think he was brought in to make a legal argument to get the senate to think the facts don't matter here, even if everything is true as alleged in the articles, it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. he's part of the scheme to have a trial without witnesses and without evidence. >> it sounds to me like he was exactly reiterating laurence tribe's statements. this really resonated with you. >> so i think many people who have looked at this issue, whether they're constitutional

scholars like laurence tribe or folks like paul and me who have more of a criminal law specialty, which ends up being constitutional law, we seem to all view this in a very similar sort of light. and i think that's because it's clear that the constitution makes this execution of the office dutifully very important for a president. and there is also precedent for impeaching a president for abuse of office. both the proposed nixon articles of impeachment and the clinton articles of impeachment included abuse of power. it's only this president who is trying to have his supporters make this novel argument that he can trounce the powers of the presidency and get off scot-free. >> how i love tapping into your expertise, joyce vance, thank you very much. >> thanks, alex. we're going to reair all of rachel maddow's lev parnas interview starting at 10:00 eastern right here on msnbc. parting ways from the royal family will be such sweet sorrow

for harry and meghan but it will cost them a princely sum. cost them a princely sum liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty biberty... cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. 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. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

wherever we want to go, we just have to start. autosave your way there with chase. chase. make more of what's yours. text on america's best 4g lte networks for $20? unlimited talk? i like that! because on sundays you know i gotta talk to mama, then on... this is your wake-up call, people. the new tracfone wireless. now you're in control. the new tracfone wireless. ♪ 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 ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪

new today in the royal split. nbc news confirms harry and meghan markle will turn over $3 million that was spent on refurbishing their frogmore estate. nbc foreign correspondent matt bradley joins me now from london, a somewhat dark buckingham palace behind you, my friend. matt, we understand that the couple have an estimated net worth of what, like 30 to $45 million. where did that money come from and do they stand to lose any of that in the deal just announced yesterday? >> reporter: where is it going, that's the big question. there are two main ways the royal family makes money. that's basically from properties and assets that they own. one of the funds is called the

duchy of cornwall. that goes straight to queen elizabeth, which she can distribute to the royal family as she sees fit. that's $20 million a year in dividends. the duchy of lancaster goes to the queen's son prince charles and he can then distribute that to his sons or relatives, however he sees fit. there's a little more than $80 million in taxpayer funding. that goes to the whole royal family, not any specific person. we have to remember, a lot of this wealth is generations old. it's inherited. it's not accounted for, because remember, this whole issue gets to this question, who are the royals? are they representatives of the state? are they state employees? are they private citizens? do they have the right to have their own wealth that they don't have to show to the public or can they keep this stuff and decide how they're going to spend it on their own terms? all these questions are being raised once again. the question of getting rid of taxpayer money, that's not even

going to settle a lot of this because a lot of this money still comes from assets and then there's going to be the question of protection, who is going to be paying for protecting the royals even after they're royals? >> and i know buckingham palace is loath to discuss details on that front. we'll talk to you next hour, thanks so much. back to washington, no word yet on rules for this week's impeachment trial or if ones will even be called to testify. >> i'm going to vote against calling the four witnesses requested by senator schumer. they're all covered by executive privilege. >> if the senate decides and prevails and there are no witnesses, it will be the first impeachment trial in history that goes to conclusion without witnesses. >> let's bring in the president and ceo of the lbj foundation. it's good to see you. let's get into this because it's a notable moment in history.

how should people pause and take that in? >> this is a -- there have been four impeachment trials now, with this current one. this is certainly different than the other ones we've seen. in the modern era we've seen the nixon impeachment trial, which didn't go to the full fruition because president nixon resigned. we've seen the clinton trial in the 1990s. both, again, fundamentally different. and this one different from that. first of all, the charges are dramatically different, alex. these are far more serious charges than those that we saw against president nixon and president clinton. and also i think we are seeing in this case a very, very divided electorate. we had that in the '90s to a certain degree. we did not have that so much with the nixon impeachment trial. it seemed like the jurors in that case, the congressmen and the senators who were presiding over those proceedings, were far more impartial and intent on

upholding their duties to obey the constitution and not to look at that on partisan lines. >> the difficulty of the divisive nature of this country, how much is that going to play into overall, though, this trial? i mean, let's face it, impeachment is political. so if you look at the political divide in this country, is it just reflecting the norm of what's out there? >> i think it's reflecting a deeply divided country. it's about 50/50, almost 50/50, if you look at the numbers. and that's exactly where the numbers are coming in with our senators and congress men who are voting on these issues. so it definitely reflects what we're seeing in the country, within our borders. >> in terms of this trial, it's different in another way, mark, and that's technologically speaking, because we can broadcast this trial from any

which angle we want to. we didn't have that necessarily during the clinton impeachment. senators have platforms that the framers could certainly have never imagined. how does that affect the process? >> one of the things that is dividing us as a nation, alex, is the increasing fragmentation of our media landscape, without question. and you can subscribe -- you can hear your version of reality on mainstream media platforms, whether they're based in truth or not. so if we have an inherent belief about something, we can hear that in the media that we tune in to. and that's changed dramatically. the conservative media, for instance, which just burgeoned during the 1990s, during the impeachment trial, it's become a major industry. i think it's shaping public opinion in very dramatic ways. >> what about the timing of this? this is an election year. this is also a first term

president. how if at all does that change the equation? >> you're absolutely right. if you look at the nixon and clinton impeachment trials, they were for presidents who were in their second term. so it was irrelevant in terms of their reelection, because becau the provisions of the 25th amendment. they could not run for the presidency again. we have a president in this case who is up for re-election later this year. so it could very much play into -- come into play as it relates to our choosing whether to re-elect him or not. it seems like the way that the numbers are holding right now, that if you are for trump now, you are probably going to be for trump later. i can't imagine that there will be anything in this trial, particularly with witnesses not being called to testify, that will change the minds of those who are core trump supporters. >> thank you for joining me. it's good to see you. >> thanks.

how long the trial could last and whether that might affect the outcome next. it's red lobster's new three-course shrimp feast

for $14.99. 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. >> 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. ♪ i can tell you, the atmosphere in the senate when i came with the other house managers and we read the articles was one befitting something that has happened three times in the nation's history. >> a historic week on capitol hill. house impeachment managers are working through the weekend to prepare for the senate trial which begins on tuesday. joining me now, chris lu and susan delpersio. big welcome to you both. chris, you first. your expectations for this trial, what are they? do you think we're going to see a long process or a short process? what do you think? >> i don't think we know. we expect opening statements go for about a week and a half, two weeks or so. what we have learned over the last couple of months, ten days, two weeks is an eternality in

this scandal. what we have just seen over the last couple of days, whether it's the lev parnas interview or the documents he made available, importantly, he said only a fraction of what he has given to the house intelligence committee has come forward. who knows what is still sitting out there. i would be remiss if i didn't mention the goa report the other day that indicated the president broke the law. look, nobody really knows at this point. >> i just want to make sure i'm clear, you were the deputy labor secretary. >> i appreciate the promotion. >> i'm sure you deserved it. they didn't get around to giving it to you. susan, the tug-of-war for witne witnesss, h witnesses, how will that play out? >> it's going on. there's an argument there should be witnesses and documents presented. i have just as of today taken a different view as to how the republicans who are interested in hearing from the witnesses should approach this. they should wait until after

opening arguments before they make any kind of deal and decide on anything. they shouldn't look to do this on tuesday with mitch mcconnell. the reason goes to what chris just said. in the span of ten days, january 6 through 16, we heard john bolton wanted to testify, we heard parnas, goa report. who knows what can happen a week and a half after opening statements. i think they would be actually wise to wait. they can say based on what we heard, we listened to the evidence, we would like to hear from these people. which would be a very good argument to put forward. >> chris, we have heard republicans say the president may have committed these offenses but they're not impeachable actions. that seems to be what the defense line will be. now you have the lawyers saying the same thing as well. what do you make of that? >> well, you know, i have always thought that was the best defense that they had. you have seen over the last couple of months shifting of defense from it didn't happen to

no quid pro quo. ultimately, if they admit, the president did this but it doesn't rise to an impeachable offense, which is what the clinton defense was in 1999. that would actually be sort of credible. the problem is, you have the president just two days ago continuing to insist, this was a perfect phone call. i'm not sure he is giving them the breathing room they need to take that position. >> do you think, susan, if this process goes longer than expected that more republicans could flip or do you that i quitalquit al acquittal or is it baked in the cake? >> i think he will be acquitted. i don't see 20 senator comesing forwar coming forward. we don't know what could happen. there's something to be said for the fact that these senators are going to be working six days a weesh week.

>> okay. thank you very much, chris, susan. love seeing you both. the first week in the trump impeachment trial could be most critical five days of the case. for $14.99. 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.

thouwhich is breast cancer metastthat has spreadcer, to other parts of the body, are living in the moment and taking ibrance. ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+/her2- metastatic breast cancer, as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole significantly delayed disease progression versus letrozole, and shrank tumors in over half of patients. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. ibrance may cause severe inflammation of the lungs that can lead to death. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including trouble breathing, shortness of breath, cough, or chest pain. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests,

diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. be in your moment. ask your doctor about ibrance. you're having one more bite! no! one more bite! ♪ kraft. for the win win. 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.