we're posting more of these on the beat with ari.com posted on youtube or where you get your pod casts. that does it for our show tonight. special coverage of trump's impeachment. brian williams and nicole pick it up at 11:00. "hardball" starts now. >> rules of engagement. let's play "hardball." ♪ ♪ good evening. i'm chris mathews up in new york. tonight on the eve of the president's impeachment trial, the country is bracing for impact. just in the last hour, lawmakers received the proposed rules for the trial from majority leader mitch mcconnell. this one key take away here. mcconnell plans to rush this trial. you bet it. according to the resolution, mcconnell intends to cram 24 hours of arguments into two days.

that's 12 hours a day per side here, rather than three days as was done during bill clinton's impeachment. while the time sergio garcia still fluid, opening arguments could conclude as early as this saturday which means that the vote on having witnesses testify under mcconnell's rules would come in the middle of next week. in another break with bres dent, the rules provided the evidence collected by the house won't be entered into the record until after that vote. in other words, until they do have a vote on whether to bring witnesses in. in a sharp rebuke to that idea by mcconnell, senate democratic leader chuck schumer said in a statement, senator mcconnell's resolution is nothing short of a national disgrace. mcconnell is saying he doesn't want to hear any of the existing evidence and he doesn't want to hear any new evidence. schumer is promising to force earlier votes right up front on whether we have witnesses or not using motions to amend tomorrow's resolution on the rules. and all this -- amid all this, trump's legal team today submitted a brief coin on the senate to speedily reject the charges and acquit the

president. it seems like the president and the republicans and the senate are racing who can be the fastest to get this over with. they claim the president did absolutely nothing wrong, the white house says. the newly invented abuse of power theory collapses because it fails to allege any violation of law whatsoever. well, the house impeachment managers today called that an unconvincing and implausible defense. in their response they write that the president maintains that the senate cannot remove him even if the house proves every claim in the articles of impeachment. that's a showing assertion, also dead wrong. i'm joined by democratic congressman of illinois, member of the house intelligence committee. former senator barbara boxer, host of the boxer podcast. jeff bennett, nbc news correspondent. jeff, i want you to start here. what do we make of these proposed rules by mitch mcconnell right off the bat? >> well, the senate majority leader, chris, has envisioned a trial here that meets the needs of his key constituencies.

you have the republican in the white house behind me and of course those republicans in mitch mcconnell's senate conference. the majority of which he needs to keep. that is his core goal here. he has devised a schedule that will lead to a fast and forgettable senate trial, right. that certainly is the thing that president trump has now signalled that he wants, even though president trump initially said he wanted a spectacle with hunter biden and the whistle-blower and all these different kind of folks on the senate floor telling what they know. i think what's interesting here is in this resolution there is a mechanism to bring witnesses forward for testimony after both sides present the opening argument. so the house managers go first, the white house presents a rebuttal. after that, after a period by which the senators themselves submit questions, that is when you get this vote on the witnesses. there is also not in this resolution a motion to dismiss. that is one of the key concerns that democrats had. that's one of the reasons why,

i'm told house speaker nancy pelosi delayed the transmission of these articles of impeachment, because there was a lot of hand wringing about this motion to dismiss, which is not in this resolution. one of the reasons why in that calendar you laid out, why the white house, according to this schedule, would wrap up their opening argument by saturday, we have some new reporting on that. our colleague hyder przybyla says it's because republicans want to have the white house give their version of events in time for the sunday shows. so certainly all of the political calculus here in this 2020 election year is certainly playing into this organizing resolution, these rules of the road for the senate trial, chris. >> jeff, what about this idea that the record will not be closed, even though existing evidence they've been collecting and presented in the house impeachment hearings themselves, all the evidence that have led to these two articles of impeachment, that that's not going to go into the record if they decide not to call

witnesses, chuck schumer is saying they won't accept the old evidence let aliona lou new witnesses to bring new efts. >> reporter: this is an interesting detail. the president's team was on the hill and capitol hill team was able to ask about this. the rules make clear that after the house impeachment managers present their case, all of the evidence that they want senators to weigh as they make their determinations has to be allowed into the record by way of a vote. piece by piece. now, you can see how this really privileges the white house because, of course, house democrats have way more evidence that they have amassed over the last two to three months versus the white house that still even in the legal brief they released today, they're still making, for the most part, a process argument about why they say the articles of impeachment are based on flemsy evidence. the white house or president's legal team has introduced to say that this pressure campaign, the

democrats alleged, started in the spring of 2019 and ended this past september, democrats say, when the president and the white house got caught red-handed and ultimately released that aide. there is not a single shred of evidence the white house has introduced to say that is not in fact the case, chris. >> last question. how fast can chuck schumer get to the fight? how far -- how fast starting tomorrow can he bring up the question of witnesses? push it. >> reporter: fairly early. the question is does he have the votes on his side. the answer to that, i suspect, is no or else mitch mcconnell would not have released this resolution to us publicly and to the press a day before they are set to vote on it. we expected to get this tomorrow in advance of the vote. the fact we're getting this the night before, democrats are saying the fact this is coming late in the process isn't at all helpful. the fact we have it in black and white suggests to me mcconnell knows he has all the votes he needs to get the kind of trial that he envisions, chris. >> hang in there, jeff. let me go to congressman.

it seems to me one thing i learned and gleaned from the house hearings that led to the impeachment vote in the house and led to the trial this week is that republicans are uncomfortable and unwilling, in fact, to defend this president's character. in fact, to defend his actual innocence. their whole focus is on process. it does remind me of the o.j. trial, which i covered for a whole year every day, focused on the police that brought him into custody, focused on the prosecution. don't focus on the actual innocence of the defendant. they do not feel comfortable -- your republican colleagues -- to defend the man walking across the white house lawn there through today to present their case, they don't say he's a good guy of good character. they didn't say he didn't do what he accused of, they attack the democrats. >> i think that's exactly right. i think that the fact that they want to have these opening arguments unfold in two days, 24 hours of opening arguments

unfolding in two days starting at 1:00 p.m., by the way, shows you that they really don't want the american people to be watching any of this, especially the substance, you know, late into the night. and so i think you're correct that they do want to focus on anything other than the president himself and i think they want to create a spectacle. and at the end of the day, have their senators vote by party line. >> barbara, senator boxer, what do you think of this? it looks to me like it's in broad daylight. we're going to primetime, we're going to late at night, rush this babe y and get it over wit. the whole country is doing this. they're doing it in broad daylight, the scam to move this thing so fast, people can't see it go by. >> this is one ugly mess. i spent 24 years in the united states senate. i spent ten years in the house. i have never seen anything as

ugly as this. and i know mitch mcconnell very well. we fought a lot. we worked together on a couple of things. and i know his mind-set. he is furious that he can't just dismiss this out of hand because the moderates, the few that there are over there, wouldn't go -- that was a bridge too far for them. so now he's figuring out how am i going to get this over with and make people furious and make them exhausted and all the rest. this was -- when i was a kid, the senate was known as the greatest deliberative body in the world. mitch mcconnell is one angry man. just look at his face. he's furious about all this, and he's going to make senators pay the price. and, by the way, i agree. he's got the votes right now. and you know, there used to be a saying on my side of the aisle, the democratic side of the aisle when we were so close to getting moderates, we always said, when you need them -- we always said,

they're always there when you don't need them. well, right now we need them and they need to come out of the shadows and save this country. this constitution is on trial and all this dershowitz who is known for defending murderers and pornographers and pedophiles, he's the one who is leading the charge to speak about the constitution. this is a disgrace. >> well, "the washington post" reports today, in fact, this evening that president trump's legal defense team and senate are gaming should they win enough votes to force witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial, including an effort to keep national security advisor john bolton from the spotlight. one thing would move it to a classified setting because of national security concerns, ensuring that he's not public. according to post, that proposal is seen as a final tool against bolton becoming an explosive figure during the trial.

first would come a fierce battle in the courts, of course. congressman, this has always been my question. i always wondered why john bolton said, okay, i'll giveaway my story even though i could save it for my book. my first answer was he'll look like a cad or worse. he'll look unpatriotic if he hides the good stuff from the public when it matters. no, he's probably safe because mcconnell will make sure he doesn't get called. if that us doesn't work the president will protect him with executive privilege and he won't have to giveaway his goodies he's saving for his book. >> sometimes you wonder if john bolton wants to be -- attempting to give his testimony and then he doesn't actually have to do it. but, you noh, in this particular case, what's very interesting to me, chris, is that lieutenant colonel vindman as well as fiona hill both gave explosive testimony. i'm pretty sure, i would think they would have checked with john bolton before they did it.

and as you know, john bolton didn't make any noises whatsoever disputing even a scintilla of their testimony. so the question is whether he would come out and corroborate and then expand on what they said. as you know, he said that, you know, the deal, withholding military assistance in return for these public investigations or announcement of these public investigations was an illicit drug deal and rudy giuliani was a hand grenade that would explode everybody around him. i think that those types of statements, if he were to come out and say it, would be very seriously damaging to the president. i don't know how you move this into a classified setting given that all the information is already out there at this point and he would only be examined on this type of information that's already public. so i'm not sure how that gambit would work, but it would be very interesting to see if these four senators or five senators who

are in the middle who appear to be wanting witnesses would actually want bolton to come forward. my hunch is yes, but let's see how it plays out. >> a handful of republican senators as we discussed will play a pivotal role in determining whether witnesses are allowed at the trial -- even allowed. "the new york times" reported this weekend susan collins of maine convened several meet ings in her office with the republican senators lisa murkowski of alaska, mitt romney of utah and lamar alexander of tennessee to cobble together a vote. as the story points out, if the four hang together on the issue their votes would be enough along with the 47 democrats that control and that would be to demand information to come out in the trial. senator boxer, what do you make -- you know all these personalities. >> yeah. >> collins and alexander, i've always liked murkowski, she's gutsy as hell. >> yes, she is. >> she beat her own party when they took away the nomination. lamar alexander, who seems like a trustworthy guy. you think that's the four that's

going to really change the situation and give us witnesses? >> i can only hope so because what we're looking at is very serious. all the kind of dismissive words, what's abusive power. it was one of the main art consolidates against richard nixon. when richard nixon looked at that, he just plain quilt. quit. it's very serious. there is such obstruction of congress. as the house has pointed out, we can't get the witnesses. we couldn't get them. we couldn't get so much documentation. we have a lot of information, but not enough. so i think the burden on all the republicans, not just these four -- my goodness, this is america. we're supposed to not be afraid to tell the truth and find the truth. >> you have to wonder how the president gets away with just saying -- and he lies when he says this -- that the house didn't want to hear from these witnesses when, in fact, he was keeping all them from testifying. he personally was doing it.

and then he comes out and personally says the house didn't want to hear from these people. a direct lie that he knows all about. and the republicans just lay down and accept it. they just accept the lying in their face. thank you. congressman, thank you so much from illinois. former senator barbara boxer, jeff bennett. great reporting. we need you so much right now. thank you. coming up, the president's lawyers reveal his defense, calling the impeachment a dangerous per version of the constitution. important question, impeachable offense as richard nixon as barbara boxer just said. two weeks in iowa and the candidates are throwing harder punches two weeks from today. bidens winning democrats from sanders and warren. bring the party down, kill all the people in the lower positions like congressmen, like senator, like representatives in the state level. they're all going to lose, biden says, if you run the two guys on the left. anyway, they accuse biden of flip-flopping on social security. it's getting testy.

>> so, i think it's just a desperation on the part of some of the candidates who are now going back 35 years and trying to pick a sentence that was said or wasn't said. >> well, on the national holiday martin luther king, jr., day, my thoughts are why features like dr. king's i have a dream speech are important as america's most cherished documents. much more to get to, ending with the great man there. stick with us. 9 for all out confidence... ...depend® silhouette™ briefs feature maximum absorbency, 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®.

itso chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting. chantix reduces the urge so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use. use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. quit smoking slow turkey. talk to your doctor about chantix.

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! can you help keep these iguys protected online?? easy, connect to the xfi gateway. what about internet speeds that keep up with my gaming? let's hook you up with the fastest internet from xfinity. what about wireless data options for the family? of course, you can customize and save. can you save me from this conversation? that we can't do, but come in and see what we can do. we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. ask. shop. discover. at your local xfinity store today.

welcome back to "hardball". the president's lawyers have put out the first detailed look at how they plan to defend the president against the two articles of impeachment the in the legal brief filed today, trump's legal team argued, quote, the an consolidates themselves -- that's a great word -- the rigged process that brought them here are brazenly political act by house democrats that must be rejected.

the trump legal team goes on to add, all this is a dangerous per version of the constitution that the senate should swiftly and roundly condemn, close quote. with respect to the charges of abuse of power and obstruction of congress, the trump team calls them two flimsy articles of impeachment that allege no crime or violation as required by the constitution. they do not remotely approach the constitutional threshold for removing a president from office. that's the president's argument. one member of the president's team, harvard law professor alan dershowitz put out a preview of the president's defense this morning. >> my conclusion, which i will present in a systematic way, is that the framers of the constitution did not permit impeachment on grounds like abuse of power or obstruction of congress. they rejected open ended vague criteria that could be weaponized for partisan political purposes. they introduced and set very specifically treason, bribery or

the high crimes and misdemeanors. the other high crimes and misdemeanors have to be crimes akin to treason burglary. >> well, before he got his home broadcasting booth, professor dershowitz seemed to have a different perspective on what constitutes impeachable offense. in 1998 in the lead up to president clinton's impeachment. >> 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. >> i'm joined 0 now by barbara mcquaid, former professor. he testified in front of the house judiciary committee on legal arguments of impeachment. there seem to be a conflict there between -- it's so hideous he doesn't know there is tape available. he does this skype from his house thinking it's the last word. it's the most recent word.

when he was talking about clinton's impeachment, he said you don't need a crime. >> the only nice thing i can say is he was correct in 19989. it 1998. it's not true now. >> why is he faltering? >> when you're trying to talk about the constitution, it's a good idea to be consistent. >> what's your view now, professor? what is the -- okay. is it a subset of laws that can be impeachable or a subset of impeachable acts that could be legal? where is the overlay? >> it's really simple. an impeachment can be there for anything that's an abuse of power. you can abuse your power like richard nixon did by a crime, you know, by covering up a break-in. that's a crime. it's also impeachable. there are impeachable actions that don't have to be crimes on the statute book. it was true in england, true in the united states. it's always been true. to give you an example, imagine a president with the united states with no authorization from congress starts a war tomorrow. maybe invades canada. >> you'd have to stop him. >> you have to say he violated

the constitution in an obvious way. there is no statute on the books that says don't ensaid canada. >> let me go to barbara. that seems to be obvious you don't have to go to harvard law much less be a professor there are things the president can can do that would be an abuse of power as president, he was constitutionally allowed to do, or cut a deal with a foreign power to cut a deal with his political opponent. >> there is logical explanation, but there is historical basis for that. all four of those constitutional scholars who testified before congress, even the one that was brought by the republicans, jonathan turley, agreed that it need not be a crime to be an impeachable offense. he thought simply that they needed more evidence about this conduct, but even this conduct was sufficient to be impeachable. and as noah says, the converse of that would simply be

illogical. you can imagine all kinds of things a president could do that are not technically violations of statutes -- >> give me examples beyond the one on the tanl, beyond the one he's been impeached for. >> imagine if he's decided he didn't want to do his job and sat around watching television all day. imagine if he only appointed family members to the supreme court. all kinds of things that aren't crimes, but would be abuse of his power as president. certainly the framers wanted to stop in its tracks a president who did those kinds of things that were against the interests of the country. moreover, chris, at the time the constitution was passed, we didn't have federal statutes on things like bribery, and so the idea that to be impeached you had to be in violation of a statute is just nonsense. >> we are very aware the founding fathers at the time, weren't they, about the possibility of unholy alliances with the french or the british or all kinds of things a president might choose to do that wouldn't be considered constitutional. >> this were obsessed with it, obsessed with the idea a foreign government would somehow affect

our elections or affect the presidency. the only big changes in those days, we were a weak country. now the worry is we would go outside and get help from a foreign government. so you can ask for things that might not be crimes. how about going to the head of a foreign government and asking for help to bring down your opponent in election? that may not be a statutory crime, but that's impeachable. >> since we managed to get our independence thanks to the french, we know all about that. alan dershowitz's words on that in 1998, we just showed you. contradicts what he said at abc, charges trump right now don't merit removing him from office. >> you know, the house materials have cited crimes that were committed as well -- >> but they weren't elements -- they are not articles of impeachme impeachment. the articles of impeachment are mainly obstruction of congress and abuse of power, and those are -- would have to be voted on by the senate. >> let me press it. it was your position the

president should not be impeached even if all the arguments and evidence laid out by the house are accepted as fact? >> that's right. >> okay. in other words, it's not about facts. it's about his argument that dershowitz happens to have this year. he tweeted there is no inconsistency between what i said in the clinton impeachment and what i said now. i said then there doesn't have to be a technical crime. i said now there must be criminal like conductor conduct akin to treason and bribery. what's that distinction? >> that's not a meaningful distinction in any way. crime is on the books. that's what they convict you and send you to prison for. there's no difference. on top of that, what the president did is akin to bribery. >> i think you killed somebody. >> you technically killed somebody. it is a bribery. the president solicited a favor from the president of ukraine that would effectively have been a bribe from him. he solicited a bribe. if you want to go down that line, that is exactly the conduct that's alleged here. >> i have a question but i won't

raise it, put it in your heads, why is dershowitz do this? barbara quade, thank you. up next, trump's allies in congress are maintaining a laser like focus on criticizing impeachment procedures so they don't have to defend his actions. i said it last week. they are not interested in defending this guy, his character, his behavior. they skip all that and go on attack. will that narrow focus be enough to carry them through the trial? going after the democrats' process? that seems to be the game plan for mitch mcconnell. you're watching "hardball." ed te mobile app? yeah, actually i'm taking one last look at my dashboard before we board... and you have thinkorswim mobile- -so i can finish analyzing the risk on this position. you two are all set. choose the app that fits your investing style. ♪ wean 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 i was on the fence about changing from a manual to an electric toothbrush. but my hygienist said going electric could lead to way cleaner teeth. she said, get the one inspired by dentists, with a round brush head. go pro with oral-b. oral-b's gentle rounded brush head removes more plaque along the gum line. for cleaner teeth and healthier gums. and unlike sonicare, oral-b is the first electric toothbrush brand accepted by the ada for its effectiveness and safety. what an amazing clean!

i'll only use an oral-b! oral-b. brush like a pro.

you spend less and get way more., so you can bring your vision to lif. for small prices, you can build big dreams. spend less. get way more. shop everything home at wayfair toda.

i can tell you that the president is preparing for davos and agrees with many of the things that dr. martin luther king stood for and agreed with for many years, including unity and equality. i don't think it was within dr. king's vision to have americans drag through a process where the president is going to be removed from office. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was white house counselor kellyanne conway suggesting that dr. martin luther king, jr., on the day that he's honored, would be against trump's impeachment. that's an interesting projection. wonder how she figured that one out. she said mr. trump spent most of the day preparing for a trip to davos, switzerland, the forum

where he is expected to rub shoulders with world leaders. to look good is the idea of it. he's set to go to davos o tomorrow, the same day the impeachment begins. according to the washington post, president trump urged majority leader mitch mcconnell, the top republican, to use his power to end the trial before it began. that was the story they got. that was the plan. no trial at all. dismissed immediately. well, two people with knowledge of the exchange tell the post, "the washington post," that mcconnell dismissed that idea saying it would split senate republicans and it's better to be unified than divided. that's probably savvy. ultimately mcconnell did not include a motion to dismiss in the resolution that came out today. sew doesn't plan to go for a quick dismissal buzz that would divide republicans. anyway, that unity would be put to the test, however, in less than 24 hours. i'm joined by john meacham, presidential historian.

thank you both, gentlemen. i'm not going to ask you about kellyanne conway because i don't think dr. martin luther king would be much interested in the positive case being put out for the by the president for the president. the idea that the president did nothing wrong. what do you think of that? i've been harping on this, this republican defense does not include a defense of trump's character, his personal behavior, anything about him, including his behavior and conduct with regard to the president of ukraine. even the matter involving the facts itself, they simply say they don't like the democrats and they don't like the democrats impeaching him. it is like the o.j. case. they don't defend the guy. they just defend their right to fight with the people going after them. that seems to be the whole game here. your thoughts. >> yeah, it's a defense made for a reflexively partisan era. thee acceded the basic facts of the case. they don't seem to be arguing with what happened. they're simply saying it doesn't

matter, or they're sort of gliding over the whistle-blower part. and the fact this would be arguably a crime still unfolding if the whistle-blower had not stood up and said that this quid pro quo had been going on. you know, in many ways what's on the ballot so to speak in the senate trial is, do you care about the constitutional order, or do you only selectively want to apply the standards that have served us pretty well for 240 years or so. right now it looks as though they're willing to -- almost like kids in a scary movie. they're willing to cover their ears and close their eyes and just hope it passes. and trump's the scary movie. the problem is it's real and we're all living in it. >> you know, eli, back in the day of the nixon impeachment, it never got to the senate. but you could tell by the way the house broke out with six

republicans, a half dozen republican members of the house judiciary voting on the articles of impeachment including abuse of power. they seem to be having battles with their conscience in those days. people like barry gold water, hugh scott, in public you could see them wringing their hands, what's the right thing to do, party loyalty or loyalty to the truth and the country and the constitution? this time around they all seem to be taking a bye on that in the senate, most of them. >> john makes a great point. this is a reflexively partisan era. it's easier for lawmakers to stay in their hermetically. there's been pressure put on the senate to call witnesses to have a fair trial. you've seen a hand. of republican senators, some of them moderates, susan collins and others, saying, yeah, we want some witnesses, we're going to see what happens. we may vote for some of those things. but in laying out they'd rules

now, what majority leader mcconnell is doing by making it so that senators have to vote not just on witnesses, but to admit every single piece of evidence from the house individually piecemeal. he's going to make them take a vote over and over and over again and see if they want to go up against the republican conference and vote over and over again with democrats. this is really an endurs test he's setting up, not for democrats, but republican senators as well. >> let's look at republican senator richard shelby of alabama. he was asked by george stephanopoulous of abc whether it was appropriate to solicit a foreign leader. >> i asked if it was okay to solicit. we saw him ask the ukrainians to get involved, ask the chinese to get involved. >> those statements are political. they make them all the time. >> is it okay? >> i didn't say it's okay.

i said people do things. things happen. >> that's a classic example, john meacham. i think of people that are respectable senators, pat toomey. they're not crazy people. not moderate, but regular conservative republicans. people of honor. they're all shut up. they're just going along with the lemmings. >> yeah, they've made a calculation that their preservation in this particular republican electorate is something that outweighs what i would think of as an honest assessment of the facts and their implications. and all you can say to that is, a, you hope they don't do it, but b, if they do it this time and as we suspect they get away with it, the shoe inevitably will be on the other foot. that's another thing with all respect to senator shelby that happens. this will unfold again in some way and suddenly it's going to be -- the tape from this era is

going to be fascinating as republicans argue against a democrat going forward. if you continue to raise the bar on what's genuinely impeachable, you lower the bar way into the dirt about behavior that will ultimately be acceptable. >> speaking of behavior, these guys are supporting a president they would not invite to their daughter's wedding. that's a fact. >> that's right. >> thank you, john meacham. up next, iowa voters are still 60% are undecided out there. isn't that something? even "the new york times" couldn't pick just one candidate to endorse. could joe biden's new down ticket argument help him with voters? you're watching "hardball." give me your hand! i can save you... ...lots of money with liberty mutual. we customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need! [ grunting ]

only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ (whistling) you should be mad your neighbor always wants to hang out. and you should be mad your smart fridge is unnecessarily complicated. make ice. making ice. but you're not mad because you have e*trade which isn't complicated. their tools make trading quicker and simpler

so you can take on the markets with confidence. don't get mad get e*trade and start trading commission free today. don't get mad get e*trade and start trading when crabe stronger...strong, with new nicorette coated ice mint. layered with flavor... it's the first and only coated nicotine lozenge. for an amazing taste... ...that outlasts your craving. new nicorette ice mint. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

welcome back to "hardball." we're now two weeks away, just two weeks away from the illinois caucuses, the first contest of the 2020 presidential campaign. with four of the democratic candidates about to be sidelined

by the president's impeachment trial in the senate, some of the candidates were barn storming iowa over the weekend and for good reason. in a recent des moines register cnn poll, 3/5, 60% of iowa voters said they may change their minds between now and the caucuses. it's not just the iowa voters who can't settle on one candidate. "the new york times" editorial board not willing to tell readers which one candidate to support, instead announced it's backing two candidates, a amy klobuchar and elizabeth warren. they are caught between two visions for the country's future. quote, some of the party view president trump as an aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible america is possible. then there are those who believe president trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that they must be replaced. that was well said. in a choose your own adventure style, the times said warren and klobuchar are the best path to

follow, the democratic left or democratic center. just don't ask "the new york times" which path is the right one. as to why the editorial board overlooked the national front runner joe biden, they didn't. the board writes that his message of merely restoring the status quo will not get america where it needs to go as a society. what's more, mr. biden is 77. it is time for him to pass the torch to a new generation of political, so say the people of the "the new york times" editorial board. the former vice-president is ignoring that but did issue a strong warning to his party of what it would mean for down ballot demgz if someone like warren or sanders got the nomination. and that's coming up next. you're watching "hardball." you don't want to cancel your plans. [sneezing] cancel your cold. the 1-pill power of advil multi-symptom cold & flu knocks out your worst symptoms. cancel your cold, not your plans. advil multi-symptom cold & flu. tit's great actually, i've been listening to audible. it's audiobooks, news, meditations... gotta go!

♪ ♪ hey! you know, i do think it's weird you've started commuting when you work from home. i'll be in my office. download audible and start every day off right. that's ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein. good morning, mr. sun. good morning, blair. [ chuckles ]

whoo. i'm gonna grow big and strong. yes, you are. i'm gonna get this place all clean. i'll give you a hand. and i'm gonna put lisa on crutches! wait, what? said she's gonna need crutches. she fell pretty hard. you might want to clean that up, girl. excuse us. when owning a small business gets real, progressive helps protect what you built with customizable coverage. -and i'm gonna -- -eh, eh, eh. -donny, no. -oh. -and i'm gonna -- -eh, eh, eh. >> man: what's my my truck...is my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. ...with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ managing lipids like very high tryou diet. exercise. tough. but if you're also taking fish oil supplements... you should know... they are not fda approved... they may have saturated fat and may even raise bad cholesterol. to treat very high triglycerides, discover the science of prescription vascepa. proven in multiple clinical trials,

vascepa, along with diet is the only prescription epa treatment, approved by the fda to lower very high triglycerides by 33%, without raising bad cholesterol. look. it's clear, there's only one prescription epa vascepa. vascepa is not right for everyone. do not take vascepa if you are allergic to icosapent ethyl or any inactive ingredient in vascepa. tell your doctor if you are allergic to fish or shellfish, have liver problems or other medical conditions and about any medications you take, especially those that may affect blood clotting. 2.3% of patients reported joint pain. prescription power. proven to work. now with a new indication. ask your doctor about vascepa. 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. the top of the ticket matters as you all know in south carolina. i'm just asking a rhetorical question. bernie is at the top of the ticket in south carolina or warren is the top of the ticket. how many democrats down the line do you think are going to win? >> you know, joe biden, not to make a case for him, but he's so much better when he's not in a debate. when he's talking one on one, he's quite fluent, quite good at it. welcome back to "hardball." that was former vice-president joe biden, of course. in south carolina over the weekend making the case the democratic voters need to consider how their presidential nominee will affect every other democratic candidate on the balance at. with 20 weeks left in the iowa

caucus, they're willingness to take the gloves off as they jockey for position in the final stretch for february 3rd. bernie sanders and elizabeth warren over gender electability, he had this to say. >> do you think gender is still an obstacle for female politicians? >> yes, but everybody has their own sets of problems. i'm 78 years of age. you look at buttigieg, he's young. everybody brings some negatives, if you like. >> i'm joined by gabe, national correspondent for new york maxine whose cover story in the magazine is about the race in iowa. there it is, great work. so, when i heard bernie double down on the gender thing after denying he said it to her two years ago in the back room, i thought how did he get away with saying it's a negative? hillary won by 3 to 4 million

people. she lost the electoral college because of three states. it's not like she was out of the money. your thoughts. >> it's not that hillary won by 3 million votes. in addition to that, 2018 was a record breaking year for women in politics. so much of the energy, the activism, the enthusiasm, the organizing and the leadership that got people elected, that got nancy pelosi her majority, that was all led by women. in addition to that, many of the candidates were women, and not just throughout congress, but down ballot, too. i'm from new jersey, but i'm also -- i went to school in virginia, university of virginia. and those races, many of those races that helped virginia have democratic control of the house and the senate there were women. so i think that the fact that he's saying this is an obstacle -- let me parse this. women do face barriers in getting elected. but the fact that he's saying it's a negative, that choice of words in the context is problem at i can.

>> let's talk about this. 60% haven't made up their minds. there's an old joke. jay leno used to make fun of this. i want more information. how much more information do you want, how many meetings do you want to make up your mind? >> every time i go to iowa, especially recently, even the last few days, these people, even if they go to the same candidate's events over and over, even if they seem to be fully committed, almost all of them say, i could vote for someone else. they have their top three. honestly the first and last question for a lot of them -- this isn't everyone, but a lot of them, can this person beat trump. >> okay, okay. has anybody admitted -- i remember as a kid rooting for bobby kennedy to win the california primary the night before he was shot because even though i liked gene mccarthy a lot, i rooted for kennedy because he could win in the war. what's in their heart and what's going to work, how many people

do that? >> i think most voters are practical in this election because -- >> real any >> yeah, i think most democrat voters are practical because of the nature that we face. while there are people who are voting with their heart, i think it's probably more of a hybrid. i think people are looking at the candidate they like, but they're looking at the candidate they like they think can beat trump. >> you hear that. you hear people go into that schizoid thing. i'm a lefty, but i have to vote a little more moderate this time. i think bernie can win. >> absolutely. in the way i think a lot of reporters have been thinking about this when we talk to each other on the side lines of the rallies, they sound more like pundits, like we sound in some ways. they say i like this plan and that plan, but i'm not sure that plan can carry michigan. this talking point appeals to the working class diner with a voter in ohio. it's a caricature. that's why you have joe biden

essentially saying, look at the polls. >> i think bernie is going to win iowa. you know why? i'm not siding with him, i think he's going to win. because of the rock solid support he has. maybe, maybe, maybe -- they're decided. >> they've been decided since 2016, his supporters. >> this is the one exception to what i was saying. obviously a lot of bernie sanders' supporters are positive he will be the candidate to beat donald trump and he's in the best position to do so. they're not saying i'm voting based on electability. they're voting for him because he's the right candidate. >> joe biden is fighting back on sanders for his comment about social security. he retweeted a 2018 video that took the comments out of context, it must be said, sounded like he agreed with house speaker paul ryan to dismantle it. biden calling the accusation a lie. here he goes. >> so, i think it's just a desperation on the part of some of the candidates who are now

going back 35 years and trying to pick a sentence that was said or wasn't said. but, you know, and on social security i'm a strong supporter of social security. >> biden has spoken out in the past ways to change social security in order to keep it alive. that's why people do these things, to keep the program. >> one of the important things to note here, while it might not seem there is a ton of overlap in their voters, they are battling for some voters particularly in the obama/trump counties. particularly older voters. there's a reason they're talking about social security right now. this is the most important -- >> any candidate can come along and say i'm going to double your social security. i don't care about money. why not? it's free, it's government. thank you. thank you. it's great to have you on. >> thank you. >> up next i'm going to quote from two of the greatest speeches ever to honor martin luther king, jr. you're watching "hardball." ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪

(announcer) once-weekly ozempic® is helping many people with type 2 diabetes like james lower their blood sugar. a majority of adults who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. here's your a1c. oh! my a1c is under 7! (announcer) and you may lose weight. adults who took ozempic® lost on average up to 12 pounds. i lost almost 12 pounds! oh! (announcer) ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. there's no increased risk. oh! and i only have to take it once a week. oh! ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people

with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. once-weekly ozempic® is helping me reach my blood sugar goal. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) you may pay as little as $25 per prescription. ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®.

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.

i want to quote now from one of the two greatest speeches in our country's history, the other one being that of dr. martin luther king, jr. abraham lincoln was speaking here of the ongoing horror of the civil war, but also about one of its moral conflicts. quote, both read the same bible and pray to the same god, and each invokes his aid against the other. he said in the second inaugural address days before he was killed. it may seem strange that any man

would dare to ask a just god's assistance in bringing their bread from the sweat of another man's faces. but let us judge not that we be judged. yet if god wills the civil war continue until all the wealth piled up by the bonds men's 50 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, until every drop of blood drawn with a lash shall be paid with another drawn by the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so still it must be said, the judgments of the lord are true and righteous altogether. i quote lincoln's words today on martin luther king, jr., day today because they are true and need to be said on this particular day. president lincoln was not asking for us to hate northerners, us northerners to hate the southerner. he was speaking about slavery and the heart of the civil war it brought upon us, even perhaps by the just hand of god himself. he said there kifts no moral equivalence in the war to end

slavery and the fight to defend it. today we can say the same about the continuing fight to support voting rights acts for all americans, nose out to deny people those rights. the moral conflict, abraham lincoln applied then apply to today. one side is pushing for equality and liberty. the other side for denying it. can we agree on this martin luther king day that one side of this voting rights fight is right and the other isn't? >> when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to see that day when all of god's children, black men and white men, jews, and gentiles, protestants and catholics will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old negro spiritual, free at last, free at last, thank god almighty, we are free at last.

>> one of the greatest speeches ever. that's "hardball." thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. >> tonight on all in. >> the only remedy is the conviction and removal from office of president donald trump. >> the president's attorneys visit the scene of the trial. >> everything i do during this i'm coordinating with white house counsel. >> and mitch mcconnell announces how the senate trial will proceed. >> there will be no difference between the president's position and our position. >> tonight the mcconnell resolution for the trial of donald trump. the president's new outlandish defense, and what all of this means for witnesses. plus. >> do you know congressman devin nunes? >> yes, i do. we met several times at the trump hotel. >> just how involved was devin nunes in the ukraine scheme? >> stand up, devin. everybody knows him. >> and as citizens across the country mark the martin luther king, jr., holida