call themselves sussex royal. many critics will question why they weren't allowed to work for the queen, while not taking a salary for that work. pretty stunning. >> thank you, keir. that does it for me on this monday morning. i'm yasmin vossoughian. "morning joe" starts right now. when we let it ring from every billow and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to feed on that day with all of god's children, black men a white men, jews and gentiles, protestants and catholics will be able to join hands and join in the old negro free at last, free at last, thank god, free at last. >> 1963. every day we honor the legacy of dr. martin king jr. as well as

today. good morning, welcome to "morning joe." it is monday, january 20th, martin luther king day. this morning, our guests jonathan lemire, and a former director of strategic communications for hillary clinton's presidential campaign, adrienne elrod, she's an msnbc contributor. host of msnbc's "politicsnation" and president of the national action network reverend al sharpton, nbc news heidi przybyla is with us and nbc news and msnbc law analyst and editor-in-chief of "law fair" ben minh wittes joins us, co-author of a new book "unmaking the presidency, donald trump's war on the world's most powerful office." that in a moment. three years ago today donald trump was sworn into office. tomorrow the senate will consider removing him. with the impeachment trial looming the white house is now

laying out the president's defense amid yet more revelations about the ukraine saga. the democrats, meanwhile, are just days away from the first votes of their primary fight. this as the "new york times" endorses not one but two candidates for the nomination. as steve kornacki joked on twitter, now you know how to cast both of your votes for president, and in just a few hours, trump heads overseas for another run-in with world leaders. safe to see we're kicking off and extremely busy week on "morning joe" including a live interview with joe biden on wednesday which we really look forward to. >> yeah. so -- just to start the morning, reverend al, talk a moment about martin luther king and his extraordinary legacy, but i think it's important to note that for younger americans who didn't realize how the last five

years of his life played out, after that speech that we're all so aware of, that it was -- it was very tough. at times he went through the political wilderness, king was not, he was not followed by younger black activists. they turned their back on him. they believed he was -- you know, believed he was not radical enough at times. didn't like his peaceful resistance approach, and he was a man in april of 1968 that was still struggling to -- to make a difference, but struggling with many people inside his own movement. >> i think that you raise a very critical point. dr. king in his last four, five

years had become more unpopular than popular, according to polls of black americans. yet he remained steadfast and he remained loyal and faithful to his core beliefs of non-violent and direct-action tactics. i think that that is something that we miss today as people that will take a moral stand based on what they believe, not based on what is popular. and on king day i think that becomes important. and he believed in trying to reconcile society. he believed that there ought to be social movements but they ought to end in reconciliation, which is why it is representative of his dream that on today we see such polarization. what may happen in virginia at a gun rally, extremists already arrested, and where we see a "washington post" poll where the sitting president of the united

states, 83% of black americans think he's a racist. not just that he's negative but reighist. this is where we are 52 years after king's death and why we must struggle. the good news is, you and i, joe, disagreed 20 years ago share a real friendship this morning martin luther king iii and i will represent president clinton we agree with but never agreed with in the past. the reconciliation around what is right is what is great about martin luther king day. >> it isabout reconciliation. and eddie cloud jr. has a good book coming out called "begin again" talked for james baldwin and so many others, martin luther king in '65, '66, '67,

'68 wasn't aggressive, combative enough, and yet after king's death, baldwin spiraled into depression and understood what a great man was lost, and that's something that all of america understands all of these years later, and i love what reverend al said. there's no better way to honor dr. martin luther king than working together in a spirit of reconciliation. not just in politics but in your church in your synagogue, in your home. in your community. that's the message. >> got to have your heart open to it. now to our top story -- president trump's long-awaited impeachment trial resumes tomorrow and the president's impeachment defense team will see white house counsel pat cipollone and personal attorney jay sekulow playing leading roles. but with the adix of alan dershowitz and ken starr, they are hardly the most high-profile

members. dershowitz and starr among the president's staunchest cable news networks were two of the biggest legal names of the '90s. dershowitz helping with o.j. simpson the murder trial and starr who prosecuted bill clinton. they found a common client in disgraced billionaire and pedfire jeffrey epstein. dershowitz a friend of epstein until his suicide sued a victim for defamation after she claimed she was trafficked to the attorney while under age. starr, meanwhile, played a role in the controversial plea deal in which ep spoostein avoided fl charges and served only 13 months in jail with work release. starr defended his role in a march 2019 letter to the editor of the "new york times" in which he and other lawyers for epstein argued that the deal was fair. also on the impeachment defense

team former florida attorney general pam bondi, and former independent counsel robert ray, who succeeded starr in the clinton investigation. the "washington post" reports that starr, dershowitz, bondi and ray were selected personally by president trump for their celebrity and vocal defenses of the president in the media, despite the baggage that we just told you about. here is dershowitz yesterday arguing that the president should not be removed from office, even if these guilty of the house charges. >> as you know, the house materials cited crimes that, that were committed -- >> they weren't elements. they are not articles of impeachment. the articles of impeachment of two non-criminal actions namely obstruction of congress and abuse of power and those are what have to be voted on by the senate. >> is it your position president trump not be impeached even with all the arguments and evidence laid out by the house are

accepted as fact? >> that's right. >> benjamin wittes, so much to talk about here. i think we can talk first about what alan dershowitz said yesterday and through the weekend on his victory tour. it is opposite of what he said throughout 1999 on "larry king live" and other shows, but i first -- let's talk about the selection of a legal team, and talk about a president who has such trouble finding legal representation that he actually got the legal team that helped put together the plea deal and helped represent jeffrey epstein, one of the most disgraced figures in modern american popular culture. it's -- i can't imagine another president at any time having to select a team that would be associated with a pedophile who according to recent reports

trafficked young girls as young as 11 years old. >> yeah. i mean, this is not just a choice of a legal team to make a, an argument on behalf of the president. in fact, if you were going to do that, you would probably want a legal team without the baggage of having argued the opposite side of a bunch of these issues, not that long ago, particularly ken starr who, of course, argued that obstruction of congress was a, or obstruction of an investigation and including of congress was an adequate basis for impeachment and argued against the, the idea that sort of the assertion -- argued against, you know, robust assertions of executive privilege and even suggested that those assertions could be an impeachable offense. that said, this is a legal team

that was chosen not for its legal acumen, though it certainly has some skills and, you know, no lack of talent. it was -- it's a group composed in order to make a statement, and the statement is one of unswerving loyalty in public to the president, no matter how awful the circumstances, and the statement is also a big middle finger stuck up to people who care about #metoo issues, because, of course, not only is there the -- not only is there the jeffrey epstein stuff, but there's also, you know, ken starr's history at baylor university, and there are, you know, some other, what you might call #metoo issues associated

with this group, and so i think the group makes a statement in a number of ways, but the most important way is that they are people who no matter what their histories are willing to put their names on documents like this outrageous statement that the white house issued the other night in response to the articles of impeachment. >> an outrageous statement and, of course, jonathan lemire, if you look at ken starr and alan dershowitz' own words from the last impeachment of a united states president, those words undercut donald trump's defense as much as anybody. that he should not be impeached. that, of course, dershowitz own words then undercut his arguments now, but, again, following up on what was just said from ben minh wittes, who, by the way, has a great new book out we need to talk about, but it's -- it's not only insulting

on the #metoo front but imagine, you actually have one of these two lawyers who has been accused of being involved in epstein's crimes, and, of course, he's fighting that, but the accusation remains out there, and it's been reported on by the "miami herald," and you just, give us some insight on the white house. why in the world would the president of the united states, after being caught in videos with jeffrey epstein at mar-a-lago and after saying really nice things about jeffrey epstein in the early 2000s, why would donald trump then get jeffrey epstein's lawyers that allowed this pedophile to continue to roam free and prey on young women?

>> so both you and ben outlined the baggage that both dershowitz and starr bring with them to this moment. significant accusations, and as well contradictory legal stances. alan dershowitz in particular really reversed himself on this issue. for the president, his hand-picked choices to go along with his other legal team because they play well on television. the president told people around him for weeks he is concerned about the spectacle this trial will be on television. he hates the idea that it's going to be six hours at least every day of programming that all networks are going wall to wall and why he pushed for having a really showy defense and still wants witnesses like hunter biden or the whistle-blower, perhaps, to be involved. short of that, though, he wants to have these recognizable bald-faced names people know. people who defended him on cable television pushing this outside

of the senate. is anybody concerned in the would us? these guys would never, ever, be selected by any other president to do anything after their association with jeffrey epstein, one is a friend and a running buddy, and the other is a guy that was part of a plea agreement that allowed this serial raini irapist of girls t some laxed house arrest inside his mansions, and then set free? >> a strike against -- >> is anybody in the white house concerned about this? >> how many times have we had that phrase? would any other president do this? the answer is usually, no. but there's no one in the white house to push back. to be fair, jay sekulow and pat cipollone, less well-known, the president's personal attorneys

during the mueller investigation. s cipollone is someone not a lot of people know but he'll take the front role. and members of his cabinet, former members of his cabinet involved in the epstein plea deal and lost his position because of it. it's not something trump is sthiisthi i shying away from. they argue the president should never have been impeached, the accusations are not worthy of impeachment, certainly not removal, which democrats push back strongly saying that's an invalen e invalid and nonsense. and pushing back against alan dershowitdershowitz's appo that abuse of congress is not an

impeachable fence, obstruction of justice. only criminal offenses are impeachable died 1,000 deaths on the writings of all experts. but goes on like a vengeful zombie. not that high crimes and misdemeanors were understood in the 1780s to mean indictable crimes. any number of such violations of the public trust, such as working with foreign government in ways that make the president beholden to their leaders or cooperating with those governments to bolster the president's re-election clearly must be impeachable, even though they might violate no criminal law and indeed no federal statute at all. the president is entitled to robust legal representation, tribe continues, but his lawyers should not be allowed to use bogus legal arguments to mislead the american public or the senators weighing his fate. and, in fact, here's alan dershowitz making a similar

argument himself back in 1998. >> it certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime. to impeach a president is line a non-violent revolution. the most dramatic act of undoing democracy that is possible. that's why the framers used the term treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors to suggest the english analogy to great offenses of state. we look at their acts of state. we look at how they conduct the foreign policy. we look whether they tried to subvert the constitution the way iran/contra did by going behind the back of congress. >> hmm. >> yeah. heidi przybyla, new reporting this morning on how the biden campaign is gearing up for the impeachment trial. what can you tell us? >> right, mika. in an unusual memo issued by the biden campaign obtained first by

nbc news, we see that they are issuing a pre-emptive strike against what they say is disinformation about the heart of the president's defense. that is that joe biden did anything in ukraine that is "corrupt." this is coming a day before the trial, mika and joe, and it is a reminder to all of us that the accusations at the heart of the president's defense here, that it was merit that they had merit to investigate joe biden has any credibility to it. three things they're emphasizing that are important to remind people. number one, the prosecutor general who joe biden pushed for removing, it was a priority of the entire west, the imf, the eu, even senators ron johnson and rob portman, republicans, to remove him from office. this was were the policy of the united states of america. secondly, that prosecutor general was not investigating burisma, the energy company

linked to joe biden's son hunter. and, third, hunter biden served on that board two years after the issues of corruption at iss issue weren't an issue. so he came two years after all of those things that were alleged bad to have happened, happened. it's important to get that information out there as well, joe and mika, because as this moves from the house where democrats control the process to the senate, the biden campaign is concerned about an effort to confuse the public and to go after hunter biden when, in fact, in the house when republicans had a chance to actually call hunter biden and get information if they thought he really was material behind closed doors they didn't do it. afraid now that it moves to the senate the president and his allies will attempt to go after hunter biden even though some republicans are already coming out on the record, including senator cornyn saying, look, i'm a judge. he is not material to the main

issue here and i want to read one quote i think is powerful from this memo. it says -- to the media, a reminder. it is not sufficient to say the allegations are unsubstantiated or that evidence, no evidence that emerged to support them. not only is there no evidence for republicans main argument against vice president, against the vice president tls, there i mountain of evidence that activity debunks it and it is malpractice to ignore that truth. so, joe and mika, a note to the media, reminder. these allegations are not only unsubstantiated they're completely debunked. >> well, completely debunked, actually a term that the "wall street journal" wrote not on their opinion pages but wrote on the front pages months and months ago. about the debunked theory that you were just talking about. heidi, thank you so much for that report. and we greatly appreciate you being with us. adrienne, bring you in, and talk about what's happening in iowa.

we go from biden and his plans for impeachment to, again, in the final days of this campaign and i just -- i have to ask the logic of one of the candidates. the strategy. you don't really get it. bernie sanders has been firing away obviously at elizabeth warren and joe biden and other people in the field, and this has been a year, 2020, that has proven that, that tact does not seem to help candidates. i'm not saying that, like, it's dirty politics at all. i mean, it's tough politics, burt at the same time, if you're reading your crowd, this approach by bernie seems destined to backfire. at least i think it does. again, you look back and see how 2020's run. so any idea why he's doing it? and any idea why they think that

going on the attack is going to work? >> yeah. joe, raise a really smart point because it doesn't really make sense if you're the front-runner and would argue, i think joe biden is still the ultimate front-runner. 's in iowa and new hampshire it's neck and neck between bernie sanders, joe biden and to an extent elizabeth warren. it doesn't make a lot of sense as front-runner to lodge these attacks. you want to stand above the fray and focus on getting voters out, caucusgoers out and not get down into the weeds with some of these folks. i think bernie is probably looking at polls and realizing i am sitting on top. depending which poll you look at. i have a decent chance winning iowa and a really good chance of winning new hampshire but i want to try to, you know, strengthen my lead and solidify this. perhaps that's what his strategy is. i don't know. obviously i'm not advising bernie sanders campaign. doesn't make a lot of sense to me. bottom line is this, joe.

we are two weeks from iowa. it is a four-way race. anyone could win. anyone who says, oh, i think i know who's going to win. this person is definitely going to win iowa, not true. this is all about ground game at this point and of course the impeachment process. we talk about this a lot on the show how the news over the next few weeks will be dominated by impeachme impeachment. that presents a challenge to the sitting senators who will be back in washington, but this is where a strong ground game and a strong surrogate organization comes in. doing your work and due diligence and building a strong team on the ground in iowa and new hampshire your campaign should be able to sustain the potential blow that being in washington for the next two weeks would give you. so it's going to be fascinating to see what happens but i think people have a strong ground game. elizabeth warren, bernie sanders, both of those campaigns are known for having a very strong ground operation. that should help sustain them over the next few weeks whenbe

washington. >> a lot to get to. still ahead on "morning joe" -- >> i think the best way to talk about who can win is by looking at people's winning record. so can a woman beat donald trump? look at the men on this stage. collectively they have lost ten elections. the only people on this stage who have won every single election that they've been in are the women. amy and me. >> a moment from last week's debate do featuring senators elizabeth warren and amy klobuchar. now both have been endorsed by the "new york times" editorial board. we'll talk about that just ahead on "morning joe." as a struggling actor, i need all the breaks that i can get. at liberty butchumal- cut. 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. ♪

...depend® silhouette™ briefs feature maximum absorbency, with trusted protection for all out confidence... beautiful colors and an improved fit for a sleek design and personal style. life's better when you're in it. be there with depend®.

hurricanes. tornadoes. donald trump is making it worse. trump:"all of this with the global warming. a lot of it's a hoax." vo: mike bloomberg knows the science and understands the challenge, he's led an effort that has shut down half the nation's dirty polluting coal plants so far. as president, a plan for 80% clean energy by 2028 - cutting carbon emissions and creating millions of clean energy jobs. mike will get it done. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message.

(whistling) for a nasty cold, take dayquil severe with vicks vapocool. whoa! and vaporize it with an intense rush of vicks vapors. ahhhhhhhhhh! dayquil severe with vicks vapocool. the daytime, coughing, stuffy head, vaporize your cold, medicine. oh no, here comes gthe neighbor probably to brag about how amazing his xfinity customer service is. i'm mike, i'm so busy. good thing xfinity has two-hour appointment windows. they have night and weekend appointments too.

he's here. bill? karolyn? nope! no, just a couple of rocks. download the my account app to manage your appointments making today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. i'll pass. all right. at 29 past the hour, a live look at the white house as the sun

has yet to come up over washington. ben wittes, talk about your new book "unmaking the presidency: donald trump's war on the world's most powerful office." >> ben, you and susan hennessy have done an incredible job with this book. i love it. and one of the things that i love about it is that you really take the readers through the president's actions, the consequences of those actions, and then you try answering the question of, what the impact is going to be, and so let me ask you. with a president who says article 2 gives him the power to do everything that he wants to do, with white house aides going on sunday shows saying the president's authority is not to be questioned, tell us, when we read this book, will we learn that this is just something that offends our democratic sensibilitieses? that will pass in time? or is the president reshaping the presidency in a way that

will have far more lasting damage for years to come? >> first of all, thanks for the kind words about the book. look, i think the answer to that question is that donald trump is proposing to reshape the presidency, and you know, we talk a lot about these norms violations. you know, the word "norm violation" has become something of a cliche in the trump era and somebody trampling on so many different norms of the traditional presidency, you have to ask the question, is he proposing something else? and the basic thesis that susan and i put forward, though he is not a political theorist, that this is not a sort of theorized innovation to the presidency, donald trump is actually proposing a different vision of the presidency, and it's one built around the idea of merging

the person, in this case donald trump himself, the personality of the individual, with the office, and the hijacking of the powers of the office to benefit the individual. and, you know, if we tolerate that, in brief answer to your question, if we endorse that by re-electing him, if we don't push back on it, yes, the presidency is a changeable office. this is a coherent proposition to change it, and it will catch on. >> well, so, benjamin, let's big a little deeper. violating laws, violating the constitution is quite different than violating norms. whether they are political norms or constitutional norms. >> yes. >> so your book suggests that there is a flexibility inherent in the presidency that would allow a president like donald

trump to completely reshape the president without running afoul of the constitution, or existing laws. is that a correct read? >> that is exactly correct. so first of all, the presidency is not a static institution. the institution that we think of today as the presidency looks relatively little. like the institution that congress interacted with in the 1790s, when presidents didn't have staff. there really weren't agencies in the sense that we understand them now, and the powers of the presidency were gravely limited by things like geography and communications. so we shouldn't think of the presidency as an institution that doesn't change. it does change, and the presidential powers as they're articulated in the constitution, can give rise to many different iterations. for example, the president is

obliged to give us the information to congress on the state of the union pedicallriod. that can mean a written communication as it did through most of the 19th century. it can mean the modern state of the union address, as we think of it now, and i suppose it could also mean a tap dance and a song by a president who wanted to interpret it that way. so while we think of trump as violating the law, and in some areas he is, in most areas what we think of, of his abuses are actually abuses of powers he undoubtedly has, and, for example, you know, he's allowed to make all of these outrageous pardons that he makes. the question is, are we going to tolerate it? and what he's doing is, he's putting on the table a raft of

perfectly, plausibly legal uses of presidential power that are radically different from the way the traditional presidenty has used them. cumulatively, they put on the table a vision of the presidency, and it was our project in this book to try to describe that vision to as that vision and ultimately to offer a defense of the traditional presidency from that vision. >> ben, i'm not sure the nation is ready to see donald trump tap dance in front of congress in a couple of weeks. >> he's done more outrageous things than that. >> perhaps so. my question to you is this. history can be a guide, also sometime as comfort for those who watch this oval office carefully and feel this president has sort of broken the presidency, you know, there have been others. some of his predecessors have violated norms and in some cases laws, yet the office still is

here. talk to us a little about that. previous examples of presidents who really challenged the system, and yet may have even changed things eventually for the better? >> yes. as i say, the presidency today looks very little like the presidency of the early republic and that's because as you say, presidents have pushed the boundaries and they have, as a result, changened t bchanged th and there are two great barriers against doing that. one is whether the other institutions of government permit it. so an example here is franklin roosevelt violating eventually the two-term limit on presidential service. congress tolerates it when he does it, but then after his death, after his fourth election and his death, congress sends to the states the two-term, term limit amendment, which the states ratify. that's why we have two terms.

so the one question is, do other institutions tolerate it? but in some ways the more important question is whether the public ratifies it by re-electing the individual. you know, when you violate the norms of the presidency, you are proposing something new, and when the public then votes to re-elect you having seen that you've done this, it, to some degree, ratifies the change and that is why, for example, you know, in the 19th century, presidents didn't make public policy speeches. woodrow wilson changed that. and the public ratified that change, and so now we have the fireside chats. we have, you know, of roosevelt. we have the 20th century presidency which is highly communicative. so, yes. i agree with you. people propose to change the presidency all the time, and the question is, how much do we care? and do we mind the changes that

they're proposing? and that's the question we sought to answer in this book. >> the new book is "unmaking the presidency: donald trump's war on the world's most powerful office." ben minh wittes. thank you so much for being on this morning. >> thanks for having me. coming up, president trump and his administration haven't provided lawmakers much information about the strike that killed iran's top general, but apparently republican donors got a minute-by-minute account at mar-a-lago this weekend. that's ahead, and more, with reverend al and adrienne elrod when we come back. we made usaa insurance for members like martin. an air force veteran made of doing what's right,

not what's easy. so when a hailstorm hit, usaa reached out before he could even inspect the damage. that's how you do it right. usaa insurance is made just the way martin's family needs it - with hassle-free claims, he got paid before his neighbor even got started. because doing right by our members, that's what's right. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa mostly. you make time... when you can. but sometimes life gets in the way,

and that stubborn fat just won't go away. coolsculpting takes you further. a non-surgical treatment that targets, freezes, and eliminates treated fat cells for good. discuss coolsculpting with your doctor. some common side-effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. don't imagine results, see them. coolsculpting, take yourself further. save $100 on your coolsculpting treatment. text resolution to 651-90 to learn more. and wondering if that was the last time i was going to do that thing. i thought i'm not letting anything take me away from my family that loves me and needs me without a fight. when i came to cancer treatment centers of america, it felt so different from any other hospital we'd ever been to. whether it be spiritual, physical, emotional, they take it all into consideration in healing you.

infusion, imaging, everything is here. i don't have to go anywhere else. they create a treatment plan that's for you. they cared about my victories. they cared about me as a person beyond just being a cancer patient. they're my second family. get care like no other. call us at cancer treatment centers of america.

i think the old left-right division, yeah, there's a lot of that, but i think it's a very different division in america. an america that working for a thinner and thinner slice at the top and not working for much of anyone else. >> is that enough to bridge, you know, this system's, the ecosystems of misinformation, hyperpartisanship, things that are -- >> even more practically, is it enough to get anything passed in a mitch mcconnell senate?

>> why don't talented people want to continue to work for you? >> but they do. i hope you meet the people outside in the hall. i may not be the leading candidate right now, but i have beaten, like, 19 people, including every governor. and so you can't run a presidential campaign if you have a dysfunctional work environment. my campaign manager is the same one i've had for 14 years. my state direct hear been with me for 7 years. the acting chief of staff has been with me for 4 years and on her third baby. >> all right. those are the two candidates who the "new york times" editorial board endorsed for the 2020 democratic presidential race. two candidates. joining us now, member of the "new york times" editorial board, mara gay. thanks for being on. so two choices for the first time ever. reflecting a party divided? >> you know, listen, the party is extremely divided and this is

really our way of narrowing that field and also just pointing out to voters there is more than one pathway forward here. i think that senators klobuchar and warren, we believe, are the best standard bearers for those two paths, but also just kind of reimagining, taking a step back and reimagining what electability really means, and trying to broaden that vision. the amount of votes that donald trump won by in 2016 was extremely narrow. so there's more than one way to build a winning coalition, and this is a nod to that as well. >> so, mara, let me ask about the divide on the progressive side between bernie and elizabeth. of course, about a month ago or so you had labor getting really beaten badly in britain, especially in the northern part of britain, because it was believed that he overpromised. that is a complaint that's been made of these two democrats.

bernie and elizabeth. yet you all found that senator warren, her approach was more realistic than bernie sanders. explain that. >> sure. you know, senator warren's history actually in dealmaking shows she is more of a pragmatist than has come across so far on the campaign trail. we have a bit of encouragement to her to hold on to that and let go of the maturity that some of the on called for. her proposals are extremely serious and we take her seriously as a candidate and believe she actually knows how to work well with others and, listen, this is somebody who used to be a republican. she is a convert to the democratic party. let's not forget that. >> could i ask you, mara, did you all ask her why she didn't talk about that more? because i think -- i counted up the years. i think elizabeth warren was a republican longer than i was a

republican. and it would seem to me she would want to talk about that. want to talk about the ability of understanding how the other side thinks to be able to strike deals? >> i think she could talk about it more, you're absolutely right, but she does talk very compellingly about her brothers. most of the majority whom are republicans. >> right. >> and she talks how even though her family disagrees about a lot, they agree, for example, that companies like amazon are quite powerful, too powerful, for the amount of taxes that they pay. she talks about the middle class most compellingly, and that was the thing that was most impressive to us. not that this is an ideological divide about left or more moderate in the party, but elizabeth warren might be along with amy klobuchar the best people to save the middle class. we believe that is the challenge facing us today. >> jonathan lemire, so humanizing. i completely agree with mara about how elizabeth warren talks

about her brothers, and it tells you that she has a range of experiences. sort of like somebody that the "new york times" editorial page knows well, maureen dowd, always talks about her brother and always would talk about her sainted mother, won the pulitzer prize said, well, i guess you started writing things liberal enough for them to give you that award, but it let's you know that whether it's maureen dowd writings or elizabeth warren from oklahoma, they don't see the world the same way. >> right. senator warren does that effectively and good at humanizing policy positions and platforms with stories, with human ideas. using real examples. she's very good at that in terms of relating to voters. mara, in terms of a lot of attention paid to this editorial process. announced on a television show last night. end of the day, however, the democrats will have one nominee.

voters will have to go into the booth and choose one candidate. >> sure. >> how does an editorial selecting two provide any clarity or help? >> so i think first of all, again, this is an acknowledgement there's more than one pathway forward but i also want to say that this is about respecting the voters. no one has actually cast a ballot in this election yet. so let's let this play out. however, we did have to narrow the field. and we really do believe that these two senators in this case happens to be the two women in the field who are left. are the best to do that, and an endorsement isn't about supporting a candidate necessarily. it's more about educating voters and helping them make the best decision based on their own beliefs. that respect for voters informed this process and obviously we are also extremely torn. the editorial board of the "new york times" is traditionalists, an institutionalist newspaper, progressive to be sure, but this is an acknowledgement especially

our endorsement of senator warren that the institutions in this country need strengthening in a way that may require something bar beyond what it did in the past. >> reverend al, a question? >> mara, as i read the editorial this morning i couldn't help but wonder whether the fact that we are in an era and a time where the actual direction of the country and the presidency had a major impact on the decision. you say, two paths. in many ways i see it as one path with two lanes. cloeb c klobuchar one lane and warren in the other but going to the same destination, and i think trump is going to a different destination. how much did the fact of where this president seems to be leading the country in another way, how much did that weigh in on you choosing two different roads or two different lanes?

>> thank you for asking that. a great point. you know, after meeting with all of the candidates, and walking out of the room on the final day, my big takeaway was, you just think about all that united states democrats. for all of this back and forth and the war and the fierce debate over which direction the party should go into, there is far more that democrats agree on than disagree. what they agree on, it is extremely important to beat donald trump in this election, and this is -- this is something that i think across the board is what they believe, and so any of these candidates can carry that torch, and we believe that these two are the best candidates to do that, but, again, trying to pull back and focus on the bigger picture, i think was really important. that was a message we hoped to send as well. which is, rather than getting caught up in really kind of in the weeds, policy debates, back and forth between these candidates, really focusing on

who can go up against donald trump. >> mara, adrienne elrod here. good morning. >> good morning. >> hi. i'm not asking to get, you know, to find out some of the private conversations that you all had as members of the ed coral board about your decision-making but i'm curious given the fact joe biden was vice president to barack obama, the fact he is leading in polls. served in the senate a long time. curious if you can shed light why the editorial board chose to go with amy klobuchar to represent that more moderate lane as opposed to somebody who is leading in the polls more like joe biden? >> sure. i mean, we have a lot of respect for joe biden, and i hope that does come across, but also just think it's time to kind of pass the torch to a new generation. and i don't think that that should be seen as, as a snub to joe biden specifically. i think we were very excited by

senator klobuchar's energy and it's more about her than about joe biden. >> interesting. mara gay, thank you for coming on the show this morning. next hour, we're going to go live to iowa, and why "new york" magazine says iowa will imcontact the party, caucus and quite possibly the public. no pressure there at all. we're back in just a moment. ck. so what are you working on?

>>i'm searching for info on options trading, and look, it feels like i'm just wasting time. wasted time is wasted opportunity. >>exactly. that's why td ameritrade designed a first-of-its-kind, personalized education center. see, you just >>oh, this is easy. yeah, and that's >>oh, just what i need. courses on options trading, webcasts, tutorials. yeah. their award-winning content is tailored to fit your investing goals and interests. and it learns with you, so as you become smarter, so do its recommendations. >>so it's like my streaming service. well exactly. well except now,

you're binge learning. >>oh, i like that. thank you, i just came up with that. >>you're funny. learn fast with the td ameritrade education center. call 866-295-0917 or visit tdameritrade.com/learn. get started today, and for a limited time, get up to $800 when you open and fund an account. that's 866-295-0917, or tdameritrade.com/learn. ♪ for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease, stelara® works differently. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization.

before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection or flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. talk to your doctor today, and learn how janssen can help you explore cost support options. remission can start with stelara®.

welcome back to "morning joe." jonathan lemire, hard dealing with claire mccaskill over the next couple weeks, still i'm very excited. kansas city chiefs going back to the super bowl first time in 50 years wh years and going up against a tough france team in a couple weeks. tell us about yesterday and what you expect in the super bowl.

>> happy to play sports correspondent here, joe. the senator and i traded messages yesterday. she was at the game in frigid kansas city. you might imagine delighted. patrick mahomes we see run around here. this play, staggering the way he evaded a bunch of tackles and ran it in. and a wonderful player. kansas city fan base happy for that, 50 years. 49ers good. running game good, jimmy g. threw the ball seven or eight times because their running game so good. chiefs opened 1-point favorite. 1.5. sounds right. a close game and i'm going for kansas city. >> the old saying, defense and a great running game wins super bowls suggesting the 49ers may be in a pretty good place. mika says that, too, and mika says -- >> no, i don't. >> mika, for me, says the

prototypical super bowl team is the phil simms-led giants. a great defense. >> yep. >> a good quarterback. a really good running game. >> okay. >> right there. >> i'm thinking of defense, i'm actually thinking of the president's defense team and why he decided to hire two men who represented jeffrey epstein. we'll be right back in a minute. ] sorry. maybe not. jardiance can reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults who also have known heart disease. so it could help save your life from a heart attack or stroke. and it lowers a1c! jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast or urinary tract infections, and sudden kidney problems. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. a rare, but life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away

if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. lower a1c and lower risk of a fatal heart attack? on it... with jardiance. ask your doctor about jardiance. with jardiance. through the at&t network, edge-to-edge intelligence gives you the power to see every corner of your growing business. from finding out what's selling best...

to managing your fleet... to collaborating remotely with your teams. giving you a nice big edge over your competition. that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence. setting aside whether it's an impeachable offense was it proper for the president to have foreign interference in the election? >> i don't actually think that's proven, whether russians or ukrainians were involved in it, to what extent. never seen anything where trump was actually involved in it. >> i asked about soliciting. we've seen the president ask in

public for the ukrainians to get involved and asked china to get involved. >> people do things like that all the time. >> so it's okay? >> people do thinking things. people make things happen. >> this is the president of the united states. >> still the president is human and make mistakes of judgments. they have historically, both parties, from the beginning of our republic. >> so you say it was a mistake not necessarily impeachable? >> i don't believe, like profess professor, the professor said at this point that it rises to the standard of an impeachable offense. >> things happen. welcome back to "morning joe." that's just so sad. it is monday, january 20th. still with us, white house reporter for associated press jonathan lemire. former director of strategic communications for hillary clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, adrienne elrod, and host of msnbc's

"politicsnation," president of the national action network, reverend al sharpton and joining the conversation, political writer for the "new york times" and msnbc political analyst nick confessore, and political reporter for the "washington post" and msnbc political analyst robert costa, moderator of "washington week" on pbs. great to have everybody here this monday morning. andrew's birthday monday morning. your son andrew. >> it is andrew's birthday. happy birthday, andrew. andrew's always on, inauguration day. we can go back and count the birth days, right? who's been ininaugurated. on the richard shelby comment, i've known senator shelby a long time, like him a lot, if you had just begun at the end where he said -- he did something wrong, but it may not be an impeachable offense. that's a far better approach than saying that we don't know if the russians or the

ukrainians interfered in our election, because that's obviously vladimir putin's propaganda, according to our own intel agency. so -- >> oh. >> so i do wish that the republicans, if they want to make a good-faith argument that, yes, what the president did was wrong, but it's not an impeachable offense, that certainly is a healthy debate for america to have, and i think a very good debate, an important debate, instead of running to the corners and repeating russian propaganda. not good. so, anyway -- jonathan lemire, mika and i, we don't watch a whole lot of tv, but we were asked several months back to watch "the morning show," the apple-plus show. >> s.a.g. awards won last night. >> won s.a.g. awards last night. and we watched the first half hour of the first episode and it was so bad and the overacting,

kevin mccarthy-style. we turned it off. >> oh, no. >> just said, we can't watch this. our time's too precious. and heard from about five or six different people, including phil griffin. all right. first couple shows were rough. funny -- go back and watch. so we did. went back and watched. tell you what, about three, four, five episodes in, it really does -- really gets good. by that, jennifer aniston won an award but billy, great acting there. >> wow. >> i mean, some great actors there. reese witherspoon, of course, and it takes, it takes fun twists and turns. >> steve carell, too. >> steve, oh, my god. steve carell's performance is extraordinary. >> i think i'm caught up on the show. it's a combination of, like, sometimes not always that good, but highly watchable. extremely entertaining. >> right. >> very well acted. there are some, you know, i

don't know why this particular, people on your screen wouldn't be interested in a show about a morning television show. i don't see any similarities here whatsoever, but i will say the moment everyone's talking about apparently from the awards did involve jennifer aniston. this, this exchange with brad pitt back stage. touches his chest. holds hands. a lot of warmth leading to a lot of sort of nostalgia and wistfulness perhaps about a brad and jen reunion. >> okay. where did this come from? are we serious here? >> seriously -- >> lemire. >> look what lemire. he's turned into -- >> i can do sports. i can do celebrities. pretty versatile. >> this is tabloid stuff. page 6. but, man, if i knew somebody in my past life who was in "once upon a time in hollywood" i'd go up and talk to him too. that's a great movie. >> sure. >> adrienne, you've seen "the

morning show" as well. to follow-up on what jonathan said, there are times, i'll just say it. sometimes it's bad tv. sometimes -- the overacting is just almost too much to bear. and then there are some other times that are so riveting and moving, that you just sit there and you say, wait. it is a great -- it's great fun to watch. but also some pretty dramatic moments, too. >> yes. >> and important questions. >> yeah. absolutely. a lot of parallels to events that have happened in the last few years in america. it's fascinating. i'm with you. first two episodes hard to get into. everybody said, go back, watch the whole thing. you'll love it. i became addicted. jennifer aniston outstanding and billy as well. entire cast, steve carell. you don't think of him in that role and see him in a serious

role and compelling as an actor. >> kudos to him. able to do it. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> absolutely. >> and mark dwho plays the -- alex has to feel for him, and he plays it so well. >> yeah. >> it's pretty great, and, again, reese witherspoon, great job. so, anyway -- >> thank you, lemire, for bringing it into the gutter. >> gossip. president trump's long-awaited impeachment trial resumes tomorrow and the defense team will seat white house counsel pat cipollone and jay sekulow. with addition of alan dershowitz and ken starr, hardly the most high-profile members. dershowitz and starr among the president's staunchest cable news defender, two of the biggest legal names of the '90s. dershowitz helping with o.j. simpson's murder defense and

starr, independent counsel who investigated bill clinton. in the 2000s, dershowitz and starr found a common client in disgraced billionaire and pedophile jeffrey epstein. dershowitz, a friend of epstein until his suicide sued a victim for defamation after she claimed she was trafficked to the attorney while under age. starr, meanwhile, played a role in the controversial plea deal in which epstein avoided federal charges and served only 13 months in jail with work reless. starr defended his role in a march 2019 letter to the editor of the "new york times" in which he and other lawyers for epstein argued that the deal was fair. >> first of all, that's outrageous that he thinks the deal was fair. what? his driver able to pick him up, work release? preposterous. indefensible.

i just -- indefensible they would give them that kind of deal. >> the whole case for jeffrey epstein is not over, should not be closed and so much more to come out. the victims of epstein and his friends he set up with young girls. that needs to come out, and his death makes it even more mysterious and raises more questions. conservative lawyer george conway is out with a new op-ed in the "washington post" entitled "why trump had to hire this legal odd couple." writes in part this -- president trump whose businesses and now campaign have left a long trail of unpaid bills behind them has never discriminated when it comes to stiffing people who work for him. that includes lawyers, which is part of the reason he found the need to make some curious last-minute tweaks to his team announcing the addition of the legal odd couple of alan dershowitz and kenneth w. starr. dershowitz may be a genius in some ways, but he is not necessarily the advocate you

want on your side. judges have told me they find him condescending in manner and tone, not the approach you warrant before a court consisting of 100 u.s. senators and then there's starr. his investigation led to impeach innocent of bill clinton. adding to your legal team on the eve of trial most likely will not produce better lawyering but rather chaos. in that sense, at least, trump will be getting the representation he deservedeserv and, joe, we know trump thrives on chaos. >> he does and doesn't listen to his attorneys and also doesn't pay his attorneys. bob court tsta, hearing this fo years because of the kay donald trump treats his lawyers makes it that much harder to get top-quality representation. here's another example of that. what are you hearing from the white house on -- on the selection of these two

gentlemen, and also i'm curious. have you heard any concerns at all inside the white house about the fact that they hired two people who were so intimately involved with jeffrey epstein? >> here's what i'm hearing. on the senate side, most republicans would prefer to have pat cipollone, mostly anonymous, white house lawyer. the white house counsel to make an argument to say it doesn't did reach the threshold of impeachment and have this done with. they don't want to see a long, protracted trial, or an argument from the white house side, but they know president trump is pushing with rudy giuliani, with pat scipollone and alan dershowitz and ken starr to have an extended argument on the senate floor. it's complicated for those who want to keep it as low key as possible. for now, the argument remains and contain the amount of witnesses if any that come forward. >> obviously, the president is deeply concerned how this is going to play out on television as we've been discussing.

that's part of the reason why he's gone with such bald-faced names here. seems, nick, we know mitch mcconnell is trying to tap this down. in the senate they want as low key a process as they can. might see witnesses, remains an open question. from your sense of it, how much of a wild card is donald trump jt how afraid he'll detonate a bomb in the mix and disrupt what should be in their estimation an orderly trial that goes to a verdict we already know? >> not a battle for conviction or against conviction. it's a battle for public sentiment. that is a trial, is the trial fair? is it real? what's happening now is a skirmish around the public per spepgs ception of the trial. more evidence and more witnesses, it will be bad for the president. the president does want an exoneration.

right? he wants biden there in the well of the senate under pressure and why he's hiring these tv lawyers. he has real lawyers and tv lawyers. ken starr is both. has real experience with a high-stakes matter of uting a president on trial. in that sense it makes a lot of sense. >> how democrats released new documents on friday night that suggest that republican ranking member for the house intelligence committee devin nunes was more deeply involved in the efforts to dig up dirt on former vice president joe biden than was previously known. nunes initially denied knowing rudy giuliani's indicted business associate lev parnas, but phone records released by house democrats last month show several calls between him and parnas. the associated press reports that among the newly released documents are about 100 text messages between parnas and

california republican staffer derek harvey, who preercviously searched at the white house on trump's national security council. the materials provided to the house by parnas. the messages so farniparnas pro documents and helped set up meetings with ukrainians who made unsubstantiated claims that vice president biden ordered firing of a prosecutor involving burisma. the documents also show parnas's sent harvey a scan of the ukrainian passport of burisma's founder and texts showing that harvey's scheduled phone calls with parnas in a face-to-face meeting at the trump international hotel in washington, and a spokesman for nunes congressional office did not respond to messages left by email and by phone on saturday. >> so reverend al, devin nunes

getting caught in one clumsy lie after another. remember the facade of the press conference on both sides of pennsylvania avenue he made a total fool of himself lying about information he claimed to have but he didn't have until the white house fed it to him. of course, here he's lied about his relationship with parnas. and here we see once again this guy lied to the media. lied to other members of congress, and yet he's still able to run the president's defense for the most part in the intel committee. seems so curious to me that the republicans there, kevin mccarthy there, would allow this guy to continue to embarrass themselves. >> it is a shameless act to have nunes all over this, where he had outright denied this. this is not some side issue that he had to tweet. this is something that he was

downright, down the middle, unquestionably misleading the public, and for them not to move him away from his position in intelligence, at a key position, and as one of the quarterbacks for president trump can only make you wonder why they keep having such characters as the people on their front line? if you look at the fact you have rudy giuliani, now a defense team that has all kinds of crazy connections, that no one would use as their defense line, and now nunes, who they won't even back up, you can only say that birds of a feather flock together, and they're all covering for each other. what we don't know, which is why we need witnesses in an open trial, but you couldn't paint a more questionable figure than nunes and the whole squad that's around president trump. >> and it's the incompetency.

the incompetence is staggering, bob costa, which i guess -- i guess suggests that you have to reach a certain level to find people that will continue to defend donald trump without question. do you have anymore insight into devin nunes, his relationship with parnas? or the fact that, again, he continues to hold such an important position in trump world? >> here's one insight. look at the "washington post" reporting on the trump hotel in washington. lev parnas, igor fruman, rudy giuliani hung out there for years during the trump administration and no one within the administration orbit seems to work within the chain of command. whether derek harvey, devin nunes or others, people working outside the chain of command of trump hovering in the trump

hotel in washington, people coming in and out of the inner circle of power. whether house republicans or inside of the west wing, without real oversight at all about who's coming in and who's telling what to who. >> and as far as parnas goes what can you tell us about the chain of command? is he working specifically for rudy giuliani, who's getting his orders from donald trump? because, of course, parnas says he spent time with donald trump before he's been in small meetings with him? of course, tons of pictures with the president as well. which is not quite as telling, but he is, has been, extraordinarily close to rudy giuliani who is extraordinarily close to donald trump. talk about the nexus between parnas and the president. >> lev parnas is a character within the president's inner circle, within the broader circle perhaps is a better term. and the "washington post" held

an illuminative profile of him. someone like michael cohen and others who want to be close to the flame, who builds relationships with people like rudy giuliani, transactional relationships. so ambitious to be inside the power orbit of washington. yet when push comes to shove, very willing to walk away and to burn bridges. this is a whole network of people who want to be close to the president of the united states, want to be on the patio of mar-a-lago. same time, willing to walk away. >> yep. >> yeah. hey, bob, you're obviously worth the start of -- we're at the start of an important week with this impeachment trial. what are you looking at as the week begins? >> walk over to the capitol after this and start looking at the negotiations over witnesses. we're about to start a trial, but no real details yet from leader mcconnell about whether he's going to allow witnesses, the extent to which he's going to allow witnesses. what i'm really paying attention to is this. during the clinton trial in '99,

some testimony from witnesses was closed. the public did not have access to it. if there is any witness agreement, will it be closed testimony from witnesses or not? even if john bolton countries forward, for example, would the public be able to hear what he had that say? something to watch. >> and adrienne elrod, beginning of the week as we get ever closer to the iowa caucuses. i mean, iowa caucus is going to be fairly important this year, as they are every four years. what are you going to be looking at as this week begins, and the candidates move even closer to their political judgment day? >> well, i guess from a just sheer tactical standpoint i'm looking to see if any of the senators can figure out how to get to iowa given the impeachment trial. in theory, the trial doesn't start until early afternoon. you can take a late flight to iowa, do events in the morning, come back to washington. be present for the trial. that's a fascinating thing to

look at. and looking, joe, to see if anything moves caucusgoers in the polls over the next two week. we know impeachment will, in theory, freeze the field to an extent because the national media will be so focused what's happening in washington as opposed to the campaign trail. can candidates shift their position in polls at all? it's really all about ground game. keep in mind candidates and campaigns have to convince supporters to go stand in a room for two, two and a half hours on a monday evening in iowa to demonstrate support for their candidate. interesting to see how that plays out, but really, you know, two weeks from today, that evening is going to be, of course, where everything happens. >> absolutely. robert costa, thank you for your reporting. good luck on capitol hill this morning. and still ahead -- well, here we are. "new york" magazine is sizing um the state of the race with the iowa caucuses just two weeks away. "morning joe" is back in a

moment. ♪you got to ac-cent-tchu-ate the positive♪ ♪ e-lim-i-nate the negative ♪ and latch on to the affirmative ♪ ♪ but don't mess with mister inbetween ♪ ♪ you got to spread joy up to the maximum ♪ "it's okay, you got this" ♪ bring gloom down to the minimum ♪ "slow it down a little" ♪and have faith, or pandemonium "it's okay" ♪liable to walk upon the scene♪

asand achieved new york city'sed cacleanest air quality in more than 50 years. as a leader in the fight against climate change, he helped shut down over half of the nation's coal plants, then led one of the biggest pollution reduction efforts in history. as president, he intends to reduce emissions by fifty percent

within ten years. because if we want to stop climate change, we need to make a change. this is a fight-we can't afford to lose. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. of course i'd love to take an informal poll. i used to be a little cranky. dealing with our finances really haunted me. thankfully, i got quickbooks, and a live bookkeeper's helping customize it for our business. (live bookkeeper) you're all set up! (janine) great! hey! you got the burnt marshmallow out! (delivery man) he slimed me. (janine) tissue? (vo) get set up right with a live bookkeeper with intuit quickbooks. the easy way to a happier business.

and with the sxfinity stream app, screen is your big screen. which is free with your service, you can take a spin through on demand shows, or stream live tv. download your dvr'd shows and movies on the fly. even record from right where you are. whether you're travelling around the country or around the house, keep what you watch with you. download the xfinity stream app and watch all the shows you love.

welcome back to "morning joe." 26 past the hour. joining us now, washington bureau chief for "huff post" amanda terkel who moderated the president's forum in des moines yesterday. also with us, "usa today," a "morning joe" contradicter and get to his new piece on bernie sanders in a moment, and national correspondent for "new york" magazine, gabrian debenadetti writes a story "just another iowa caucus to determine the future of the campaign, the party and quite possibly the

republic." great to have you all onboard. amanda, i guess we'll start with you, given that you moderated yesterday. how did the candidates do? and what's your big takeaway? >> i think the big takeaway was just that democrats finally realize since the forum was about democracy issues that jumps are really important. republicans knew this in 2016. why brett kavanaugh is on the supreme court. democrats realize they have to fight. mitch mcconnell and donald trump have pushed through nearly 200 of trump's jumps. remade the federal judiciary and democrats realize if they get into office they need to nominate people quickly for these positions, and they have to figure out how to get around, say, if mitch mcconnell is still senate majority leader. democrats said they were open to perhaps getting away from the blue slip tradition, which is where home state senators traditionally get a say, but what if a republican senator says we're not going to sign off

on your nominee? you have people like senator elizabeth warren, senator amy klobuchar and others saying, we're not going to commit to getting away from that tradition yet, but if republicans are going to block us we're going to look at doing it. >> gabriel, your piece talks about how important iowa may be. obviously in 2008, it sent barack obama on a fairly straight path to the democratic nomination. why do you think in 2020 what is your reporting show on why iowa may be so important, not only to the future of the party but the race, and the republic itself? >> the latter two points are pretty evident in the fact this is such an important presidential campaign in the first place, but the reason iowa is so important right now is that we're basically looking at an unprecedented situation. it's more or less a four-way tie with would weeks out and a fifth candidate coming on strong as well. not just that. also that new hampshire is

basically a toss-up as is nevada. south carolina, because joe biden is so far ahead, people aren't keeping that one in mind so much. this is a race where you really don't know what's going to happen and there are four candidates trying to map out four very different paths out of iowa, and basically no one on the ground thinks we're going to know anything about the result there until very late on caucus night and even then it's possible we're going to have three or four different candidates claiming victory. >> hey, curt, the "new york times," talking about their endorsement earlier. a brutal line in there about bernie sanders suggesting they picked him, i'm paramazing, exchange one divisive overpromising figure in washington for another, comparing bernie to president trump. in your newest piece you talk about the twitter bernie bros and say they actually have a lot in common with president trump's army of online supporters. the maga group there. so talk to us -- first explain who the bernie bros are and why

are you making this comparison? >> the bernie bros came along in the 2016 campaign and seemed to be the vocal kind of almost mob-like die-hard, cult-like following of bernie sanders. i should be clear. bernie sanders throughout the campaign in 2016 has decried some of the tactics used on social media. bullying and targeting primarily of people of color, women who disagree with senator sanders platform, but one of the things i've experienced firsthand, when i've come on this very program and raised valid concerns about senator sanders and his viability, immediately the twittersphere, bernie bros go hard-core attack mode and traits, words, rhetoric they use, the only thing i've seen close to that is what maga people do. what the trump voters do. that's a very dangerous and disturbing trend to see, particularly when democrats are trying to show that there is a better way than we've seen from trump. better than the divisiveness and

use of fear and hatred and extremism to try to scare people into a particular ideology. we have to be a democratic party that's okay with hon effort disagreements. that's okay with raising valid concerns and questions. i would like to think senator sanders wants that for the democratic party, but some of his most ardent and hard-core supporters are taking dangerous rhetorical measures i think and senator sanders in the long run needs to be more vocal aboutadr complaints from women especially journalists that talked about i think kasie hunt on this show has talked about the abuse that has been heaped upon her and other women journalists who at times will report on some facts that some of the more aggressive sanders supporters are offended by. bernie sanders has called this sort of talk out before, but -- >> he has. >> -- is there a belief that he

needs to do more? >> well, you know, i -- sure. absolutely. i think that curt's point, senator sanders has been very clear time and time again he does not support these antics, but i will tell you, i, too, have suffered at the hands of some of the bernie bros on social media and received very vitriolic rhetorics based on what i've said and the fact i worked for hillary clinton's campaign in 2016. we should all keep in mind roughly 7% of americans are on social media or twitter. not everybody is feeling this, but a very vocal movement among some of the bernie bros, again, senator sanders disavowed this time and time again. but i think it's not just incumbent on senator sanders but on every single candidate running for president to call out, you know, hateful tweets and hateful rhetoric. that's not where we're going. especially the democratic party.

we have to show we are united and for positive change. we don't want to stoop to the level of some of the maga supporters and incumbent not just on bernie sanders but on all democratic candidates ta call this out which they see it. >> so amanda, back to you. one of the themes yesterday was campaign finance reform, and elizabeth warren went after mike bloomberg. tell us more about it. >> yeah. she came out swinging. she came right onstage, our first candidate of the day, and she's been using bloomberg as a bit of a foil to represent the billionaire she likes to sort of go after. she came out and said, like, look. just so you know. he is not going to be releasing his financial disclosures until after super tuesday. you won't know anything about how much money he has and how he's made that money because he's asked for an extension. he has been, you know, he has been someone she's been using. gotten in the race obviously a lot of visibility and hasn't

been showing up to debates obviously, forums. doing his own thing. running these ads that cost millions and millions of dollars. he's going to be running one on the super bowl. and so she's saying, look, is that the type of candidate you want? certain people want him, and i'm trying to basically tax people like michael bloomberg. >> so, every four years we hear iowa, iowa, iowa. the these is of this year it's actually iowa, it's different. >> yes. >> it's going to change the future of the country. >> right. >> explain. >> yeah. one of the thinks anyone who's been paying attention to this race now can see how little clarity there is in the actual shape of the race. it's true nationally joe biden and bernie sanders are leading this from start to finish, but we also have to acknowledge that this is going to change dramatically, could change dramatically based on the early results. if you try and map out the results of the first four early states and then super tuesday is solely based on polls now you'd have no idea what's going to happen. iowa itself is going to be that

sorting mechanism specifically because of these four candidates that everyone has taken seriously and a few others. they're going to come out either very strong or very weak. there is going to be a clear set of results one way or another that is going to set the path for the rest of the early states. as i said before, because new hampshire itself is kind of a toss-up, that's next. and nevada pretty close. we don't know what will happen now. iowa because it's first time voters are weighing in on this. one way or another, going to say, well, at least this is the path we're going. >> briefly. put you on the spot. spent a lot of time in iowa. tested its importance. what's your temperature of the race now if you had to look who's strong going in, make a prediction? >> i know less about the race now than going in after having talking to people there. striking mf every single voter. even the most diehard said i love this candidate but could also vote for someone else. and thank you both for your

reporting. curt, thank you for your analysis as well. coming up on "morning joe." >> the leadership of barack obama and hillary clinton the generals reduced to rubble. they have been reduced to a point where it's embarrassing for our country. >> the president in 2016, less than a year later, he was reportedly calling some of his top generals, "dopes" and "babies." we'll bring in admiral james defreetis ahead on "morning joe." eetis ahead on "morning joe." robinhood believes now is the time to do money.

without the commission fees and account minimums. so, you can start investing wherever you are - even on the bus. download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood. and aren't necessarily great for your teeth. the acid can actually wear away at the enamel which over time can cause sensitivity and a lot of people start to see their teeth turn yellow. i like to recommend pronamel to my patients to help them protect their teeth and keep the enamel strong.

proof i can fight moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. proof i can fight psoriatic arthritis... ...with humira. proof of less joint pain... ...and clearer skin in psa. humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections,

or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. humira is proven to help relieve pain, stop further joint damage,... ...and clear skin in psa. want more proof? ask your rheumatologist about humira.

there is much more still ahead. here's a tweet that caught our attention yesterday. conservative writer david french wrote -- just got out of kanye's sunday service. words i never thought i would type. it was glorious. it's not kanye's centered, not at all. it's god-glorifying from start to finish. i'm grateful i got a chance to see it. we wanted to know more. so david french joins us, next, to explain.

this is the all-new chevy silverado hd. it's beautiful. you want to take it for a test-drive? definitely. we're gonna go in that. seriously? i thought we were going on a test drive. we are. a heavy-duty test drive. woo-hoo! this is dope. i've never been on a test drive like this before. this silverado offers a 6.6 liter duramax diesel that can tow up to 35,500 pounds. awesome! let's take these logs up that hill. let's do it. wow! this truck's a beast. are you sure there's a trailer back there? this is incredible. best test drive ever. [chuckle]

a lot will happen in your life.

wrinkles just won't. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair's derm-proven retinol works so fast, it takes only one week to reveal younger looking skin. making wrinkles look so last week. rapid wrinkle repair® pair with retinol oil for 2x the wrinkle fighting power. neutrogena®

♪ the devil's trying to break me down ♪ whether it's a feud with taylor swift or putting on a spectacle in the oval office, kanye west has often been the center of controversy. but over the past year the music superstar has turned his sights towards focusing on his faith, as he has teamed up with the gospel choir to put on sunday services. his sunday services feature songs from his gospel album "jesus is king." this video is from kanye's performance at joel osteen's liquid church. this part weekend, 12,000 people gathered for west's sunday service in pigeon forge, tennessee. joining us now is columnist f i "time" magazine who attended that service and brendan clinganberg with us also.

joe, my daughter has been telling me about kanye's sunday services and how epic they are. >> yeah. it's has really caught the attention of so many people. and, david french, i must say, when i saw your tweet yesterday saying you were coming from a kanye event. >> what? >> it caught my eye. i've been following this closely, and he's just -- kanye's just an extraordinary public figure. i saw his "letterman" interview talking about his struggles. but also talking about where he's going with his music, and saw him on a few other things, but talk about the event, talk about what it is like going to a sunday service with pastor kanye west. >> it is not like anything else i've ever seen. to sort of set the stage, i was

there with my kids, my wife, my son, who's 19, as a longtime kanyologist. we have -- we waited out in the cold for three hours. the line of thousands of kids at a youth rally for a kanye performance. and this was -- these are kids from rural tennessee, rural alabama, georgia. a lot of kids in, like, this woodland camouflage, like they'd just come from deer hinteding. deer hunting. an amazing combination of cultures and worked beautifully. as i said in my tweet, this was not a kanye-centered thing. this was a christ-centered moment and he submerged himself behind the choir. often physically behind the choir as they performed. i have to say this, also. that choir, it's amazing to listen and the "jesus is king"

album but to hear them live, some of the most talented and xooub exuberant and amazing performers i've ever seen. >> i'm seve james corbin on kanye's choir on an airplane. a cappella. unbelievable. i have a son who is a diehard kanyologist who will match me beatles album for kanye album like, what -- you know, and it's been an ongoing discussion and debate for us, but, you know, as kanye made this turn, i actually reminded him that kanye, i think in 2001 started with "jesus walks," which was -- i mean, if you listen to the lyrics there, that was a heck of a statement

even back in 2000, 2001. seemed with "jesus is king" kanye has actually come full circle. >> definitely a return to his religious roots that he kind of made a point that the difference is "jesus walks" one song instead of, he made two albums this year both very christianity heavy. the sunday service stuff started back in the beginning of 2019. it was after his 2018, which was an odd year for him, when he started to, you know, started to talk about trump a lot, wearing a make america great again hat, and came out as bipolar. then he looked at christ a center influence on his life and when the kanye sunday services started. basically in l.a. started doing invite-only things where some celebrities would go. some friends of him and kim would go and basically

recontextualize his own music. he has a choir and a choir director and kind of singing kanye songs but in a traditional gospel slant. and often taking out, like, swear words and recontextualizing kanye slant. taking out swear words. if you were a fan, all you got were clips on instagram. you didn't get to go. they weren't tickets. and no one really knew what he had planned. and over the course of the year, everyone who has been working on these with him has started to realize that this is a whole new artistic direction for him. he's taking the sunday service choir very seriously. he put out "jesus is king". and he also put out "jesus is born" on christmas day which is gospel music. >> rev, it's interesting if you listen to some of the songs on "jesus is king". inward looking as many of

kanye's songs are, but you listen like "closed on sunday ". he talks about not being slave to culture. that his family, you know, and how to protect his sonnins, how protect his daughters. talks about turning off the gram, getting off instagram. this is fascinating. this is how we think of kanye and the kardashians, and yet, a lot of reflective inward looking thinking by kanye, and again, not the turn we would expect from this guy. >> kanye west and i probably disagree on politics, but i think he's very sincere about this spiritual journey and the musical journey he's taking. i preached yesterday in a church in atlanta, new birth church, where kanye had done one of his

services and in chicago fe fellowship. both of them said he means this. for years he's had a spiritual journey i think he's sincere about. i think one of the things a lot of the political progressives that i consider myself part of is they don't understand that you could have a spiritual leaning that you can unite, reconcile as we were talking about earlier in the show, and differ politically. the sa it has nothing to do with the fact that we can both embrace and believe in god and celebrate him in music. i think we've got to be able to find that common ground, and i think kanye has done that. i think he's a musical genius. politically i think he's on the wrong side. maybe he and i can some day get donald trump to the alter and e

repent. >> jonathan, you talked about politics. you've done your tabloid tract. let's talk about music now. do you have a question for david french? >> i most certainly do. the footage from the sunday services was reminiscent of an independence counsel of funk show. but my question is this is the -- we've talked a lot about it. it's been brought up about how kanye's surprising turn toward trump in the last couple years. that's my question for you. you were at the sunday service yesterday and said he played a secondary role. it was about his faith. were there any politics involved yesterday? >> their politics was a million miles away from this. the politics had nothing to do with this at all. i think that was one of the things that was so refreshing about it. this was about ministering to 12,000 young people who are going through things in their lives and a questioning phase of

their life, and he came and his choir. the pastor gave a message for about 10 minutes, the prodigal son. there was no politics near this. this was about god loves you, jesus loves you. he has a plan and a purpose for your life, and politics is miserable right now. but there's still good things happening in this country. and yet in tennessee i witnessed a very good thing that had nothing to do with politics. >> which is, of course, an impeachment week -- during impeachment week is exactly why we wanted to do this segment. david, thank you so much for being with us. brendan, thank you as well. we appreciate it. i hope you'll come back. and mika, what do we have next? >> still ahead, donald trump's impeachment defense team is set and two of the members also had another client in common, jeffrey epstein.

we'll talk about that. and before break, an amazing response to the rollout of my new book, "bocomeback careers". it's about women getting back in the game after taking a career break or making a big change. for women over 50, my co-author jenny brzezinski took a huge leap to help write this book, and she wanted to empower others to relaunch their careers. we want to hear from you as well. so check out our website. knowyo knowyourvalue.com. >> and what's so important about this book is again you talk about wirm in their 40s, 50s, 60s. you've been hearing from women even in their 30s that may have taken three or four or five years off because they wanted to be with their children. but this is -- i mean, you've heard from anybody. i've got to say i've been really

surprised. >> it's had a great response. >> overwhelming response it's had. it is important. and by the way, this is important for men, too, who have for one reason or the other gotten out of the business world and want to get back into it. i mean, it's all about not getting in your own way and k having the confidence to take the first step forward. >> and knowing how much value you have and communicating it effectively. it's tips and advice as well as the confidence boost and motivation that you need. we're back in just a moment. my body is truly powerful. i have the power to lower my blood sugar and a1c. because i can still

make my own insulin. and trulicity activates my body to release it like it's supposed to. trulicity is for people with type 2 diabetes. it's not insulin. i take it once a week. it starts acting in my body from the first dose. trulicity isn't for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, belly pain, and decreased appetite, which lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. i have it within me to lower my a1c. ask your doctor about trulicity.

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. ♪

when we let it ring from every village, from every state, and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of god's children, black men and white men, jews and gentiles, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old negro spiritual, free at last, free at last, thank god, al mighty, we are free at last. a moment from august, 1963 as today and every day we honor the life and legacy of dr. martin luther king junior. good morning and welcome to "morning joe." it's january 20th, martin luther

king junior day. with us jonathan lamier. a former director of strategic communications for hillary clinton's campaign, adrian ellerod. host of msnbc's politics nation and president of the national action network, reverend al sharpton, heidi prisis with us. and benjamin whitis, co-author of unmaking the presidency. we'll get to that in just a moment. three years ago today donald trump was sworn into office. tomorrow the senate will consider removing him. with the impeachment trial looming, the white house is now laying out the president's defense amid yet more revelations about the ukraine

saga. the democrats meanwhile are just days away from the first votes of their primary fight. this as the new york times endorses not one but two candidates for the nomination. as steve kornacki joked on twitter, now you know how to cast both of your votes for president. in just a few hours trump heads overseas for another run-in with world leaders. safe to say we're kicking off an extremely busy week on "morning joe," including a live interview with joe biden on wednesday which we really look forward to. >> yeah. just to start the morning, reverend al, let's talk for a moment about martin luther king and his extraordinary legacy. but i think it's important to note that for younger americans who didn't realize how the last five years of his life played

out after that speech that we're all so aware of, that it was very tough. at times he went through the political wilderness. king was not followed by younger black activists. they turned their back on him. they believed he was -- they believed he was not radical enough at times. didn't like his peaceful resistance approach. and he was a man, april of 1968 that was still struggling to make a difference, but struggling with many people inside his own movement. >> i think you raise a critical point. dr. king in his last four or five years had become more unpopular than popular according

to polls of black americans. yet, he remains steadfast and remained loyal and faithful to his core beliefs of nonviolent and direct action tactics. and i think that is something that we miss today as people that will take a moral stand based on what they believe, not based on what is popular. and on king day, i think that becomes important. and he believed in trying to reconcile society. he believed that there ought to be the social movements but that they are to end in reconciliation, which is why it is representative of his dream that on today we see polarization. what may happen in virginia where extremists are arrested and where there's a washington post poll where the sitting president of the united states, 83% of black americans think he's a racist. not that he's negative but

raci racist. this is where we are 52 years after king's death. which is why we must struggle. the good news you and i disagreed 20 years ago, shared a real friendship. this morning we'll host former president clinton who i've disagreed with, but never disagreed in the path. that's what would make dr. king proud on king day. the reconciliation around what is right. >> it is about reconciliation, and he continued to fight for reconciliation. even in the final years of his life when he was battling so much. eddie gloud junior has a great book about the life of james baldwin and the struggles called "begin again". he talked about how for james baldwin, martin luther king wasn't progressive enough. he wasn't combative enough, and yet, after king's death baldwin

spiralled into depression, and understood what a great man was lost. and that's something that all of america understands all these years later. there's no better way to honor dr. martin luther king than working together in the spirit of reconciliation. not just in politics but in your church, ssynagogue, home, community. >> heart open to it. now to our top story, president trump's long-awaited impeachment trial resume tomorrow. and the president's impeachment defense team will see white house counsel and personal attorney sekulow playing leading roles. with the addition of alan dershowitz and ken starr, they're hardly the most profile members. dershowitz and starr were two of

the biggest legal names of the 90s. dershowitz helping with o.j. simp simpson's murder defense, and starr investigated bill clinton. in the 2000s they found a common client in disgraced billionaire and pedophile jeffrey epstein. dershowitz, a friend of epstein until his suicide sued a victim for defamation. starr played a role in the controversial plea deal in which epstein avoided federal charges and served only 13 months in jail with work release. starr defended his role in a march 2019 letter to the editor of the new york times in which he and other lawyers for epstein argued that the deal was fair. also on the impeachment defense team, former florida attorney

general pam bondi and robert ray. "the washington post" reports that starr, dershowitz, bondi and ray were selected personally by president trump for their celebrity and vocal defenses of the president in the media despite the baggage that we just told you about. here is dershowitz yesterday arguing that the president should not be removed from office, even if he's guilty of the house charges. >> as you know the house materials have cited crimes that were committed as well -- >> but they weren't -- they are not articles of impeachment. the article of impeachments are two noncriminal actions. obstruction of congress and abuse of power. those have to be voted on by the senate. >> is it your position president trump should not be impeached even if all the articles are accepted as fact? >> that's right.

>> benjamin, so much to talk about here. i think we can talk about what alan dershowitz said yesterday and through the weekend on his victory tour. it is opposite of what he said throughout 1999 on larry king live and other shows. but i first -- let's talk act the selection of a legal team and talk about a president who has such trouble finding legal representation that he actually got the legal team that helped put together the plea deal and helped represent jeffrey epstein, one of the most disgraced figures in modern american popular culture. it's -- i can't imagine another president at any time having to select a team that would be associated with a pedophile who according to recent reports trafficked any young girls as young as 11 years old.

>> yeah. i mean, this is not just a choice of a legal team to making an argument on behalf of the president. in fact, if you were going to do that, you would probably want a legal team without the baggage of having argued the opposite side of a bunch of these rns not that long ago, particularly ken starr who, of course, argued that obstruction of congress was a or obstruction of an investigation, including of congress, was an adequate basis for impeachment and argued against the idea that sort of the assertion of -- argued against robust assertions of executive privilege, and even suggested that those assertions could be an impeachable offense. that said, this is a legal team that was chosen not for its

legal ak yccumen, it was -- it' group composed in order to make a statement. and the statement is one of unswerving loyalty in public to the president no matter how awful the circumstances, and the statement is also a big middle finger stuck up to people who care about me too issues, because, of course, not only is there the epstein stuff but also ken starr's history at baylor university, and there are some other what you might call me too issues associated with this group, and so i think the group makes a statement in a number of

ways, but the most important way is that they are people who no matter their histories, are willing to put their names on documents like this outrageous statement that the white house issued the other night in response to the articles of impeachment. >> still ahead on "morning joe," joe biden won't be in washington for the senate impeachment trial, but his name is sure to come up anyway. we have new reporting on how the former vice president is looking to get ahead of it all. you're watching "morning joe." we'll be right back. i remembeg about things i did and wondering if that was the last time i was going to do that thing. i thought i'm not letting anything take me away from my family that loves me and needs me without a fight.

when i came to cancer treatment centers of america, it felt so different from any other hospital we'd ever been to. whether it be spiritual, physical, emotional, they take it all into consideration in healing you. infusion, imaging, everything is here. i don't have to go anywhere else. they create a treatment plan that's for you. they cared about my victories. they cared about me as a person beyond just being a cancer patient. they're my second family. get care like no other. call us at cancer treatment centers of america. if you have moderate to severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable,

with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you.

otezla. show more of you. beyond the routine checkups. beyond the not-so-routine cases. comcast business is helping doctors provide care in whole new ways. all working with a new generation of technologies powered by our gig-speed network. because beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected. to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond. a constitutional law professor is pushing back against alan dershowitz' argument that the articles should be dismissed because

abuse of power and obstruction of congress are not impeachable offenses. in an op ed it's written the argument that only criminal defenses are impeachable has died a thousand deaths in the writings of all the experts on the subject, but it staggers on like a zombie. in fact,s there is no evidence the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors was understood in the 17 80s to mean indictable crimes. any violations out public trust such as working with foreign governments in ways that make the president beholden to their leaders or cooperating with those governments to bolster the president's reelection clearly must be impeachable even though they might violate no criminal law and no federal statute at all. the president is entitled to robust legal representation, tribe continues, but his lawyers should not be allowed to use

bogus legal arguments to mislead the american public or the senators weighing his fate. in fact, here's alan dershowitz making a similar argument himself back in 1998. >> it certainly country have to be a crime. if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust, and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime. to impeach a president is like a nonviolent revolution. it's the most dramatic act of undoing democracy that is possible, and that's why the framers use the term treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanor to use the anl si of great offenses to state. we look at how they conduct the foreign policy and whether they try to subvert the constitution the way iran contra did by going behind the back of congress. >> yeah.

heidi przybyla, you have new information on how the biden campaign is gearing up for the impeachment trial. what can you tell us? >> in an unusual memo issued by the biden campaign obtained first by nbc news, we see they're issuing a preemptive strike against what they say is disinformation at the heart of the president's defense. that is that joe biden did anything in ukraine that is quote, unquote, corrupt. this is coming a day before the trial, mika and joe. it's a reminder to all of us that the accusations at the heart of the president's defense here, that it was merit, that they had merit to investigate joe biden, has any credibility to it. three things they're emphasizing that are important to remind people. number one, the prosecutor general who joe biden pushed for removing, it was a priority of the entire west. the imf, the eu, and even senators raun johnson and robert

portman, republicans to remove him from office. this was the policy of the united states of america. secondly, that prosecutor general was not investigating burisma, the energy company linked to hunter biden. and third, hunter biden served on that board two years after the issues of corruption at issue were an issue. and so he came two years after all of those things that were alleged bad to have happened, happened. it's important to get that information out there as well, joe and mika, because as this moves from the house where democrats control the process to the senate, the biden campaign is concerned about an effort to confuse the public and to go after hunter biden when, in fact, in the house when republicans had a chance to actually call hunter biden and get information if they thought he really was material behind closed doors, they didn't do it. they're afraid that now that it moved to the senate, the president and his allies will

attempt to go after hunter biden, even though some republicans are coming out on the record, including senator co cornyn saying i'm a judge. he is not material to the main issue here. i want to read you one quote i think is powerful from this memo. it says to the media, a reminder. it is not sufficient to say the allegations are unsubstantiated or no evidence has emerged to support them. not only to there no evidence against the vice president. there's a mountain of evidence that actively debunks and it is malpractice to ignore that truth. joe and mika, a note to the media, a reminder. the allegations are completely debunked. >> well, completely debunked. that's a term that "the wall street journal" wrote not in -- on their opinion pages but wrote on the front pages months and months ago about the debunked

theory that you were just talking about. heidi, thank you so much for that report. and we greatly appreciate you being with us. >> coming up, there's the president, and then there's the presiden presidency. a new book explores how the former is unmaking the latter. the author explains that next on "morning joe." oe." >> man: what's my safelite story? i spend a lot of time in my truck. it's my livelihood. ♪ rock music >> man: so i'm not taking any chances when something happens to it. so when my windshield cracked... my friend recommended safelite autoglass. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. >> tech: oh, no problem. >> tech: check it out. >> man: yeah. they came right to me, with expert service

where i needed it. that's service i can trust... no matter what i'm hauling. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

ben wittes, let's talk about your new book. "unmaking the presidency". >> you and susan have done an incredible job with this book. i love it. one of the things that i love about it is that you really take the readers through the president's actions, the consequences of those actions, and then you try answering the question of what the impact is going to be, and so let me ask you. with a president who says article 2 gives him the power to do everything he wants to do with white house aides going and

saying the president's authority is not to be questioned, tell us when we read this book, will we learn this is just something that offends our democratic sensibilities that will pass in time? or is the president reshaping the presidency in a way that will have far more lasting damage for years to come? >> yeah. first of all, thank you for the kind words about the book. look, i think the answer to that question is that donald trump is proposing to reshape the presidency. and you know, we talk about these norms violations. the word norm violation has become a cliche in the trump era. when somebody is trampling on so many different traditional norms of the presidency, you have to ask the question is he proposing something else? and the basic thesis that susan and i put forward is that though

he is not a political theorist and this is not a sort of theorized innovation to the presidency, donald trump is proposing a different vision of the presidency. it's one built around the idea of merging the person in this case, donald trump himself, the personality of the individual with the office. and the hijacking of the powers of the office to benefit the individual. and if we tolerate that in brief answer to your question, if we endorse that by reelecting him, if we don't push back on it, yes, the presidency is a changeable office. this is a coherent proposition to change it, and it will catch on. >> well, so benjamin, let's dig a little deeper. violating laws, violating the

constitution is quite different than violating norms, whether they are political norms or trugsal norms. your book suggests there is a transparency that would allow a president like donald trump to reshape without changing laws. >> that's correct. first, the presidency is not a static institution. the institution that we think of today as the presidency looks relatively little like the institution that congress interacted with in the 1790s when presidents didn't have staff. there weren't agencies in the sense that we understand them now. and the powers of the presidency were gravely limited by things like geography and

communications. so we shouldn't think of the presidency as an institution that doesn't change. it does change. and the presidential powers as they're articulated in the constitution, can give rise to many different iterations. for example, the president is obliged to give us the information to congress on the state of the union periodically. that can mean a written communication as it did through most of the 19th century. it can mean the modern state of the union address as we think of it now. and i suppose it could also mean a tap dance and a song by a president who wanted to interpret it that way. and so while we think of trump as violating the law and in some areas he is, in most areas, what we think of as his abuses are actually abuses of powers he

undoubtedly has, and, for example, he's allowed to make all these outrageous pardons that he makes. the question is are we going to tolerate it? and what he's doing is he's putting on the table a raft of perfectly plausible illegal uses of presidential power that are radically different from the way the traditional presidency has used them. cumulativety, they put on the table a vision of the presidency. it was our project in this book to try to describe that vision, to assess that vision, and ultimately, to offer a defense of the traditional presidency from that vision. >> the new book is "unmaking the presidency, donald trump's war on the world's most powerful office". ben, thank you for being on this morning. coming up.

>> may god bless you all and protect our troops. >> joe biden understands the awesome power, responsibility, and sacred duty of being commander in chief. >> the biden campaign says that new ad serves as a direct rebuke to the new reporting that says president trump lashed out against u.s. generals by calling them dopes and babies. retired four her star admiral james da fri-- joins us next. --t when you shop with wayfair,

you spend less 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

even after you clean, odors are still trapped in your fabrics. febreze fabric eliminates those odors. and try febreze unstopables with twice the fresh-scent power. tackle tough odors with irresistible freshness. la la la la la

mostly. you make time... when you can. but sometimes life gets in the way, and that stubborn fat just won't go away. coolsculpting takes you further. a non-surgical treatment that targets, freezes, and eliminates treated fat cells for good. discuss coolsculpting with your doctor. some common side-effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. don't imagine results, see them. coolsculpting, take yourself further. save $100 on your coolsculpting treatment. text resolution to 651-90 to learn more. save $100 on your coolsculpting treatment. wthat's why xfinity hasu made taking your internetself. and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome.

go to xfinity.com/moving to get started. why didn't you deny calling the president a moron? >> you know, that's a really old question. >> you understand that by not answering the question, some people thought you were confirming the story. >> i think i've answered the question. >> you think you answered the

question? >> i've answered the question. >> did you call the president a moron? >> i'm not going to dignify the question. >> the nondenial, denial we may now know what prompted the then secretary of state to say what he reportedly said. a new book by washington post reporters reveals the new details of the president's 2017 meeting with former secretary of state, rex tillerson. jim mattis and former director of the national economic counsel gary cohn all formers in an excerpt in this weekend's washington post from the book "a very stable genius". authors write in 2017 mattis invited trump to a meeting in the tank, a secure, vault where the joint chiefs of staff meet regularly to wrestle this classified matters. where mattis, tillerson and

cohen had carefully organized a tutorial for the president on the importance of nato alliances. trump appeared peeved by the schoolhouse vibe but also allergic to the dynamic of his advisers, talking at him, and his reck sheaing attention span led him to repeatedly interrupt the lesson. the excerpt continues. trump by now was in one of his rages. but the next several things he bellowed went beyond that description. they stunned nearly everyone in the room. i wouldn't go to war with you people, trump barked. you're a bunch of dopes and babies. according to the excerpt, trump's stream of venn m had taken an emotional toll. tillerson told others he thought he saw a woman in the room silently crying. he was furious and decided he couldn't stand it another minute. his voice broke into trump's

tirade. this one about trying to make money off of the u.s. troops. tillerson said no, that's just wrong. the men and women who put on a uniform don't do it to become soldiers of fortune. that's not why they put on a uniform and go out and die. they do it to protect our freedom. according to the post, a silence fell over the tank. the meeting ended and trump walked out. standing in the hall with a small cluster of people he trusted, tillerson finally let down his guard. he's an fing moron, the secretary of state said of the president. nbc news has not reviewed a copy of the book. the authors will join us tomorrow on "morning joe." let's bring in right now retired four star navy admiral, david stavridis.

admiral, incredible ignorance on the commander in chief's part. certainly rings out there. it's not like we haven't heard the president say equally disparaging things about some of the finest military minds of the last generation, and he said it publicly whether it's about james mattis or whether it was about others, other great generals and admirals. of course, the president making his own foolish comments that this guy who had bone spurs who avoided the draft and graduated from an ivy league institution the day 40 boys died in vietnam, a man who bragged he would have been a great general. >> hemming way said that courage is grace under pressure. not losing your temper. not blowing up. being a servant leader. and i'll tell you the men in

that room, and i know every one of the military offices who he called babies and dopes, have a chess full of medals. they deserve a new one for maintaining their professionalism and their grace under pressure. look, just take two of them. dunford, he was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. number one in his class at the fletcher school of law and diplomacy. mark milley, top of his class at princeton. these are not dopes, and their church i know personally concern courage i know personally. milley is a two star. these two know how to fight. they have great courage under pressure. i have nothing but respect for them and the president demeans himself and his office by calling them names like that. >> and president trump over the weekend admiral, told donors at

his mar-a-lago resort details about the strike that killed iran's top general qassem soleimani. an audio obtained by "the washington post" and cnn, trump can be heard delivering a dramatic retelling of the drone strike at a friday night private dinner. trump at times in a subdued and conversational tone, explained his motivation for the attack and recounted the final minutes before the strike, watching and listening from the situation room. he told donors that he heard almost two weeks ago that the u.s. had soleimani under surveillance and that he was talking about bad stuff. however, the president did not mention any of his previous reasons for justifying the military strike, including an imminent attack on u.s. interests or threats to four u.s. embassies in the region. trump said, quote, he was saying bad things about our country,

like we're going to attack. we're going to kill your people. i said listen, how much of this expletive do we have to listen to. right? nbc news has not reviewed the audiotapes. it's very trump. >> admiral, a clown show. i'm sorry. a clown show. >> awful. >> here's the president who didn't brief congress. whose leaders went over to brief congress, and you even had republicans coming out saying it was the worst briefing they had seen in their history in elected office. >> indeed. and you know, i was lucky enough as a combatant commander to work for president bush for three years and president obama for four years. and was around them a lot in the tank, in the field, in the white house. and i just have to contrast the two of them and let's face it. here's a texan republican. can't be two more different

people. president obama, cosmopolitan, hawaiian, african american. two very different people. but i'll tell you what they had in common. they had self-confidence, and they were steady, and they were sure of themselves, and when they were in the room, you knew you were in the presence of a real leader. they didn't brag. they didn't boast. they were steady. that's the kind of leader we want and we need. and that's across the political spectrum. and the kind of discussion we're having this morning has got to make you question whether or not the leadership we have is what's necessary. >> admiral, i wanted to ask you about north korea. a top pentagon official said the regime is building new missiles and weapons, quote, as fast as anybody on the planet. suggesting they might be trying to construct a nuke that could hit the united states. the white house has not been doing their risk assessments. yet we have the president out there suggesting he'd be willing to have another summit with kim

jong-un. thought that could happen at some point this year. in your estimation, how dangerous is the situation and how irresponsible, perhaps, would a summit be right now if north korea is, indeed, working on an arsenal like this? >> i think you put your finger on it. here is yet another reason why the public needs to see these threat assessments. typically they've been done by the entire intelligence community testifying publicly. we need to hear that. we need to see that. we need our director of national intelligence, the head of the cia, the head of the nsa, publicly coming forward. there have been suggests in the press they're holding back because they're concerned about having differences of opinion with the white house. that is very concerning to the point about north korea, we should not be rewarding kim jong-un if he is continuing aggressively to build weapons of

mass destruction and the ability to deliver them forward. having said all that, we don't want to stumble into a hot war on the korean peninsula. so we've got a narrow sea we've got to sail here between the need for diplomacy and negotiation, but not rewarding a dictator. that required deft diplomacy. let's hope the white house can find its way into that narrow channel. >> so admiral, nick confessore here. a question now about duty. we saw in the clip that opened this segment, tillerson denying saying what he did say. there were other people in the room. jim mattis was in the room. is it time in your opinion, for the men who speak publicly about the things they've seen under president trump? >> that is a personal decision for everybody in that room, and i think i know them all pretty well, and my view is at some point in your heart, in your character, you have to say to

yourself what is my responsibility, and when do i go from serving the country to becoming an enabler? and those are very internal, personal discussions for each of them. i hope everyone who was in that room is having that conversation, and by the way, this is a moment when we ought to celebrate the media, the ability to have a free press that can find sources that can reveal -- that can help us understand what happens behind the closed doors, because that's part of what we need to know. >> all right. admiral james stavridis, thank you. a lot to absorb. >> thank you so much, sir. we appreciate it. >> the rampant corruption of vladimir putin's russia, and the implication it has on the united states. that is next on "morning joe." (whistling)

(whistling) choosing a health care provider doesn't have to be." molly: "that's why i choose a nurse practitioner for my family's primary care." david: "my np is accessible and takes the time to listen. i love my np." molly: "our np orders tests, makes the correct diagnoses and prescribes the medications we need." david: "my name is david and i choose an np." molly: "my name is molly and we choose nps." np: "consider an np. visit we choose nps.org to learn more."

$12.99 all you can eat ♪ now with boneless wings. only at applebee's. ♪(music playing) ♪this is the first day of my life♪ ♪i was born right in the doorway♪ ♪now i don't know where i am, i don't know where i've been♪ ♪but i know where i wanna go and my lack of impulse control,, is about to become your problem.

ahh no, come on. i saw you eating poop earlier. hey! my focus is on the road, and that's saving me cash with drivewise. who's the dummy now? whoof! whoof! so get allstate where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. sorry! he's a baby!

it is 51 past the hour. top white house official responsible for russia and europe has been put on indefinite administrative leave amid a security related investigation. andrew peek took over the russia portfolio at the white house national security council in november and had been scheduled to join president trump at the davos forum in switzerland, but was suddenly but on leave. according to one official, it is

unclear the specific nature of the investigation. peek didn't respond to request for comment. he took over the russia and europe portfolio from tim morrison. that role was previously occupied by fiona hill, another key impeachment witness. peek's absence temporarily creates a void in a key position responsible for pushing back on russian aggression and coordinating u.s. policy toward moscow. before starting a post at the white house, peek was a deputy assistant secretary of state overseeing iran and iraq in the state department bureau of near eastern affairs. now to the documentary, citizen k, real life thriller, exposes how a russian multi billionaire and oligarch became imprisoned and exiled from russia after clashing with

president vladimir putin. here's a clip. >> to hear vladimir putin tell it, he is a villain in a real life gangster movie. to putin's opponents, ten years in siberian prison made him a hero for human rights. now out of prison, he is looking for a third act. at a time we all seem haunted by russia's role in the world, i started a film about it. while i could go to russia, he could not. he is wanted there for murder. >> joining us now, the documentary's writer and director, oscar winning filmmaker alex givny. thanks for being on the show. it is fascinating. let's start at the bottom. who is citizen k? >> that's mi hail hod could have ski, russia's richest man. one of the so-called russian

oligarchs. in 2003, he clashed with vladimir putin, in fact called him out for corruption in a very public forum. few months later, he was put in prison, and he was there ten years. thought he might be there the ris of his life. he was par doned in 2013. now lives in london and he serves as a kind of unofficial opposition force there. >> how did he clash with putin? can you characterize the relationship between he and putin? >> there was a kind of unholy alliance between oligarchs and boris yeltsin in the wild west '90s. when putin came into power he said to the oligarchs look, you guys can keep your ill gotten gains but just know this, don't interfere in politics. so long as you do that, we'll be fine. well he started to interfere in politics, started to gather influence in the duma, wanted to do a big merger with exxon which

would have caused a lot more transparency in the russian economy and was calling out p s vladmir putin about corruption. all those things put him in the cross hairs of vladimir putin. >> i want to ask you about death. first being the murder charge you mentioned, but secondly, we know a lot of vladimir putin's rivals and opponents have met untimely demises throughout the world, not just in russia in recent years. how has citizen k been able to avoid that, because of resources for protection? how worried is he about threats on his own life? >> it is an interesting story. i walked around london with him, you don't see a lot of guys with earpieces on following him around. he slings a backpack over his shoulder and makes his way. his view after ten years in prison, if they're going to take me out, they're going to take me out, nothing i can do about it. part macho, part sort of

resigned. >> resigned. >> but he is not living his life in fear. he's kind of made that promise to himself. in terms of the murder charge you suggest, there was in the wild west '90s a time there were a lot of murders. a mayor who was opposed to what he was doing, it is an oil city in siberia turned up dead, murdered brutally by gunfire. for many years nobody knew who done it. chechen gangsters, his wife. as soon as he became a political enemy of putin, slowly but surely the suspicion turned to him, and there was a propaganda campaign to blame him for it, as soon as he was put in exile, they charged him officially with murder. >> what can we learn about the arc of putin's russia, where it is going next, one of the most prominent dissidents in the

country is in london and is a former rich oligarch? >> well, i think, you know, putin's russia has some discomforting harmony with some of what's going on here. i think his disrespect for rule of law, his willingness to sort of use notions of how great things used to be to convey this idea of you must unite around a strong leader, do what i say, flatter me and move forward in that way, and also utter disrespect for any sense of fact based reality. that is to say reality is what he determines it to be. that's the scary part about putin's russia. >> and that's something we should keep our eye on as we watch this presidency unfold here in america. the new documentary, citizen k, is currently in select theaters nationwide, will be expanding to additional cities.

alex gibney, congratulations. >> thank you. before we go, jonathan lemire, stake out the day for us. what are you looking at? >> well, it is the beginning of what is without question a historic week. the impeachment trial of president donald trump begins in earnest tomorrow at 1:00. we will see it unfold in the days and weeks ahead. it was something that we should, all america, should stop and pay attention to, no matter what side of the aisle you're on. the president is offering counter programming, he flies to davos to participate in the conference the next couple days, delivering a speech tomorrow. his team believes it is effective for him to be out looking presidential, attending the nation's business, while in their estimation the partisan political show of impeachment is going on back home. but of course, we know the president is not always the most disciplined international traveler, tends to stir up controversy whenever he is abroad.

interesting to watch that dynamic unfold the next day or so. >> trying to think if there's been one international trip that hasn't had some sort of gaffe or situation. nick, what are you looking at? >> mika, this is a week in which the president is on trial, so is the senate itself, i believe. this is going to tell us and americans and voters if the institution of the senate is up to the responsibility it has now to conduct a fair inquiry, to arrive at just result. >> it is going to be a big week on "morning joe." add to all of that wednesday morning, we will be welcoming presidential candidate joe biden to the show live on wednesday morning on "morning joe." that does it for us this morning. chris jansing picks up coverage right now. >> thank you so much, mika. hello. i am chris jansing, in for stephanie ruhle. it is monday, january 20th. there's a lot happening. the stage is set for president trump's impeachment trial and at

this late hour, we've got new and potentially consequential information about the trial itself. those details in just a minute. first, trump's legal team trial brief due at noon today. house reply due by noon tomorrow. at 1:00 tomorrow afternoon, roughly 28 hours from now, the senate trial reconvenes and things really get going. but we already know a lot because as prosecutors, democrats made the first normal filing as their memorandum put it. the president's conduct is the framer's worst nightmare. the tax for house managers is to turn more than 100 pages of arguments into a simple, straightforward message for the american people. what did the president do wrong, why was it wrong, why does he deserve to be removed from office. the white house argument is simple. just a six page response to the summons from the senate. a response that sometimes sounded like the president himself.