chuck todd. chuck todd this sunday, the impeachment trial this sunday the impeachment trial begins. >> he has been impeached. he has been impeached forever. they can never erase that. >> this is all he wanted. this is a political impeachment. >> the trial kicks off this week. the government attaching each other's motives. >> we saw the justification for running the fastest, thinnest and weakest impeachment in american history. >> without witnesses, it's no trial at all but a cover-up. >> this as new evidence emerges from a giuliani associate. >> president trump knew exactly what was going on. he was aware of all my

movements. >> my guests this morning, senator whip dick durbin of illinois and david duke of georgia. plus, elizabeth warren's refusal to shake hands with bernie sanders and their post-debate squabble. >> i think you called me liar on national tv? >> let's not do it right now. >> reporter: has stirred fear on the left that this threatens its chances of securing a progressive nominee. and a county to county project. >> i've been hearing people will change this time and get behind the nominee no matter what. >> we talked to african-american voters in milwaukee about 2020. joining me for inside analysis are hugh hewitt, host on the salem radio network, former congresswoman donna edwards, and the author of a book on president trump, phil rucker, white house chief bureau of the "washington post" and carol

leonnig of the "washington post." >> announcer: this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. good morning, everyone. last week we witnessed the dignified rituals that played out on capitol hill with terms like hear ye, hear ye, do impartial justice, and on pain of imprisonment marking the occasion. but within the 19th century rules were corrosive 21st century partisan politics. republicans accused democrats of doing anything they can to remove a president they despise. democrats accuse the republicans of defending the president no matter the issues against him. a source working with the president's impeachment team says they will argue the articles of impeachment allege no violation of law, that impeachment is the result of what they believe is a flawed process in the house, and they insist that the democrats' case collapses on the actual facts.

we will take it head on, this source claims. still, we're left to wonder about another jury similarly divided between supporters and opponents of mr. trump. that's the one watching at home. that jury remains as divided as the senate, and the question is, are they still open to being persuaded one way or the other. >> a lot of presidents, some good, some not so good. but you got a good one now. even though they're trying to impeach the son of a bitch, can you believe that? >> late on saturday, house democrats formally outlined their case for the president's removal from office, arguing to use his official powers to press a foreign government to enter a foreign election for his personal, political gain. then an attempt to cover up his scheme by discovering congress' investigation into his misconduct. >> the president put his personal interests above our national interests, above our national security. and if not stopped, he will do it again. >> reporter: the president's

lawyers issued a six-page letter, calling impeachment a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election, and arguing the president broke no laws. also this weekend, new documents from lev parnas, the giuliani associate who is facing federal campaign finance charges. they include, what's that messages showing parnas was worksing with a top aide in the house intelligence community, devin nunes, to set up calls to feed giuliani information about joe biden. the messages also show the possible surveillance of marie yavonovitch, the former u.n. ambassador to ukraine. >> president trump knew exactly what was going on. he was aware of all of my movements. i wouldn't do anything without the consent of rudy giuliani or the president. >> i don't know him. i don't know parnas other than i guess we had pictures taken, which i do thousands of people. >> reporter: as the senate trial begins -- >> you will do department of justice according to

constitution and laws, so help you god. >> reporter: many senators have signalled how they'll vote. >> he committed an impeachable act and i will vote to convict him. >> reporter: the witnesses, like john bolton, is likely a week away. the democrats have to get the votes. >> if i don't feel i have enough, i will vote to have additional information by way of additional witnesses. >> i think if they wanted witnesses, they should have called them in the house. >> reporter: on friday the president unveiled additions to his legal team, including harvard constitutional lawyer alan dershowitz. >> abuse of power, even if proved, is not an impeachable offense. >> and former prosecutor, ken starr, who once argued the case for bill clinton. they have made 350 appearances

on fox news in the last year. >> it's dick durbin, senator from illinois. mr. durbin, welcome back to "meet the press." >> thank you, chuck. >> are there any active negotiations happening right now between your leadership team, yourself, senator schumer, senator mcconnell, senator cornyn and the republican team? >> i looked last night, and there has not been an exchange of the mcconnell memo which is supposed to kick off this entire trial. we're less than a little over 48 hours away from the trial actually commencing, and there hasn't been the most basic or exchange of information. >> it sounds like you guys, instead of having a debate behind the scenes, you're going to have this debate in front of us on tuesday. you know it looks like senator mcconnell is going to outline rules that, while similar to clinton, what do you make of this reporting that indicates he's thinking of doubling the amount of trial time per day to

speed up this trial? >> chuck, as you said in the opening here, donald trump is on trial for impeachment, and the jury, of course, will be 100 senators. but the senate itself is on trial as far as i'm concerned, and the jury is the american people. the question is whether or not we are going to have a fair trial, whether members of the senate are going to be loyal to the constitution or loyal to the president. a fair trial, everyone understands, involves evidence. evidence would be documents and witnesses. we know the president has refused to provide documentation beyond the july 25th telephone memo, and he's refused to provide basic witnesses, who actually heard what happened in that conversation and saw what happened afterwards. so at this point, the senate is on trial. and i hope at the end of the day, enough republican senators will understand history will find you. make certain that you make a decision that you can live with in terms of our constitution and your own professional career. >> so explain what you're going to try to do on tuesday.

he's going to introduce rules outlining this, there's going to be some debate. what power do you have other than rhetoric? >> well, it's an interesting situation. the senate members, by and large, are silenced. we can make motions, we can amend motions that are made for the senate. the argument for those positions will be made by house managers on the democratic side and the president's legal team on his side. there may be some rulings by the chief justice presiding over this, but ultimately the decision is made by majority vote of the united states senate as to the process we follow. >> does this mean you have to be working with adam schiff, jerry nadler, the house impeachment managers on certain senate rules you're going to debate since they have to do the debating on your behalf? >> it goes without saying that on both sides, giving a heads up and fair notice to the managers as well as the president's defense team on the republican side is necessary if they're

going to have to argue the position of the motions that we make. >> so that means you have to essentially work with adam schiff to make these. let me ask you this. what motions are you going to call for on tuesday that you know mitch mcconnell is going to try to stop? >> i don't know exactly what will transpire. as i mentioned, we don't know what the mcconnell memo or resolution includes as we start up. but we've been very open about this. chuck schumer and the democrats have said, let's bring in the witnesses, let's put the truth before the american people and let them join in judgment. so i would assume the early questions will go at that point. >> let me direct you to more of a statement than a legal document right now, but this is what they write. house democrats' abuse of power claim would do lasting power claim. the argument they're making is

this is very suggestive. it's not a bipartisan decision, and abuse of power it isn't defined anywhere in law. how do you respond to that critique. >> i would just ask those who criticized it. alexander hamilton, actually spoke to what this kril. it goes beyond the commission of a crime. alan der sho bits saying approximate, the president misused the office for personal, political gain. that to me is in the realm of what they considered in high crime misdemeanors and abuse of power.

>> i guess they are now concentrating with the attorney in new york. we're not sure how they plan to give this information. how do you plan to get this evidence? >> i think it depends on four republican senators. they have to want to hear the truth. we have four witnesses we believe are essential to start this conversation and to put the evidence before the american people. he has confirmed many of the suspicions we had about this giuliani effort on behalf of the president, how far it went. he is now implicated. for example, a member of the house representatives on the republican side, there is a lot of issues he's raised. but in terms of whether he or anyone associated with him is called as a witness, most of us believe the trials should start with the four basic witnesses we

asked for. >> they basically said, yes, but the president gets to call a set of witnesses they want to call, too. are you comfortable with that outcome if it means one of those witnesses may have the last name of biden? >> i don't know what the republicans will suggest, but we've been told even within their caucus, there is some dispute about whether that's not more theater than it should be. the bottom line is the four republican senators who should initiate calling witnesses will really open the negotiation between the democrats, the republicans and the senate. the bottom line, is it going to be a fair trial? . but i think the american people expect a real trial, to have wrntsz. >> in terms of the ultimate vote, i can't say.

there was a moment when the cheechlt p. . i saw it 20 years ago in the impeachment trial of bill clint clinton, not to let the people down, so the final outcome i can't predict. >> should the house have made more of an effort in the courts before they filed that obstruction article? >> i can tell you that the court's process is a long one. it would have gone way beyond the current time into some period right before the election. but don't forget that the house position chairman jerry nadler r r. i asked them to produce

evidence. if there is evidence, i would like to see it. >> senator durbin, we'll leave it there. thank you for coming out and sharing your views. >> good to see you. >> on the republican side, senator perdue. welcome back to "meet the press," sir. let me start with the basics of this week. you said the senate should rndo something. what is that? >> the senate should set out to do what's right. what we are proposing to do right now is exactly what we did during the clinton hearing. and that is to hear both sides

present their cases. we can talk about how long that might take in a minute. then let every senator ask a question, or several questions, then we'll go to a decision point at that point with the clint clinton case. >> let me remind you that the only witnesses they had called to come in only had testimony in the house, they just wanted clarification. >> it does sound like you don't want to see this dismissed immediately but you're not yet open on witnesses. are you still open-minded on witnesses? >> well, i am, only during the scope of these two articles in the impeachment. my personal preference, chuck, would be to see this dismissed. they did not give this president due process. however, what mitch mcconnell has decided to do, i can support. he has all 53 republican senators backing him on this, and that is to do this exactly

like we did during the clinton impeachment hearing. >> what is tuesday going to look like? we'll have this back and forth. are you looking to speed up this trial daywise? instead of five hours of trial a day, will we have double the amount of time. >> we'll see how the vote comes out on tuesday, but they won't have any conversation until we deal with witnesses up front. that's not what we did during the client on trial. mr. mcconnell will put forward his proposal. we'll have a vote on that. that pro pole will look no less than 2 days, the chief justice

decides whether they get asked, what they get asked and in what sequence. >> why shouldn't the senate hear from lev parnas under oath? this is someone who is an associate of rudy giuliani, who was at the center of this. why not have the united states senate put this man under oath and hear what he has to say? >> again, secondhand information. this is a person who has been indicted, out on bail. he's been meeting with the house intel committee. if the house felt like this information was pertinent, i would have thought they would have included him in this testimony. >> he was in ukraine, he was doing the bidding, he's got material -- he seems to have some material evidence that might be helpful in connecting some dots. >> that's the deal he's trying to make, to get to testify.

why did he get so close to the president? >> he isn't close to the president at all. >> why is rudy giuliani bringing in somebody? >> the president of the united states said this impeachment has already begun. they want to undo the 2016 election and, in fact, the 2020 election, i believe. so i really think that what happened in the house was not a fair trial. it's illegitimate because of that. they denied due process to the president. we're going to try to have a fair trial in the senate, and we could vote with 51 senators to

only hear from the president. that's exactly what happened in the house. >> do you know whether allowing assistance on a political opponent was an abuse of power? >> we're giving money to a country that we are afraid is going to the wrong people for the wrong reasons. he's asking for help to root out this corruption. he asked president zelensky to actually talk to the attorney general about it. you can characterize that as talking about a political oppone opponent. what he's talking about an american citizen potentially talking to the ukraine president. >> if in your time living in

foreign countries, someone said, this guy wants to be involved in ukraine, would that be okay? >> totally different comparison. what we're talking about here are the details, but people no less than jonathan turley, who testified and said neither of these articles rise to the level of impeachment. they haven't proven each of these in. jeffrey toobin wrote an op-ed saying if president obama did

the exact same thing, would you be defending him as you are president trump? >> fast and furious. he withheld evidence from the house of representatives and the republicans decided it was not obstruction of congress. the democrats agreed, and we did not pursue anything. nancy pelosi, naylor, all said that was not obstruction. but in this case when the president decides to use obstruction of privilege. it's a little bit hypocritical to see some of the comments coming out right now versus 2008. >> this has all been just hearing himself. >> next week america gets to hear president trump's defense. we did not have due process in the house. it's clear. and for the first time, it's ironic to me, chuck, with all

the success we had last week with the china trade deal and usmca being passed in the united states senate that this overshadows all of that, and yet we have not heard the president's defense. >> how is the president, though, denied due process if he denied witnesses going in front of the house that might have exculpatory evidence? >> he used executive privilege to defend the presidency. president obama used it back in the day, president clinton used it. i have a feeling there would be a debate about it. >> we'll hear about it perhaps over the next couple weeks. george perdue, thank you for coming in. >> thanks, john. when we come back, the impeachment trial. what are the chances the unexpected could happen? happen? the way it works best for you, happen? i'll take that. wait honey, no.

when you want it. you get a delivery experience you can always count on. you get your perfect find at a price to match, on your own schedule. you get fast and free shipping on the things that make your home feel like you. that's what you get when you've got wayfair. so shop now! yeah. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. only pay for what you need with liberty mutual. con liberty mutual solo pagas lo que necesitas. only pay for what you need... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ it's not getting in my way.? i had enough! joint pain, swelling, tenderness... ...much better. my psoriasis, clearer...

cosentyx works on all of this. four years and counting. so watch out. i got this! watch me. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are feeling real relief with cosentyx. cosentyx is a different kind of targeted biologic. it treats the multiple symptoms of psoriatic arthritis to help you look and feel better. it even helps stop further joint damage. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability... ...to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen... ...or if you've had a vaccine, or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. i just look and feel better. i got real relief with cosentyx. watch me! feel real relief. ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx. here, it all starts withello! hi!... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone!

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

welcome back. panelists here, hugh hewitt, congresswoman donna edwards. carol leonnig, and philip rucker. philip and carol's book is called "a very stable genius, donald j. trump's testing of america." donna and hugh, i want you to deal with this statement from the president's legal team. this is the summons.

the articles of impeachment are constitutionally invalid on their face. they fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever, let alone high crimes and misdemeanors as required by the constitution. hugh, you're a lawyer. technically, this sentence is not ak raccuraaccurate. the house impeached. you may not like what they did, but it's constitutionally valid, you just may not like what they did. >> i think they were trying to convey exactly that. i read last night the house manager's trial memorandum and their entire statement of trial facts. i do not believe they did anything that rose to a level of offense for impeachment at all. in fact, they contradict their own allegation which is at the beginning. the president was attempting to influence the 2020 election. they cite in their own statement of material of fact, it was in

text. i don't think they'll get the witnesses now. they do not have a case in article 2. i think it was silly. there was no impeachable offense. >> donna edwards, is that how you see it? >> it isn't the way i see it as all. i'm a lawyer, maybe not as good as hugh, but my reading of the house's brief is they state really clearly, i think, a strong constitutional argument in the beginning of the brief that lays out the history of impeachment, really reminding us that high crimes and misdemeanors was left to the definition of the legislators. it doesn't mean the breaking of the law. they talk specifically about the abuse of power allegations and that the abuse of power is exactly the kind of abuse of public trust that the founders had in mind. i think it's a really strong and compelling argument. and the question is whether there is going to be a fair trial so that democrats can

really present the argument against the president. >> one quick question on the obstruction article. in hindsight, should they have either waited longer to file that one and fought in the courts or used mueller's obstructions to strengthen that article? >> no, i actually think the article is strong on its face with the evidence. would it have been bolstered if witnesses were not obstructed by this president of the united states and prevented from giving testimony? would it have been bolstered if documents had been produced? no documents have been produced to the house of representatives. i think they made the case that they could and now it's really important to focus on what kind of trial this is going to be and whether it's going to be the kind of trial that the american people expect. >> the wild card in this trial, guys, is the fact that unlike the clinton impeachment, there are new characters, new information. here's one of the potential new characters, lev parnas. >> president trump knew exactly what was going on.

he was aware of all my movements. i wouldn't do anything without the consent of rudy giuliani or the president. >> okay. you guys have covered this not just in the book, very well. phil, i'll start with you. lev parnas. how is the president handling another person who has turned on him? >> it's like michael cohen, the president's personal attorney turning on the president. lev parnas is somebody who tried so hard to get into the trump orbit. there are photos of him all over the internet posing with the president, with his allies at mar-a-lago, a lot of thumbs up. now he's turning completely. he's providing new evidence, the notes that were scribbled on the hotel stationery, and he wants to tell his story. the question is whether enough republicans want to hear witnesses to bring him forward, and apparently john bolton, the former national security adviser, has said he would be willing to testify if asked. >> what do you make of the president's relationship now with rudy if the people rudy

were bringing into this thing are now causing political problems for the president? >> from our reporting, it's really shocking inside the white house and the president's closest confidants are all saying, where has rudy led us, essentially. he wanted to be secretary of state and he's operated as uber secretary of state running around congress, making some money and doing things to lead our foreign policy. now there are advisers of the president who say he led us down a path that really makes the president vulnerable. >> hugh, why isn't there more anger at rudy? do you think we would be here without rudy giuliani? >> no, but i also believe there's not much anger at rudy because nobody on my side of the aisle believed an impeachable offense occurred. i can't stress this enough, and you're on to it with your question about article 2. not only do i not think he committed an impeachable offense or any offense, i'm also concerned that this rush job,

especially article 2, is a horrible precedent for future presidents. and when this comes before the senate this week or next, i think many will choose to vote on the president. >> if the president doesn't think what he did with ukraine was wrong, will future presidents do the same thing? >> going back to the framers, this is exactly the example of distrust. we wanted a democratic republic. what the president has done really goes right squarely at his constitutional responsibility in making sure that there's not foreign interference in our elections. >> it strikes me, and your book, i think, chronicles this well, and we'll get to more of the excerpts a little later in the show, but do you think, carol and phil, that the president would be here if his first or

second teens were still around him in the west wing? >> we found that the guard rails are gone. the trajectory of this presidency is escalating toward a presidency of one. more chaos, less decision making. the people who tried to hem him in, they're out. he has mostly people around him who view themselves and their mission as telling him yes. >> is there anybody left? >> mick mulvaney sees his job as executing what he wants done in a way they can defend publicly and in some way legal, but they're not trying to challenge him, they're trying to execute his orders and placate his conspiracy to some degree. >> i have to disagree. mike pompeo was on before. these are strong individuals who will tell the president when they think he's doing something

wrong. i completely reject the idea that team 3, which this is, is less able to tell the president hard facts. in fact, i think team 3 is the best team he's had. >> but hugh, what about the fact where mick mulvaney agrees to hold it against the law? >> i do not believe that's been shown in the managers' brief. >> congress is part of the government, too. they're allowed to make calls as well. we're going to pause it here. when we come back, hoping to make up some lost ground. >> what i've been hearing is that people will change this time and get behind the nominee no matter what. >> can democrats regain the enthusiasm that the party did not have in 2016?

welcome back. throughout the year as part of our county to county project, we're fighting five counties in five states that should tell us more about where this election is headed. they represent different groups. they're not all 50-50 counties, some of these are turning counties. our counties are a large majority county, a largely hispanic county, and this week

we talked to a county in wisconsin. trump took the state in 2016 over hillary clinton. we asked ous to go to milwaukee county. >> we know how to attract black voters to get a black candidate, we attract women voters to get a woman candidate. but they want people who will address student debt and student housing and immigration reform and prison reform. some of my minority candidates weren't speaking about those issues, and that just goes to

show they're not going to vote for you because they don't look like you, they're going to vote for someone who will do what they want. >> now who can be the current candidate for president? that's sad to me that we've kind of pushed aside the other candidates and their qualifications. i agree initially, people were excited about the wide scope of candidates, those of color, though that's not always the key, but at least we have some choices. now i think our voice has been limited. >> in milwaukee, it didn't get the turnout they needed or wanted in 2016 to win the state. that's one of the reasons hillary clinton lost wisconsin, she didn't come here. does it make a difference in terms of who the candidate is with getting the vote out? >> it may depend on what the candidate's running mate will be. the assumption will be biden, who stood up on the stage and

the only time he mentioned anything black was he's saying, i have black support, i have black support. and biden stood there and said, i have more black support than any of you, or all of you combined. i think older black voters will heavily lean towards biden. black people have been protesting against warren. mayor pete doesn't even have support in his own community. you can go down the line on that. if you want to engage and incite the black vote, biden needs to bring in a black running mate. >> i don't know. >> okay, no. i wouldn't necessarily -- i respectfully disagree with that. i think it's going to come down to who speaks to the issues. you have to speak to our issues. around this country in black

communities, it's void of investment, it's void of redevelopment, and when you look at the central city and you realize if any of those people in that community want to go toe the movies, they have to leave that community. if they want to go bowling, they have to leave that community. if they want to go roller skating, they have to leave that community. if they want to go to a nice restaurant, they have to leave that community. when you talk about real robust economic development where that plan is, you need to speak to the black vote, not just in milwaukee but in several cities around this country. >> that's why i think bernie sanders does so well here, when he talks about issues like affordable health care. when you're speaking about black businesses, a lot of folks aren't willing to give it up. when i talk about support, it's

going to have to be somebody to speak to the issues and really want to change everyday life. >> you're not hearing that from any of the big candidates. >> put castro in there. he was talking about police brutality. he was talking about some of those concrete issues. some of the other candidates just came off being elitist. but the key will be will we turn that enthusiasm? i don't see it yet. >> i think i see something differe different. we actually are living the life and we see the disparaitiedispa we'll take what they say when they come to our cities and do our rallies. are they going to take what

we've been saying for generations, or are we just waiting for what we already know. the thing about biden is he angers the professors. i'm so upset that biden is there and what i'm hearing is people will stay at home. >> people will get behind the democratic nominee. we've been pushing from the angle. we can talk about them but get behind the nominee right now. >> president trump says he has growing support among black voters. >> a lot of folks talking about the economy. i know it doesn't work for anybody, but somebody bought a

house in the last four years, someone got a promotion in the last four years, so they attribu attribute. a strong economy is really, really tough to beat. >> then the entire focus interview is on our website, meett meetthepress.com. this is certainly not your father's democratic party and not your mother's, either. what that could mean for you. yu oh. i love her condo. nana throws the best parties. well planned, well invested, well protected. voya. be confident to and through retirement.

but he wanted snow for thelace holidays.. so we built a snow globe. i'll get that later. dylan! but the one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with homeowners insurance. what? switching and saving was really easy! i love you! what? sweetie! hands off the glass. ugh!! call geico and see how easy saving on homeowners and condo insurance can be. i love her!

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

welcome back. data download time. if the last decade felt like one political earthquake after another, then you might be interested to know the overall numbers haven't really changed between the political parties. but there has been a massive realignment that will carry us through this next decade and possibly beyond. the gop said 37% were shifting political parties. the democrats, 42%. that was in 2010. in 2019, it was a little higher.

the education levels, high school or less, democrats plus 11, college or more, gop plus 2 in 2010. in 2019, gop plus 5, democrats plus 11. the gender divide, suburban women, democrats plus 3 in 2010, democrats plus 13 in 2019. these swings are a lot more than about education, geography or gender. voters on opposite sides also lead opposite lives, making it even harder to relate to each other and see eye to eye on policy. that's how you compromise.

these shichfts and others are remaking the parties on another level and the process likely isn't over yet. when we come back -- >> i think you kacalled me a li on national tv? >> what? >> i think you called me a liar on national tv? >> let's not do that right now. if you want to have that discussion, we'll have that discussion. >> any time? no time like right now on "end game." that's next. that's next. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa

i don't make compromises. i want nutrition made just for me. but i also want great taste. so i drink boost for women. new boost women with key nutrients to help support thyroid, bone, hair and skin health. all with great taste. new boost women. adoprevagen 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.

back now with "end game' and what we teased brfore. this issue of a woman nominee is something even joe biden talked about with regard to hillary clinton. tell me if this is probably what elizabeth warren in general is responding to. >> i think there is a lot of sexism in the way they went after hillary. i think it was unfair, an awful lot of it. well, that's not going to happen with me. >> i think elizabeth warren, joe biden, they've given voice to what, at least democratic women feel happened to hillary. and some of that has been in hindsight, looking at the overall scope and coverage of the attacks. i see it on social media. i think it was a voicing and acknowledging up front that pa

and certainly in the electorate is there. and i think elizabeth warren did a good job saying you know what? here's how you prove electability and she made her argument. >> i think the sexism element is good for us to discuss whether it's the democratic party or republican party or journalists. and i mean, she had a toxicity that had nothing to do with gender and everything to do with the baggage they associate would her husband and her time in the white house. so, we need be careful brout saying it's about sexism. that may have been a big part of it. >> and the sanders campaign worried about it floating through their favorite publication, "the intercept." >> you know, clearly both warren

and sanders campaign have a similar base and if united, could win the nomination. if bernie sanders takes off in iowa, which polling seems suggest, how is he going to win over the warren supporters if they're in this feud right now? >> what are you hoping for if they want to see the democrats lose? this split might help biden. >> i thought the winner of the split was pete buttigieg. but they're not going to joe biden. they're already committed to a progressive. because virginia allows early voting and i'm voting this week. and because it's virginia i get to vote in the democratic primary. i'm voting for bernie sanders. i think a lot of people will be he he's authentic. >> but i want a clear choice between the authentic,

traditional socialist and all the people who just pretend to be. >> oh, wow. let's go back to your reporting. it was interesting. you had a bunch of former staffers and they all seem to say the same thing to you. a long-term and immediate danger to the country. there's a new ethos. this is a presidency of one. a lot of people are going to look at this and say you're just -- >> we did not want a book of cool soundbites. we wanted to hit the pause button amid all the hour-by-hour news clashes and figure out what motivates donald trump. and what we learned is how distraught and frightened some of his senior aids were and current aids, who broke their silence with us for the first time, because they wanted

history to be right. >> there's -- there was some heroic anecdotes. i half tease but what is their explanation for why not stand up to him? >> because some feel honor bound not to criticize a president when he's in office and others are still serving him and afraid of being retaliated against by the president. one thing we know about donald trump is he nurses these grudges and punches back and could fire peepful he finds out who their sources are. that's why we were so rigorous in reporting more than 200 sources in the administration and close to the president to make sure we're careful to protect them. >> all of these book dos do hav one thing in common. the president doesn't seem to know the story of america as well in the way other presidents have. >> i don't agree with that.

i believe he has a intuition at his rallies, especially the bhiet working class. i'm going to read "a very stable genius." but we have a book called tightrope, and i think he knows about at the better than any of the democrats i watch. >> i buy that. but it's our history. >> and the arc of our history and the way that story he was talking about is actually connected to a story of people of color in this country who suffered tremendously. he also seems not to have a grasp of world history and where the united states fits in that. >> the book is "a very stable genius." i think the president tweeted. so that's usually helpful to authors. i'm going to be airing on the side of rooting for the packers. nobody believes in us. go pats, go. we'll see you sunday.

because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." ♪ 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. when youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one. for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com

amanda's mom's appointment hello mom. just got rescheduled - for today. amanda needs right at home. our customized care plans provide as much - or as little help - as her mom requires. whether it's a ride to the doctor or help around the house. oh, of course! tom, i am really sorry. i've gotta go. look, call right at home. get the right care. right at home. but in my mind i'm still 25. that's why i take osteo bi-flex, to keep me moving the way i was made to. it nourishes and strengthens my joints for the long term. osteo bi-flex - now in triple strength plus magnesium. t-mobile 5g is here. and it's nationwide. while some 5g signals go only blocks, t-mobile 5g goes miles... beyond the big cities to the small towns... to the people.

millions of americans can have access to 5g on t-mobile. this is just the beginning. t-mobile, the first and only nationwide 5g network. welcome to "kasie d.c." i'm kasie hunt. democrats pulled their case together and the president mounts his own defense tonight in texas. i'll talk to mazie hirono whether we'll hear from witnesses. and prince harry speaks publicly for the first time saying he and the duchess had,