just hours from now, and only for the third time in american history, the chief justice of the supreme court will gavel in and impeachment trial for the president of the united states before the u.s. senate. while that is happening in washington, donald trump is in davos, where his domestic troubles are never more than a tweet away. he's speaking right now about the u.s. economy. along with joe, willie and me we have president's the council on foreign relations and author of the book "a world in disarray" richard haass. and an nbc news national security analyst jeremy bash is with us and historian, author of "the soul of america" and rogers professor of the presidency, jon meacham. nbc news and msnbc contributor on this very, very important morning. >> very important morning, mika and, of course, the president

overseas at a time when most of his staff members, i think just wanted him distracted to get him out of the white house, to get him away from the pressure of washington, d.c., but these foreign trips usually have not gone well. this morning we have him actually just quoting data -- >> well, he's reading a script, very carefully. >> reading a script carefully. talking about how good the u.s. economy is. so -- and there are some numbers that are really, really well. we are in the middle of a ten-year, right now, recovery, and the numbers just keep getting better for our economy, but for president trump -- >> yeah. >> -- and this impeachment, the numbers actually are staying the same, or actually getting worse. we got this new poll coming out that out this morning that we're going to talk about. >> oh. >> that actually shows still the majority of americans think not only should he be impeached but

believe the president of the united states should be removed from office. that's something that did not happen for years with nixon, until the very end. >> it's a fascinating time right now. >> certainly, i don't think bill clinton ever got into the 30s as far as being impeached and removed from office. >> this morning the impeachment trial essentially begins. as joe said, just over half of americans believe the senate should vote to convict and remove president trump from office. take a look at this. according to the latest cnn/ssrs poll, 51% believe trump should be convicted and removed from office by the senate. 45% say he should not. 69% say that the senate impeachment trial should include testimony from new witnesses. 26% disagreed. that's an important number. >> that's unbelievable. >> oh! broken down by party, those who agree with allowing new

witnesses to testify include 86% of democrats. 69% of independents. 48% of republicans. when asked about the charges against president trump, 58% of americans said they believed trump abused the powers of the presidency, and 57% said trump obstructed congress. how does this impact everything? from election to the actual impeachment process, joe? >> well, it actually is -- again, we have a very small audience here, and those are the republicans who actually might be interested in the facts. >> right. >> the facts of this case. might be interested in what their constituents are thinking in the united states senate. and the senate is going to be so different from the house. maybe republicans send up and line up blindly behind donald trump like republicans in the house did. politically, for so many of those members of congress, it made sense, because they're in

gerrymander districts where donald trump is sitting enjoying a 60%, 70%, 80% approval rating. not so in arizona, in colorado, in -- in maine, in most of these states, but, willie, these numbers. actually, if you're in one of these swing states, actually, if you're in any state, some of these numbers should send a real message to you if you're a united states senator, and you're trying to figure out whether you want there to be a fair and open trial. 51% of americans, as we saw in this poll a majority, still think donald trump should be impeached and removed from office. these other numbers, 69%, almost seven in ten americans, want more witnesses. i mean, mitch mcconnell has lost that argument. lindsey graham has lost that argument. donald trump most importantly

has lost that argument. these number, devastating. and almost six in ten americans, willie, believe that he obstructed the investigation, and believe that he abused his power. think about that. six in ten americans. almost six in ten americans think the president of the united states abused his power. so, you know, we've talked about this before, willie, where you have people going, oh, my god. how does he get away with lying? how does he get away with saying the things that he says? why are people so stupid? they believe him when he lies -- that it was it a perfect -- they don't believe him. they know he's lying. they demand accountability. the only question now is, will these united states senators on the republican side of the aisle listen? >> yeah. this poll shows again that the american people are very smart, and they see through the fog machine that's being spewed at them constantly. when you have even 48% of

republicans, 48% of republicans and 69% of independents saying there's got to be witnesses here. we got to have at least the appearance of a fair trial or just have a fair trial. but, joe, no guarantee. we'll get into mitch mcconnell's rules of trial that we're going to have a fair trial. there will be votes. all the senators you talked about in swing states will have to raise their hand and vote up our or down whether or not they believe there should be new witnesses introduced in the senate, or even whether or not the evidence presented in the house should be presented in the senate. so they will have to go down, susan collins and lisa murkowski, all of those people, cory gardner, you talked about will have to vote to say i agree with 69% of the american people or i disagree with 69% of the american people that should be an open and fair trial. so mitch mcconnell has made that difficult. he's going to make them vote on that, but as you say in this cnn poll at least, a vast majority of americans, not necessarily want him to be removed from office, although a majority do, but a vast majority want a fair

trial, period. >> wow. >> a vast majority believe he abused the powers of the presidency. believe he obstructed the investigation into his own impeachment and majority of americans want him impeached and removed from office. jon meacham, it really is, we are in uncharted waters here. bill clinton, of course, never saw numbers anywhere near this. i don't think he ever got above 29% as far as americans wanting him impeached and removed from office. richard nixon throughout all of '7. and most of '74 never saw numbers this badly, but i'm just thinking of these republican senators, and they remind me of the whigs back in the mid-1800s where they are so disconnected from the realities of their time and i think martha mcsally, who screamed wildly at a journalist

asking a straightforward question. the journalist, who has a very good reputation for being down the middle, who's been attacked by people on both sides, but he asked her should, there be additional witnesses, and because of that, and because she's in trump's orbit now, blindly, and is blindfully and willfully obedient to donald trump like lindsey graham and so many others, she yelled, you're a hack. yet you look at these polls. 69% of americans believe there should be additional witnesses. and so what she's saying is that seven out of ten americans are hacks, because they want a more complete, they want a more fair, they -- they want a more transparent trial. i mean, she and these other republicans, don't they seem to be on the wrong side of history and not even wanting a fair

trial? >> oh, i think they're so far on the wrong side of history they can't see the line. they're just -- it's, you know, past where the buses run as we say in our native region, unquestionable. hey, the 51% is unsurprising to me, because if you factor in the margin of error, we are where we were on election day 2016. right? just, you know, a little bit -- there are more people who be unhappy about the, in those days, the prospect of a trump presidency, in these days the reality of it, and yet you have this 47%, 48% that is like senator mcsally. they're just saluting, their marching, they're part of a monarchist party that has become more of a cult personality than a coalition of interests, and that part doesn't surprise me. the 69% is a really testing

number, because that goes to a kind of common sense kind of jacksonian common sense, if you will, about the country. i think people know if you're afraid of more testimony, if you don't want more testimony, it's not as though they're trying to keep the calendar clear to do something else. right? the senate doesn't do anything anyway. >> right. >> so it's clearly ideologically and interest motivated. if you don't want testimony it's because you don't want ta hear what they're going to say and that does violate -- >> if you don't want the testimony, jon meacham, there's only one reason you don't want the testimony. >> yeah. >> from the principals. because you don't want americans to hear the truth. >> it's so obvious. >> yes. >> it's not that, my gosh. we won't get the infrafra structuinfrafra -- infrastructure bill done this week. we know it's not that. so there's only one reason.

one other point which i think we shouldn't let "we the people" off the hook here. we the people have made this possible. from a -- you know, an infinite number of small comprises, some big, we've come to a point where we're in an era from the perennial native forces of nativism, xenophobia, racism, those forces are always with us, have always been with us, they'll always be with us. the era as we want to be a part of are ones where those forces are ebbing and not flowing, and enough of us, "we the people," have decided that for a variety of reasons this is an era where we want these to flow, and i think that's what those senators are reacting to, because they are mirrors, not makers, who we are. >> look at what mitch mcconnell views as a fair trial. the majority leader unveiled ground rules for the impeachment trial which gets under way, again at 1:00 this afternoon.

the four-page resolution offers the democratic prosecutors and the white house defense team 24 hours to make opening statements. the time must be confined to two works days basically two 12-hour slots. once each side made its case senators are giving 16 hours to ask questions in writing. after that, the senate then will consider the subpoenaing of witnesses and documents, and then vote on whether to do so. the resolution does not automatically admit evidence from the house impeachment inquiry. for more on this we bring in lee ann caldwell who covers this can closely. good morning. the white house said if was gratified by the ground rules laid out by mitch mcconnell, because the white house and the majority leader as they've said publicly were working hand in glove to create what this trial would look like. so take us through, if you can, what's unique and different and unusual about the rules mitch mcconnell has set out? >> sure. well, mcconnell says these rules

follow the clinton model in 1999, but i would say it's a loose interpretation of the clinton model. the reason it's the same is because, of course, each side has 24 hours to present their case and senators have 16 hours to ask questions through the chief justice, and it's also similar, because later in the process is when they address the issue of witnesses and documents, if they're going to move to that phase of the trial in that process. but there's a lot of differences here. the differences are purely designed to help this president and what those are is while each side gets 24 hours, those 24 hours have to take place in two days, and so that means that some of these -- some of this argument could take place late into the night. the senate trial doesn't start until 1:00 p.m. every day and another difference is that the white house is able to make any motion that they want. their deadline to submit those

motions is wednesday morning, and what sort of things are that? that could be something like a motion to dismiss. so if they do submit motions there could be one, two or zero, they are going to take up those motions on wednesday, the first day that these opening arguments, and then when that process is over, then they will go into the opening statements. so theoretically, the house prosecutors might not start their day one of two days of 24 hours of arguments until 3:00, 4:00, maybe 5:00 at night giving them the night to make the argument to the american public. lots of semantics that will make it very difficult for the house prosecutors and have a lot of difficult votes for these moderate republicans, too. >> so again on these two points whether or not the evidence we saw in the house will even appear in the senate, whether or not it will be admitted in the senate is one question and then the other question is the introduction of these new witnesses. some people have said that mitch mcconnell set it up this way so

that those moderate republicans could vote with democrats on that question, and say to their voters, yes, i, too, wanted a fair trial and then allow the trial to proceed. what are you hearing about the way some of those republicans may vote on those two questions? >> well, it's -- some of these republicans are still indicating they want witnesses, and they want more documents. >> right. >> so there's kind of two phases of this process. we could expect today a lot of motions by democrats to bring up the issue of witnesses and documents today. those -- they're going to be difficult votes for this moderates. senator romney, senator alexander have already said they're not going to vote at this stage of the process. they're going to wait until later. then again, at the end of this process, after we hear these opening statements and there's questions and answers, mcconnell made it, there's going to be a vote on if they want to move to the question of witnesses. so there's going to be all of

these procedural votes that these moderate republicans have to take over and over again on these issues, and they're going to be under a lot of pressure. a lot of pressure, by this white house and by mcconnell, to stay united. >> lee ann caldwell, seeing a lot of you over the next couple weeks. thanks so much. >> thank you. joe, we knew this question whether or not introducing witnesses like john bolton would be on the table what mitch mcconnell introduced yesterday with the rules of this trial, we may not even get the old evidence. forget new evidence. you may not see the old evidence from the house appear in this senate trial. >> yeah. i mean, he's -- he's acting like it's 1940. and there's not social media. i mean, the more isolated mitch mcconnell keeps the united states senate, the more consequences they will pay come election day 2020, and it is a reminder that mitch mcconnell is going to be running, whether he

knows it or not. he may not know it or not. he's going to be running in his most competitive race ever for re-election of the united states senate. lindsey graham may not know it but lindsey's going to be in a tough fight in south carolina. he has a tough opponent hoot wi -- who's going to raise a lot of money. deplorable, that's a good word, when you talk about people that are trying to keep the facts from the american people. republicans and democrats alike. the more deplorable their actions are, the more they work to hide the truth from the american people, the more competitive their races are going to be. so mitch mcconnell can do whatever mitch mcconnell wants to do, of course, but he and every other republican will be judged for it at the ballot box. so let's -- richard haass, you know, even in the, the best of

times for a president, these sort of numbers that we've seen are not so good when presidents go across, overseas and meet with other leaders. even when they have good relations with other leaders. in this case, donald trump is obviously, he's obviously had a rocky, turbulent three years with world leaders. i'm wondering. what's the impact of him going to davos to try to talk to world leaders, to try to talk to business leaders tos, to try tom up business for america when everybody there saw the poll and understands that a majority of americans want him impeached and voted out of office, removed from office. majority of americans believe he abused his power. almost seven in ten americans want there to be additional witnesses at his impeachment

trial, and almost six in ten americans believe that he obstructed the investigation into his own impeachment. who actually -- i mean, doesn't that send a message to all of these world leaders that the sell-by date on donald trump and the efforts to sit down and make long-range plans with this administration just might be a waste of time? >> well, i think there's a bit of uncertainty that would be there even without impeachment, joe. they a sossume he will survive impeachment. no one's betting the farm on him being re-elected. the norm in uncertainty that comes with american politics. focusing on more than impeachment is the economy and the fact that global economic growth this coming year is projected to be slightly higher than last year, in no small part

because we've removed a lot of the trade frictions with china and we've just delayed new tariffs with france, just signed the agreement in north america. so people are feeling slightly better about that. to the extent they're looking at the u.s. and the world they're focusing also on things like iran. we haven't talked about it this morning. that's kind of, again, american unilateralism. looking at the absence of u.s. participation on climate change and looking at those issues more than looking at impeachment, which is seen as essentially american politics in action. >> jeremy what does it mean that the majority of americans, for the president's impeachment trial, that a majority of americans say they want donald trump impeached? six in ten americans believe he abused the powers of his office. i don't think i've ever seen numbers like that before. six in ten americans believe he obstructed the investigation into his own impeachment, and

seven in ten americans want more witnesses, despite the fact the president is desperate to just end this impeachment trial as quickly as possible? what does that mean? >> well what it means, joe, that when we flash a chyron on the bottom of the screen that says mcconnell unveils ground rules for impeachment trial, there are two words in there that really are incorrect. first of all, it wasn't mcconnell that unveiled it. it was the white house. let's not kid ourselves. the white house drafted these rules. second is, it's very hard to call this a trial. what this appears to be right now under the rules that the senate majority leader revealed for the white house last night is basically a set of opening statements, a set that's designed to occur mostly during the nighttime. opening statements crammed into two days, and the question of whether there will be a trial, because a trial is the formal consideration of evidence, that question is postponed for a

later date. as willie pointed out earlier, might be easy votes for republicans to take. take the impeachment record from the house and bring it over to the senate. for me a no-brainer. no republican should get credit for voting for that, no senator. the question is, there will will will -- there will be a trial and i don't think we know that yet. >> and richard haass, what's the latest on iran? where are we from your sources across the world in the middle east, where are we now on the iran crisis? >> i think basically in a pause. the administration is doubling down on the sanctions. essentially still feels it's got iran on the run and basically saying unless iran changes everything, that there's no place for anything. they're not putting forward any type of a new diplomatic initiative. i still think the implicit message is we're going for regime change there. >> and the united states and china, talking about a trade

deal. is that more p.r., more headlines than reality? what does -- what does the u.s./china trade relations look like over the next six months to a year. very hard for me to see, joe, how we move meaningfully more than where we are. increasing u.s. exports of agriculture products and energy to china. china can promise to do things on technology, but 90% of life is implementation. we know that won't go well. china's not going to change its economic model simply to make us happy or end state subsidies of their big enterprises. so i don't see any big phase two deal anytime soon, if ever. i think essentially we've established a new plateau that both sides can live with. same thing, and we've got also as i mentioned the agreement with north america behind us. the president and the french president macron just essentially pushed back a new round of tariffs between the

united states and france over the threaten of penalties for american technology companies. we're seeing a kind of pause in the trade war and it's one of the reasons that, again, the imf is saying global economic growth next year is likely to be just above 3% as opposed to just below. >> and, of course, it's important to take note that actually china grew at a slower pace than anytime over the past quarter century. those numbers just out this past week. north korea, once again, in the news this past week. analysts saying they're moving more quickly towards nuclear weapons and also missile technology that would allow north korea to deliver nuclear warheads to middle america. something that we were warned about on the armed services committee back in the 1990s, that that day was coming. it appears it's moving more quickly than ever despite donald trump's assurances two years ago. >> well, that's an enormous piece of bad news that

denuclearization is not only not happening but the missile and nuclear threat from north korea is much worse than it was. iran is beginning to break out of its nuclear constraints and israeli newspaper, they were talking about iran potentially getting close to a nuclear weapon by end of this year, and i think what could be the biggest international story in some ways is climate change. look what's going on in australia and around the world. the kind of slow-motion crisis we just don't have the ability to respond to, but it's not only that it's coming, it's already arrived. >> well, it's here. we, of course, this past year, the second hottest year recorded in the history of this planet. we keep breaking records over this past decade. you have to be a fool not to understand that climate change is moving quickly, and something has to be done. to respond as quickly as possible to it. something that it donald trump doesn't understand. finally, let's talk about this

continent. i was reading yesterday about economic woes once again. i've been following it for a while, but economic woes once again hitting argentina. there's a new leader there, and yet there don't seem to be many good options left for the argentineans. are they facing default yet again in the near future? >> that's potentially in their future. when you look around latin america, i think on one level it's peaceful. we don't have geopolitic wars, terrorism. look at a lot of these gofr governments. they're so weak. places like mexico, things in many ways are out of control. same in places like honduras. critical for the whole refugee and immigration challenge. and argentina, again, there's this tension between populism and good governance and democracy. one of those things that giver gets resolved once and for all. so the possibility, yes, of a

default there. i don't think anybody rules it out. >> all right. richard haass, thank you so much for being on this morning. and still ahead on "morning joe" -- the top democrat in the u.s. senate, chuck schumer, joins us live. he issued a blistering critique of the republicans plan for how to run the impeachment trial. plus it pretty much defines a must-read in the trump era. "washington post" reporters bill rucker and carol leonnig join us with their new book "a very stable genius." it's already generated several big headlines including a new one about the president's unfamiliarity with the constitution. >> who ever saw that coming? >> you're watching "morning joe." we'll be right back. & doug [ siren ] 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. ♪ the ups and downs of frequent mood swings can plunge you into deep, depressive lows. (crying) take you to uncontrollable highs. (muffled arguing) or, make you feel both at once.

overwhelmed by bipolar i symptoms? ask about vraylar. some medications only treat the lows or the highs. vraylar effectively treats depression, acute manic and mixed episodes of bipolar i. full-spectrum relief of all symptoms. with just one pill, once a day. elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis have an increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about unusual changes in behavior or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. report fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, which may mean a life-threatening reaction, or uncontrollable muscle movements, may be permanent. side effects may not appear for several weeks. metabolic changes may occur. movement dysfunction, restlessness, sleepiness, stomach issues are common side effects. when bipolar i overwhelms, vraylar helps smooth the ups and downs. when bipolar i overwhelms, molly: my np spends a lot of with me and gives me a lot of attention which led to my diagnosis. she initiated tests and found out what was wrong. she's treated both my children since they were born. bridgette: i feel that my np cares about me as a person and not just

if i'm sick or not. molly: and i really love my nurse practitioner because we have such a strong connection. i know that whenever i call, she'll be there for me. my name is molly and we choose nps. np: consider an np. when patients choose, patients win. 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. looking to get your business off to a fast start in the new year? it's go time! switch to comcast business and get fast internet on the nation's largest gig-speed network. plus, complete reliability with 4g lte backup. and, cloud-based security

to help protect the devices on your network. greenlight your business in 2020 with fast internet and voice for $64.90 per month. switch now and get a $100 prepaid card when you add comcast business securityedge. call today. comcast business. beyond fast.

it's 31 past the hour. while impeachment plays out on capitol hill, president trump is in davos, switzerland, for the world economic forum. joining us, white house correspondent kristen welker. we know the president just spoke. what is the talk out in davos about what is going on here in the u.s.? >> reporter: hi, mika and joe. good morning. well, look, this is setting up yet another remarkable split screen for president trump. here he is on the world stage just as the senate impeachment trial is getting under way in just a few hours from now. president trump trying to show leadership. trying to counter program what's happening on capitol hill, and he was just asked about the risk of essentially heading overseas while the impeachment proceedings are getting under way. the president fired back saying, look, this is a hoax, a witch-hunt going on for years. white house press secretary stephanie grisham telling meearlier today he will, in

fact, use this as a chance to counterprogram. "he's the president of united states. his work doesn't stop because of the silliness in d.c." mika, there is still a lot of potential pitfalls for president trump. how will he be received by other world leaders here? how will his decision to go overseas be viewed on american soil? and, remember, this is his first trip since he decided to take out iran's top general. so a lot of risk factors leer ss this summit gets underway. worth noting, president trump may be taking a page from the clinton playbook. he certainly traveled significantly domestically during impeachment proceedings but never went overseas. certainly a new tactic taken by this president. he didn't comment on impeachment during his remarks earlier today. his opening address, if you will, but he has a number of bilateral meetings, a chance for reporters to ask about all of

this. mika? >> kristen welker, thank you very much. and a new book from our next guests entitled "a very stable genius" and the president slamming it and the authors on twitter, among the many revolutions in the book is the story behind president trump's recitation of article two of the united states constitution for hbos 2017 documentary "the words that built america." >> the executive power shall be vested in a president of the united states of america. he shall hold his office during the term of four years and together with the vice president chosen for the same term be elected as follows -- each state shall appoint in such manner of the legislature may thereof elect a number of electerns equal to the number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the congress, but no senator

or representative or person holding an office of trust or profit under the united states shall be appointed and elected. >> so the book goes behind the scenes on the day that documentary was filmed to reveal president trump's frustration in reading that section of the constitution. according to one excerpt of the book "the president stumbled try to get out the words in the arcane form the founding fathers had written. trump drew irritated saying it's very hard to do because of the language here, trump told the crew. it's very hard to get through that whole thing without a stumble. he added, it's like a different language. right? the cameraman tried to calm trump telling him it was no big deal. take a moment and start over. president trump tried again. again remarked, it's like a foreign language." the authors join us now. from the "washington post" and political analyst at nbc and msnbc news, philip rucker investigator reporter for the were p wp, msnbc and nbc

contradicter carol leonnig and joining us for the conversation, the great mike barnicle. good morning. the president paid his greatest complement, the one at the top of the best-selling list calling you stone-cold losers, and concerned about what's inside the book's start there, phil, with that moment you write about in the book where the president had to sit and read a small portion of the constitution and was clearly frustrated by it. >> the constitution written so long ago, is difficult language to read for the first time, but it was clear to the people in that room that trump was just not familiar with this founding document. he stumbled over these words. he performed in a very different manner than the other previous presidents who did this interview. mike pence read portions of the constitution and was fine. ted cruz memm eorized it as a h school debater and performed just fine. alarming to people in the blue room of the white house that day

because this was a president six weeks into the job who seemed very unfamiliar with the document he swore an oath to. >> and draws the question to the people around him and reaction of the people around him to the way he speaks, the way he performs, the way he acts. take that moment as sort of a microcosm of that. what did the people in the room, what did his advisers think in the moment? >> such an important question because there is a theme in this fumbling, disastrous encounter that donald trump has with the constitution and that it a kinds of abusive management style that we learned from more than, you know, interviews with more than 200 sources for this book. phil and i met with a lot of people who finally broke their silence. one thing they said over and over again that happened in this room was blaming's when the president doesn't do it exactly right or he make as decision that makes him look bad he's often jumping to blame someone else. in this room he plained a ton of other people on the true for

fumbling papers. he said you're making it impossible for me to read. these noises are distracting and irritating. i'm not quoting him exactly but they felt in was churlish and childish and that comes out in a couple other scenes in the book as well. >> you know, philip, though, it it's not that he just can't read the constitution of the united states. the important part of this story obviously is he's unfamiliar with it, and how fascinating that a president has trouble reading a part of the constitution that he constantly twists out of its proper context when he says, article two gives a president unlimited power. article two allows me to do whatever i want to do. stephen miller going on the sunday shows saying, the president's power is unlimited. the president's power should not be questioned. this is not just a gacoc gotchat

about a guy reading a teleprompter. this is se reveo revealing abou ignorant this man is about the constitution as well as history and constitutional norms. >> yes, joe. that's a good point. and it pick as theme of the book. which is trump came into office as president unfamiliar with key aspects of the american story. we learned in our reporting with these top adds min strags offici administration, when he made his first trip to pearl harbor, had to ask john kelly what exactly happened here at pearl harbor? they're on a boat to go out to tour the "uss arizona" and he didn't really understand the full story of that battle, of that attack on pearl harbor has led the u.s. into world war ii. another scene meeting with the indian prime minister and said to the indian prime minister moodi modi, it's not like you have china on your border. the border is enormous.

two of our most important trade partners, two of the biggest countries in the world and wasn't familiar with that key aspect of our geography. >> you know, carol, parts of this book are funny, if you view them in one sense, but not nearly as funny as two or three years ago when he first took office, and in the course of the book, quite early in the book, you get to various elements of the intelligence community and the defense community who speak to you, understandably off the record, and they are concerned about the danger this president presents. so as you got going in the book, putting the book together, did you, too, did the two of you become more concerned about what you were hearing from these people? >> mike, it's a great question. i've got to tell you, phil and ian journalists. what we're trained for. we get information and give it to the public. to the "washington post" readers and fto the viewers of your gret

show. but we are not making that decision and calculation about danger and risk. i can tell you what we heard over and over and over again from the people who served the president at his shoulders for months and years, which is, they find him and his rash, undisciplined decision-making very worrisome and very risky for the country. i will say one thing. you really hit a wonderful note about intelligence and national security officials. some of these people, it's in their dna not to talk to reporters, but they finally spoke to us, to phil and to me, because it was so upsetting to them. they couldn't keep this down. >> phil? >> go ahead, mike. >> were they reluctant at first when you sought them out? >> mike, it was really hard to get interviews with some of these people. these are sources we tried throughout our day-to-day coverage of the white house and this presidency to talk to do get information from. they were not willing to engage with us on a day-to-day basis but through persistence and knocking on doors and emate maid

going to people's houses we were able to get them to open us. the reason, they saw this as a way to tell the full history. history of these extraordinary years and broke their silence in this book for the public benefit to try to get some of truth out there. >> get to jon meacham in a second. what about the guardrails we've heard about three years? donald trump may be dangerous, may not know what pearl harbor is, for god's sakes, but don't worry, jim mattis there, tillerson, adults, been there and taken seriously. did they view themselves as guardrails? why so many of them hung in so long while being berated in the tank at the pentagon, for example? >> we spoke to people at very difficult levels. i mean, from the low, to the middle, to the very, very senior most confidants of the president and they said over and over again to us that is their biggest worry. the guardrails are down. some of them don't have the, the

rep or the portfolio to counter the president. some are really senior and afraid of the blowback they get from him when they caution and counsel him, but the real trajectory of this presidency, willie, is one that's escalating towards a presidency of one. there's only one guy making the decisions, barking them out and the people who increasingly surround him view their mission as telling him, "yes." that's not what mattis and kelly and tillerson were doing but increasingly what he has now. >> jon meacham, at this meeting in the weng, described in the book, dressing down mattisi saying i wouldn't go to war with you. you're a bunch of dopes and babies, talking to general james mattis and others. >> watch out for in our daily lives. quick question. my book, for which i paid retail arrives later today i hope. >> thank you.

>> so i don't have the answer from a personal read, but -- to go to carol's point about your journalist role. anything redemptive here? anything that he gets right that this instability, is there anything where the instabilities creates results that are actually congenial and positive? you know, jon, there are all sorts of instances in the book where the instability doesn't result in a calamity necessarily that his advisers feared. there are ways to clean up the messes sometimes. there are moments of luck where things just worked out. i mean, lucky, for example, there's not been a major terrorist attack on the united states, or we've not come under threat the way this country has in some previous presidencies. you know, talking to these sources for the book, a couple redemptive qualities about trump come through. one is his mastery of staying in touch with his conservative political base. the reason he remains a potent threat for re-election in 2020

despite his unpop lartypopulari polls and despite what america views at a dysfunction administration. truly the people working for him are alarmed by what has been happening. >> jeremy bash has one for you guys. jaurm jeremy? >> the call for sza leis a -- zy and those activities. wasmal feesens, wrongful? >> a great question. we view the reporting done for this book as almost foreshadowing this moment. increasingly the president is feeling enabled. we can't be inside his mind and know every motivation. people around him tell us increed kreezingly he is frustrated, angry and wants it his way. you can see that literally the day after robert mueller testifies in a way that is not very powerful about sort of the

ending coda of this special counsel ill nvestigation, the n day the president picks up the phone, could you do me a favor, though. it feels as though all of the reporting up to this moment for the book shows you a president who always puts himself first. the perpetuation of his power. the buffing of his image, and that call a really about the perpetuation of another term for donald trump. >> so, carol and phillip, i'm just wondering, since you spoke to so many people. when you think of tillerson, mattis, mcmaster, coates and some of these men who have left this administration. men and women, these are top tier advisers, cabinet members, who definitely were committed to the constitution, were committed to serving this country, and had a certain ability to stand up to

president trump, to stand up for the right values. is there anyone like that left? like, who at the top tier is left? >> you know, mika, it's interesting. not all of the people you mentioned really did stand up to trump all the time. we have a scene inside the pentagon -- >> i know that. >> really only tillerson too stood to him there. at this moment in the administration i don't think we can point to somebody who is really comforting trump. certainly some trying to give advice and steer in in a direction. they're following his orders playing to this grievances and to his conspiracies and be his ideas and that's why these administration officials tell us trump has gotten into such a mess now with the ukraine situation because mulvaney allowed that aid to be withheld, for example. >> and i guess some of them, you're right. didn't stand up but stood up to him by leaving, which leaves

such a vacuum now. the new book "a very stable genius: donald trump's testing of america." fill phillip rucker, carol leon thank you very much. coming up, joined by senator chris murphy, one of the jurors in president trump's impeachment trial, and the chairman of the house judiciary committee. congressman jerry nadler will also be our guest. he's one of the seven democratic prosecutors who will be laying out the case against the president. "morning joe" will be right back. at leaf blowers.

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. 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. oh, hi, samantha. you look more like a heather. do you ever get that? it's nice to finally meet you in person. you're pete nocchio? oh, the pic? that was actually a professional headshot.

i'm sure that's it, yeah. i, uh, i think i've lost a few pounds recently too. i'm actually doing a juice cleanse. wait! you don't... (glass breaking) (gasp) ah! oh...! with geico, the savings keep on going. just like this sequel. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

i am running to defeat donald trump, yes! [ applause ] >> in 2016, i warned that donald trump was a dangerous demagogue and when the republican congress wouldn't hold him accountable, i went to work helping run, winning campaigns in 21 house seats. it's time for the senate to act and remove trump from office. and if they won't do their jobs this november, you and i will. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. >> that was an exclusive first look at a new campaign ad from presidential candidate mike

bloomberg. airing in 26 states. joining us now, politics and journalism professor at morgan state university, politics editor at the root and an msnbc political contradicter jason johnson. what's your take on the ad and the bloomberg approach to the presidency? >> it's very, very creative, and i mean, his approach. the ad is fairly generic, but, look, this idea of campaigning in these later states has proven to be really successful for him. an example. yesterday is the mlk holiday. a lot of friend and colleagues giving speeches around the country and kept reporting back to me there are large numbers of voters, older voters, african-american voters seeing the ads and taking a look at bloomberg, and tom steyer. interesting candidates. impressed by someone who spent so much of his own money to improve a city, hiring credentials, stopping gun

violence in new york city. a crazy plan but seems to be helping him so far, think about it, jason. of course, you have 20, 25 candidates who have spent all of their money, all of their time, all of their energy in two states. and maybe a few have spent a little bit of time in south carolina, and here's bloomberg focusing like a laser on these super tuesday states where 40% of the delegates are going to be awarded on super tuesday. maybe it doesn't work. maybe biden wins iowa, new hampshire and south carolina, and the point's moot, but i got to say, if we've been saying this for some time -- if you have a different winner in every one of those states. >> right. >> suddenly -- this doesn't seem like such a crazy idea. does it? >> yeah. i mean, look, one day, joe, someone's going to make the playoffs by only winning division games. find a strategy we never thought

would work but ends out working out for them. the other thing is this. i've been hearing and a lot of people i talk to who sort of aren't in d.c. and new york, they're telling me they also think that maybe, maybe, it might take another billionaire. another super businessman to really compete with donald trump. a lot of the people who i've spoken to who find an interest in mike bloomberg are sort of weak biden supporters. if joe biden stumbles or joe biden can't keep it together i'll go with mike bloomberg, i'll go with tom steyer. a lot of these things are a reflection of people who may be concerned the front-runner can't carry it all the way through and if they really want to get rid of donald trump, they think another new yorker can do it. >> senator bernie sanders apologized to former vice president joe biden for an op-ed written by one of his campaign's surrogates accusing biden of having a corruption problem. reaching out yesterday wrote an op-ed for "ed guardian" entitled

"middle-class. joe biden has a corruption problem. it makes him a weak weekend." in it it looks like middle-class joe perfected the art of taking big contributions then representing his corporate donors at the cost of middle and working-class americans. converting campaign contributions into legislative favors and policy positions isn't being moderate. it's the kind of transactional politics americans have come to loathe. sanders later apologized for the piece kelling cbs news, it's absolutely not my view that joe is corrupt in any way and i'm sorry that op-ed appeared. biden accepted sanders apology in a tweet last night saying thanks for acknowledginging this, bernie. these kind of attacks have no place in this primary. let's keep our focus on making donald trump a one-term president. and over the past couple of days, bernie sanders and

elizabeth warren have both come after the vice president for his stance on social security. on sunday sanders told the "washington post," i think anyone who looks at the vice president's record understands that time after time after time joe has talked about the no ed to cut social security. i don't think that is disputable. and warren echoed sanders also on sunday telling politico, as a senator, joe biden had a very different position on social security, and i think everyone's record on social security are important in this election. but in a scathing column for the "new york times" entitled "biden, sanders and social security and smears" paul krugman writes that lying about a rival is bad, even if you don't like his past positions. he writes in part, while the news media has been focused on the spat between elizabeth warren and bernie sanders, something much more serious has been taking place between the sanders campaign and joe biden. not to sugar coat it, the

sanders campaign has flat-out lied about things biden said in 2018 about social security. and it has refused to admit the falsehood. this is bad. it is indeed almost trumpian. the last thing we need is another president who demonizes and lies about anyone who disagrees with him and can't admit ever being wrong. biden deserves an apology now, and sanders probably needs to find better aides. the smearing of biden reinforces the concern some of us have about sanders. there's always been an ugly edge to some of sanders support. >> all right. so -- >> wow. >> willie geist, talk about -- i won't even say fighting words because it's coming from paul krugman. just -- just a very harsh takedown of bernie sanders and his campaign who finds itself, by being so aggressive, and

being were on the offensive all the time, sort of bizarre considering the last des moines register poll had him in first place. now they're finding themselves on the defensive for one attack after another, and you know, again, you're in first place and you're lying about social security. i mean, this is -- this is a smear used forever, and it just doesn't -- i don't think it's going to work on joe biden. what's the strategy behind this? >> two separate issues. first mika laid out op-ed written by a, who has endorsed bernie sanders and stumps for bernie sanders. he apologized for that calling joe biden corrupt. the other question, though, to me is a bigger question, jason johnson, which is that you have a someone on bernie sanders' staff releasing a snippet taken completely out of context, a speech that joe biden made a couple of years ago, where he sort of sarcastically talked about paul ryan's approach to

social security and cut, a tax cut on the backs of people who need social security and rely on social security. totally out of context, but the headline was that joe biden relies and sides with paul ryan. so it will be interesting to see if bernie sanders and his campaign turn and run from that as well, apologize for that as well, because that came directly from the campaign, and misrepresented joe biden's position over the years on social security. >> right. willie, how many times are we going to see this? how many times will we see surrogates and spokespersons and advocates for bernie sanders say something that is out of pocket or wrong or a lie, and then bernie sanders waits until he gets in trouble and tepidly apologizes for it. this is absolutely trumpian. this is a step away from kellyanne conway saying alternative facts. the largest issue to think about is this. if bernie sanders actually considers himself to be a fro front-runn front-runner.

how will he stitch this party back together were when he engages in these kind of score mped earth campaign tactics? you want to say the other candidates he's running against are neoliberals and don't care about health care. fine. accusing people of lying, accusing people of policy positions they never took and never apologizing for it until you're busted is not how you become the front-runner and certainly not how the build a successful campaign for 2020. >> we're at the top of the hour. let's go to des moines, iowa, right now and talk to john highmann following this closely. john, we talked about bernie sanders and elizabeth warren, their staffs misrepresented or flat-out lied about joe biden and his position on social security. of course, paul krugman had a major takedown on bernie sanders for doing it'sbut you and i have been asking each other on the air and off the air for a week, why the sanders campaign is

going so negative in a year when negativity is being punished by democratic voters? especially, of course, when the negativity is focused on other democratic candidates, and after a time when bernie sanders got incredible news about being in first place in the des moines register poll for the first time! so i don't understand. this keeps happening. why is this happening when bernie sanders was in first place and could have kept his head down? >> yes. seriously, joe. you and i have been asking each other this question, and i've been in conversations now for the last eight or nine days in people in iowa about this. democrats here on the various campaigns and unaligned, who have been surprised. right after the des moines register poll came out on that friday, not last friday, the previous friday.

sanders spent that entire weekend attacking biden not on the things mentioned already you've talked about this morning but attacks him on iraq, on entitlements, attacking him on a wide range of issues. kind of indiscriminately negative that weekend. not him directly but a lot of surrogates, a lot of staff. also he starts -- >> so john heilemann -- >> he starts attacking elizabeth warren >> why attack him when he's in first place? >> yes, i understand. >> it makes no sense. i mean, again, there are times when negative -- listen, here's the deal. if negative campaigning works and it's the truth, do it. that's fine, but in this case, we -- i mean, bernie's been up onstage when he's seen kamala go after joe biden, seen other people attacking joe biden. it's not working for democrats in 2020. they want the focus to be on trump. so why -- does anybody have any insight as to why the sanders team has decided to do this?

in the closing stretch, when history suggests this won't work? >> well, yeah. i was trying to go. to the question of "why?" there is, again, trying to tell you people are perplexed across the board. it feels like sanders thought at that moment that there was victory suddenly in sight. i think, you know, learning the lessons are what's happened over this last year is your point. i think you've seen every democrat punished, when democratic vot democratic voters want the focus on trump. sanders thought for a moment, at least his campaign did, they needed to consolidate the left. taking out elizabeth warren became important. and they see biden at the main obstacle to the nomination. a lot of democrats think and i think you and i agree, you guys are on a roll. you can coast, not coast, you should not get into a negative battle. we know famously, iowa voters don't like negative campaigns.

hurt every candidate cycle after cycle in here. sanders i think saw a way to sprint to the finish line and knock over a bunch of people on the way he could get there. i'll tell you, corresponding about this yesterday. focus on the iowa poll that came out yesterday. david binder, former obama pollster, well-respected guy doing this poll for farmers for the last year, and you saw bernie sanders after these two very strong polls for him, monmouth and register poll, see sanders down in this poll taken after the debate. went into the field the day after the debate. sanders down at 14%. in fourth place. i'll say most importantly, most striking in that poll, when they, they did something a lot of pollsters hadn't been doing. asking people if your candidate doesn't clear the 15% threshold, who's your second choice candidate? right? they ranked those candidates. sanders had 6% was in fifth place with 6% suggesting no the just that he's at only 14% in that poll but that on caucus

night, unlike joe biden who could pick up 24% of the unaligned voter or elizabeth warren up near 20%. pete buttigieg, mid-teens. sanders down at 6%. tells you almost no one for bernie sanders going into caucus night is willing to shift their vote to him on the second alignment. that's a huge problem for bernie sanders if he thinks he's going to win the iowa caucuses. >> makes you wonder more why this approach to wa what end? >> totally. >> jon meacham? >> well, i would ask john and joe, what is it about sanders himself? right? i mean, we saw, i thought one of the most interesting things out of the whole "new york times" rollout for a double endorsement, sanders said if you want someone to say happy birthday to you, don't vote for me, because i don't say happy birthday. seemed like an odd principle on which to stand. which is the diametrical opposite of biden.

is sanders someone who is a political killer here? and sort of, does the crotchety older guy, the aging socialist who wants to lift up the people is all for the people, but not, doesn't particularly like the person? is that what's going on? >> i mean, i think that bernie sanders, the thing that attracts so many people to bernie sanders, john heilemann, what i think, love to hear what you say, that he is an anti-politician. he's not going to say happy birthday. he's not going to kiss babies, not going to trim the sails. it's full steam ahead. bernie's going to tell you what he believes. he's going to fight for what he believes and go back 25, 30 years and chances are very good what he believes today is what he believed 25 or 30 years ago, and that's very admirable in a politician.

sometimes, though, it doesn't, john heilemann, get you over the finish line in first place. >> right. i'd say something else. i agree with all that. i want to give sanders his due here. i was at an event in des moines with him before he flew back for the impeachment trial. very well attended. a lot of energy in the room. the flip side of sanders maybe not having the ability to grow his coalition much is that his hard-core, they're passionate for him. they are, killed by the sanders people on twitter for this -- he is a little of the inverse, the mirror image of trump. his base is very called. very enthusiastic. committed to him through thick and thin. what the campaign does in some instances, those voters who love bernie sanders have a view everyone else is corrupt. all the rest of the conventional i politicians are compromise in a fundamental way, corporate democrats in some way and

railing not just about corruption of corporate america but corruption of the democratic party. and i think the campaign, in the same way trump sees his base as the key to his political strength, sanders sees his base as the key to his political strength and have a tendency to feed the base in this way by turning on these other candidates more than they do trying to expand the coalition. tell you, hillary clinton's people will remind you from 2016 that this is not the first time bernie sanders has campaigned with a rough and sharp edge. >> so john mentioned that bernie sanders head back to washington for the impeachment trial today. won't be alone. elizabeth warren and amy klobuchar as well. bring in kasie hunt, oeft host "kasie dc." the impeachment trial gets under way at 1:00 eastern time today. what can people expect and the reaction to the rules late out by mitch mcconnell they'll have to be a vote on whether or not they'll be new witnesses and a vote even to decide whether or

not the old evidence from the house will be admitted in the senate? >> reporter: yeah, willie. an interesting piece we didn't necessarily anticipate. that vote potentially gives senators an opportunity to get on the record and say that the entire process was a sham, and i think that underscores the thing that i took away from this, as it was breaking last night. which is -- mitch mcconnell and his team were remarkably up front and straightforward about the fact the white house was very involved in drafting these rules, and you know, that's really a big departure from how this has -- we only have one major precedent in the modern era for this. that's now how it was done with clinton. it was a senate process, procedure. it was senate rules basically. here, you have mcconnell's team consulting with the white house on the one hand and then on the other hand, making sure that they've at least given a nod to moderate republican senators who feel a lot of pressure from voters back home to demonstrate

they are conducting a fair trial. where you've got that vote, that straightforward vote whether or not to have witnesses appear before the trial. that's pressure from collins and romney, et cetera. but really there are a lot of points in this process where the white house is going to have the opportunity to do things that are important to them. this motion potential motion to dismiss, for example. they have until tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. to make a motion, any motion, really, what we expect that to be, is a potential motion to dismiss the case outright. it's not likely that would pass, but it would at least give the president that opportunity. then there is a question about evidence, and whether it would simply be removed or not put into the senate record at all. democrats are covering, calling that a cover-up and there's a sense here on the hill behind the scenes that basically amounts to a whitewashing of this entire process and a removal from the formal senate history book of anything that the president did throughout the course of this.

so willie, we could see interesting twists and turns today, but we know at least there's going to be this intense back and forth with chuck schumer and the democrats over how these rules have been written. >> kasie, the way leader mcconnell set it up, looks to a lot of people preparing to are a trial that's not very fair by not allowing the stuff in. the other way to look at it, you can expand on this based on your report, giving moderate republicans like susan collins and cory gardner and others a chance to vote with democrats on, yes, of course we should have the evidence from the house come into the senate and, yes should, have witnesses. does that line up with what you're hearing? they can vote yes on that, look like they want to have the a fair trial and vote to acquit if they don't like what they hear? >> reporter: sure. the reality, willie, is that while there is, mcconnell has a lot of control over this process by extension the white house would you, they are planning, i think you have talked about this story in the "washington post" from bob costa and others over there, they are worried that they may not be able to keep the

republicans together, and that they could vote with democrats and open this door to witnesses. that potentially puts john bolton talking to the u.s. senate, and that's an outcome the white house seems clearly, frankly, very concerned about it. the fact that this contingency planning is going on at all says a lot about the level of uncertainty here. just try to remember that republicans are trying to project that this whole thing is sealed and shut and we'll be done by middle of next week. the president acquitted before the state of the union and the country will move on. it's possible that's how it's going to happen, but the fact that these plans are being made shows that there's an acknowledgement of just how difficult this is for republicans, and the public polling is starting to show that. democrats in the house have been relying 0en that throughout the process. democrats in the senate are looking at those numbers and thinking to themselves, americans are telling us they want a fair trial.

why we're hearing so much about witnesses and documents, because democrats feel like if that's what they make this about, if they focus on those issues, americans will wake up and say, obviously. every trial i've ever seen on "law & order" has witnesses, documents and evidence and without that it's an unfair trial. the messaging, willie, is incredibly important r5egardles of the actual outcome. according to the latest cnn/ssrs poll, just over half of americans believe president trump should be convicted and removed from office by the senate. 45% said he should not. 69% said the senate impeachment trial should include testimony from new witnesses. 26% disagreed. broken down by party those who agree with allowing new witnesses to testify include 86% of democrats. 69% of independents and 48% of

republicans. when asked about the charges against president trump, 58% of americans said they believe trump abused the powers of the presidency. 57% said trump obstructed congress. these are pretty strong numbers. >> yeah, really are. mike, look at this again. majority believe that donald trump should be impeached and removed from office, nearly six in ten of americans believe there needs to be more witnesses. the hearing needs to be a lot more transparent. six in ten americans. nearly six in ten americans, mike, believe this president abused the powers of the presidency, and also believe that he obstructed the investigation into his own impeachment. jon meacham and i earlier talked about the fact this just -- i meaner, obviously i was there in 1999, that bill clinton's numbers never a ypproached this. of course, nixon's didn't approach this in '73 and most of '74. i'm curious, though.

there were no polls taken at the time. tell us about, when you were reporting on andrew johnson's impeachment? wa there ever the groundswell in the gallery or outside? obviously it was right after the civil war. but these are -- these are terrifying numbers for donald trump. are they not? >> well, yeah, but before -- people were much more actively engaged back then, joe, in 1869. the crowds outside the capitol were huge. i can still see them in my mind's eye. to your point being there cure dcure -- during the clinton impeachment. interesting to see what happens in the polling when that dawns on the american public that this particular impeachment trial will be perhaps conducted without the evidence gathered by the house during all the hearing that people watched might not be introduced. into this trial. that mitch mcconnell is going out of his way to preclude evidence from being introduced and any new evidence certainly

from being introduced, and jason, i was wondering, what's on your mind when you think about the evidence that has been gathered that the american public and the united states senate might not be hearing? >> the number that struck me honestly, john, 48% of republicans -- republicans -- say they want witnesses. you have just under 50% of republicans who say that new information should be brought in. here's what basically the white house is hoping for and the republican party is hoping for. they want america to say, you know what? it's all the swamp. all corrupt. of course, president trump sort of engaged in abuses of power, and that's how it works. they want to lower american standards, play into american cynicism tso think is considere to be business at usual. it's a real problem for mitch mcconnell. i think a real problem for purple state republicans to try to go out after this trial is over and say, yes, we did the

right thing. we're good, because this is now going to be the second time that the senate appears to have ignored the will of the people. you had kavanaugh, now this. i think this is a serious, serious challenge. last thing is this, not a small thing. because the senators are not going to be able to talk, it's the news coverage all day, we're going to be talking about the evidence that's missing. we're going to be talking about the evidence that's later on in the day and the american public will watch and say why wasn't this mentioned during the trial? i really think the lack of evidence and potential lack of certain kinds of witnesses will be damaging for the republican party. >> well, and, mike, america is watching. you look at these poll numbers and americans are watching donald trump. they're watch aring mitch mcconnell. they are watching republicans trying to, again, trying to hide the truth from them. as jon meacham said, it's not

because of the witnesses schedule or the schedule on the floor that week. you're worried about the truth coming out. also, the hypocrisy at every turn. look what ken starr said. look at the way republicans ra'anan the impeachment in the '90s, but, stephen dennis who is bloomberg's senate reporter tweeted this -- earlier -- sitting gop senators who voted to toss bill clinton because's obstruction of justice. something that again 60% of americans believe donald trump is guilty of, blunt, crapo, ensley, grassley, graham, who, of course, was a manager, imhoff, mcconnell, moran, portman, roberts, shelby, thune and wicker. there is -- you can't turn in any direction where republicans

don't look hypocriticahypocriti. again, that's political scar tissue, that adds up. i'm wondering. i'm wond othering whether 2020 t look like 1994, 1974, 1966 in terms of congressional landslides. >> yeah, well, sure, joe. i mean, look. the oath they took last week, they've already, substantial number of republicans have already in effect violated that oath. the other aspect of this is in terms of new witnesses appearing before the united states senator. i would imagine you learn from your first day in law school, everybody would learn from their first day in law school, the danger of having a witness on the stand to whom you ask a question without knowing what the answer is going to be. that's, i think, the republicans' fear. they don't know what john bolton would say if called as a witness. >> yeah. and mika, john bolton could be

devastating as a witness. he also could end up saying, well, i really can't say much of anything, because of presidential privilege. >> yes. >> but same imtotime. but the fact republicans are fighting so hard to have, stop these witnesses from telling the truth to americans speaks volumes to voters. people are going to be going into the ballot boxes in 2020, and making a decision on who they want to run the country over the next four years. >> jason johnson and john heilemann, thank you both for being on the show this morning. coming up on "morning joe" -- >> all we're doing here is saying we're going to get started in exactly the same way that 100 senators agreed to 20 years ago. what's got for president clinton is good for president trump. >> that's obviously untrue, since the rules mitch mcconnell proposed for donald trump are not like the ones used for bill

clinton. we'll talk about that with the senate's top democrat, chuck schumer. "morning joe" is coming right back. as a struggling actor, i need all the breaks that i can get. at liberty butchemel... cut. liberty mu... line? cut. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. cut. liberty m... am i allowed to riff? what if i come out of the water? liberty biberty... cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ i think i forgot to lock my buick. got it. i bet you lunch you can't make it in there. i'm thinkin' sushi. alexa, ask buick to start my suv. (suv starts) you can do that?

-you can do that? you can do that? yeah, with a buick. what? at the heart of every buick suv ...is you. find out why buick is number one in dealer sales and service satisfaction. pay no interest for 72 months on most buick suv models plus current eligible gm owners get $750 purchase allowance. through the at&t network, edge-to-edge intelligence gives you the power to see every corner of your growing business. from managing inventory... to detecting and preventing threats... to scaling up your production. giving you a nice big edge over your competition. that's the power of edge-to-edge intelligence. when you look at the world, ♪ what do you see? ♪

where others see chaos, we see patterns. ♪ connections. relationships. ♪ when you use location technology, you can see where things happen, before they happen. ♪ with esri location technology, you can see what others can't. ♪

the art the house managers are making for a mere three witnesses is certainly not an unreasonable request. here we're talking about a request that we'll vote on today from the house managers to depose only, depose only, a mere three witnesses. in all likelihood, we fully expect that will be done by monday. and i would hope that we would not have a partisan vote on the issue of allowing the deposition of three witnesses. >> let's quit the charade. this is a political exercise. a political exercise.

all i'm asking of schumer is that we treat trump the same way we treated clinton. >> so he wants, so i guess now saying he's wants the three witnesses or so? that's all he was asking for in '99. so, okay. >> seems to make sense. that was mitch mcconnell first during the clinton impeachment and now the tvrump impeach innocent. and former u.s. senator now nbc news and msnbc political analyst claire mccaskill along with senator chuck schumer. great to you have both. senator schumer -- >> good morning. >> -- is it possible to have a trial with witnesses not brought forward? are we really concerned there will not be witnesses? >> well, we are concerned. look, leader mcconnell has just gone along with president trump's desire to cover up this trial hook, line and sinker.

his resolution create as trial that is rushed with as little evidence as possible and done in the dark of night. if they were so confident of their case, if president trump were, if mcconnell were, why wouldn't they want it in broad daylight daylight? why are they trying to do things at 2:00 in the morning and saying existing trial can't be put in the record and can't have new witnesses or new documents? this is appalling. mika, this is serious responsibility. the only real power a senate has to a president who has dramatically overreached is impeachment. if the impeachment trial become as farce as mcconnell is trying to make it, then i worry about what this president will do in the next ten months and what future presidents would do. it erodes our deac crazy. >> our democracy. >> senator schumer, we've heard republicans in the house and in

the white house say that nancy pelosi and democrats mishandled impeachment. yet look at numbers out yesterday. over half of americans want donald trump impeached. almost seven in ten americans say, get more witnesses. make this process transparent. how do you deliver that message to republicans who might be swayed? >> well, we are going to, first, we're going to force votes. we can have votes before this awful resolution, this resolution that i've called a national disgrace is enacted, and we will have votes on witnesses. we will have votes on documents and we will have some votes to try to undo the most egregious things that mcconnell has done in this resolution. the weight of an impeachment trial with the chief justice sitting in the chair with people listening, with great solemnity to what happened and the power

of the argument we're hoping brings four republicans along. maybe not at the opening juncture, but as we move forward later, although, again, the claims of mcconnell are wrong. they tried to put as many barriers in the way of voting for witnesses and documents, even after the arguments are heard. so mcconnell is just totally, totally, totally going along with trump's cover-up, hook, line and sinker, and we hope for the sake of the republic that four republicans join us in opposing him. that is not too much to ask at something as important as this. let me just, you know -- we can never repeat too often the charges. trump tried to blackmail a foreign country so they could interfere in our elections. if americans no longer believe they decide who's president and some foreign ruler can, that's the beginning of the ends of our democracy, faith in democracy

withers. so this is very serious stuff and to not have the a fair trial, to not have witnesses, to not have documents is wrong and the public's on our side. the survey you cited, even republican rank and file who almost always knee-jerk go along with trump, more said they wanted witnesses and documents than were opposed. >> so, claire, mitch mcconnell's rules require a vote on the introduction of new witnesses and documents but not just that. on bringing the documents and witnesses we've already seen and heard from in the house into the senate trial. so those are two votes as senator schumer points out he's going to need four republicans to flip and admit those things. do you think your former colleagues moderate republicans will vote with democrats on those two questions? >> chuck notes, you can get a lunch menu into the record in the senate. you know? it is not hard to get things into the record. it's usually done without objection. >> right. >> this is nothing like the clinton procedures, absolutely nothing. chuck, let's talk about this

12-hour thing. if you start at 1:00 and you do the math and go until 1:00, that's 12 hours. are you guys not even going to break? is no one allowed to leave to go to the bathroom or for dinner or for anything like that? i meaner, aren't we talking about 2:00 our 3:00 in the morning? >> yes. we are definitely. -- we are. talking about 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning. the question looms large not just for democrat and republican senators but the american public. if their case is so strong, why are they afraid to present it in the light of day? that's the bottom line here. and most americans believe what trump did was wrong. the case is strong, and i'm telling you, i don't know if, claire, you've read the brief. >> it's ridiculous. >> of house managers. >> it's ridiculous. >> yeah. it's just -- it's absurd. it's a mockery of democracy. and history will record this as one of the darkest moments in the senate, led by mitch mcconnell, who seems to just do whatever donald trump wants, and

most americans, even republicans, don't trust that man's probity or honor. >> claire, back to my question. do you think there are four republicans who will vote against mitch mcconnell here so that we do see witnesses -- >> not today. not today. i mean -- >> no. >> chuck's going to obviously bring up a way for them to express. there may be one or two doing it to try to help them in their elections, but mitch mcconnell would not put this on the floor if he wasn't confident he had 51 votes. >> and -- >> don't you think, chuck? it's important for you to bring these up and important to have the debate and the votes. >> we will bring it up now. the american people will see where people are at, but a number of them are afraid to say, no witnesses and documents, because they know that's what america wants. basic americans sense of fairness is offended by no witnesses or documents. we hope they'll have these votes now, go on record, because mcconnell strongarmed them, and then after the presentations of

the arguments by both sides, we will try to have votes again, but that's another place where mcconnell has tried to rig the game. he makes it much harder now to get witnesses and documents after the arguments even though people like mitt romney and susan collins have said they're open to it, they're voting for some rules here that make it harder to get the witnesses and documents later. we're going to try to find a way to do that, make no mistake about it. everything in the rules is rigged, and as you said at the beginning, i think, mika, a far cry from the '99 rules. mcconnell was using that as a subterfuge to avoid witnesses and documents immediately and now we see even those rules which don't really apply here because there was a whole record in the starr report back in '99 are not good enough for their cover-up. they are so afraid, so afraid, of the facts coming out that want things presented at 2:00, 3:00 in the morning?

give me a break. >> so senator, last week, every member of the senator took an oath regard to this impeachment trial. one line, i will do impartial justice. so has mitch mcconnell always violated that oath? >> well, mitch mcconnell has made it clear, he said he's taking his cues from president trump. >> violated the oath. >> which makes that obvious. that makes it obvious. i don't think he is doing impartial justice, i don't even think he thinks he's doing impartial justice. when trump says jump, these days mitch mcconnell says, how high? >> senator, kasie has a question for you. >> yes, kasie. hi. >> reporter: senator, good morning to you. our colleague colleagues at the "washington post" reporting about early conversations between mcconnell and the white house how to potentially handle john bolton's testimony when he get to the next phase of this trial. what is the current status of your negotiations with republicans about potentially having a package of witnesses called, and do you have any

tools at your disposal to control how john bolton may or may not appear? >> well, first, we've had no discussions. mcconnell refused to discuss anything about witnesses and documents, because he's so afraid of them. so afraid of the truth. second -- >> reporter: have you spoken to both republicans? >> there have been lots of conversations between, among members going on. i'm not going to reveal any conversations i've had. but the bottom line is, you've got to hope with the wisdom of the founders that this heavy-duty of trying to do some fairness to a trial where there are very serious charges against the president, will weigh were on the shoulders of some republicans differently. do we have a guarantee of that? absolutely not. do we have a strong hope that maybe that will happen? absolutely. and the more the american people hear about what's going on the more they're on our side eas i mentioned. even majority -- a more

republicans are for witnesses and documents than against. even though they know that trump is vehemently opposed to that. >> senator schumer, i know you have to go, but before you do, i just wanted to ask you quickly to weigh in on what's happens in major league baseball. i mean, sign stealing, as mike barnicle and i say, bobby thompson did in it, the shot heard around the world. around a very long time. you hear about players wearing devices allegedly that buzzed to let them know what pitch is coming in. i mean, there are billions of dollars riding on these games. i'm not asking that you guys step in and legislate a solution, but just as a baseball buy fan what are your thoughts what we've been hearing over the past month? >> this is the erosion -- same kind of erosion of honesty we're seeing, just talking about here. with mcconnell and the trial seems to be sort of eating away at american life. and i am glad that the leading

perpetrators of this are gone from baseball. the teams did a good job, but i can tell you this. if the teams in baseball doesn't thoroughly clean this up and they seem to be on a path to doing it. >> yeah. >> there's going to be cries for external action. no question about it. i hope that doesn't happen. i hope that doesn't happen and i have some faith that baseball will clean up its own act. >> let's have faith. chuck schumer, thank you so much for being on the show this morning >> thank you. >> we greatly appreciate it. hey, kasie hunt, so john heilemann and i texting back and forth about what he's been learning in iowa over the past week. one thing we didn't get a chance to get to today. but i'm sure something that you hear from democratic senators especially. john says that voters in iowa, and this is not surprising at all, they just aren't hyperfocused on impeachment.

maybe some of the hard-core activists are, but that's not being discussed. the candidates aren't really discussing it. it's not being discussed around kitchen tables at all. and that's why they've stayed away from talk of impeachment on the campaign trail for the most part. that's -- isn't that fascinating? there's such a disconnect between what's happening in washington, and i think what legitimately should be happening in washington, but at the same time, how there's this disconnect between this -- this -- this epic battle about the future of a presidency and what people are hearing on the ground in iowa and across the country? >> reporter: yeah. you know, joe, it doesn't really surprise me, to be perfectly honest. i have obviously been here in washington covering this trial but did have a chance on leave to observe more information like a normal american, taking care

of my son in my case. i found my experience consuming news that way reflected what i often heard from voters on the trail in the midterm elections and run-up to the presidential election, which is that they are focused end of the day on what's going on with them and that's why i think the top lines of what's coming out of each side on the impeachment question are really the only thing that has the chance of breaking through with voters. i mean, that's why -- there's a reason chuck schumer every time he gets in front of the television camera is saying witnesses, documents. witnesses, documents. no witnesses, cover-up. no witnesses, cover-up. taking a lesson from the way president trump does politics. an understanding, a lot of voters are relatively low information. busy with they are own lives, have jobs to do. yes, informed. yes, paying attention, but they don't have the space to care about every tweet and every, you know, cable news chyron that's got the president ticked off that day. >> right. >> right. >> that's very, very much

reflected in how these candidates are campaigning out on the trail. >> reporter: i do think it matters a lot in the big picture, and my question is still as these proceedings unfold, are there even 5,000 voters in wisconsin who are open to being swayed by what happens on the senate floor? that i think is "the" most critical question here. do those voters pay enough attention and do, you know, democrats make a case that is compelling enough that there are people who's say, you know what? this is the thing that's really got me saying, enough with this president. i want something different. it's possible those people exist. it's also possible that they don't. >> so let's bring in democrat chris murphy of connecticut. he's a member of the senate foreign relations committee and of course a juror in the impeachment trial. senator, i'll start by asking, what is happening behind the scenes? that you might know of, to help compel senators to want to have testimony, witnesses and

information in this trial put forward? >> well, listen, i don't disagree with kasie and others that this might not be the number one topic for americans out there, but i was back in connecticut this weekend and everybody was talking about it. i was at the airport for a couple hours last night with my 8-year-old. he and i couldn't get a word in edgewise, everybody was coming up, talking to me about this upcoming trial. i think mcconnell has done a pretty good job giving the impression this is a forgone conclusion. so public aligned with president trump, assuming trump will be acquitted in the end because republicans will stick with him come hell or high water. what's happening behind the scening in many ways i think is happening in many states. the one thing voters aren't going to accept a trial that is rigged. even voters who aren't sure they warrant trump removed from office think that the senate has a responsibility to try to find the truth here. so it probably matters more what's happening behind the

scenes out in swing states than what's happening in washington, d.c., because to the extent we do get five six or ten republican votes for witnesses it's goging to be though they think they can explain a vote to acquit trump they can't explain a vote to rig the trial in his favor. voters are more hip to that than a lot of folks think. >> senator murphy, this is willie geist. you heard senator schumer. force votes. have votes on witnesses and votes on documents. end of the day do you suspect we will have witnesses before you in the senate, that there will be, in fact, the bake introduction of house evidence into this senate trial? >> i mean, i think senator schumer has done a very good job of building the case over the last several weeks to put democrats in a position where republicans have to vote with us. my worry, wholly insufficient. remember, the win is not "a" witness or a request for "a"

document. we need all the emails in the white house's possession in this conspiracy. we need more than john bolton and have to set a higher bar than winning one single vote. remember, mcconnell set up the rules so there might only be one vote. if we lose the first one under these you radios. he's rigged the rooms in a way that makes it hard for us to show the american people the scope of this potential cover-up. >> chris, assume somehow we manage to get four votes to hear john bolton. talk a little bit about what's being reported that their strategy will be implemented to even keep his testimony away from the public? have you guys strategized on the other side how you get his testimony out if they try to do some kind of bogus classification and put it behind closed doors? >> yeah. my instinct is that bolton is not going to testify to any set of facts that isn't already in

the public record. he's going to talk about a series of conversations that has been put on the record by all sorts of people who worked for him at the nsc, ambassador taylor, volker and others in the house proceeding. so i am not going to accept an effort by republicans to classify this information just as a means of keeping it from the american public. i have a responsibility to protect truly classified information. but i don't think i have a responsibility to go along with a classification request from republicans that is purely political. so every senator is going to have to come to their own conclusion about what they keep secret and what they don't if this is really all about politicses. let's see. let's not assume the worst were, try to work over the next few days with republicans trying to make sure when bolton testifies it's done in a way everybody can see. >> senator, when you were a younger man at williams college and a younger man in the connecticut legislature thinking of running for the united states senate, which you did

successfully, i assume you had a view of the united states senate that might have been different from your view of the united states senate today. are you disappointed in the senate? >> i'm not just disappointed. i'm really worried for this institution. yeah, i grew up reading the history books about how the united states senate and the house of representatives treated the impeachment of richard nixon, and how in the end they came to the conclusion that what he had done so so fundamentally disruptive of democracy that both parties had to come together and tell him it was time to go. and to me, what president trump has done is much worse than what president nixon engaged in. he has used taxpayer dollars, foreign policy and national security of this country, to try to rig an election. you simply cannot do that. my worry is that if the united states senate both parties doesn't stand up here and declare this is unacceptable it's a green light to future

presidents, democratic and republican, to use taxpayer dollars in order to try to steal future elections. to me the senate was the place that ultimately had the long-term perspective to protect our democracy. if this cover-up goes forward, if mitch mcconnell's rules stay in effect without amendment, we wrap up this trial in a matter of days, i think it does damage to democracy that mike make it much harder for young men and women watching these proceedings today to serve in this democracy 40, 50 years from now. it might not be around. >> hmm. >> senator chris murphy, thank you very much for being on the show today. nbc's kasie hunt, thank you as we. "kasie dc." still ahead joined by another house democrat. house committee chairman jerry nadler joins the conversation. one of the democratic prosecutors who say he is fighting to hold the president accountable. "morning joe" is back in a moment.

( ♪ ) hey there! i'm lonnie from lonnie's lumber. if you need lumber wood, lonnie's is better than good. we got oak, cherry, walnut, and more. and we also have the best selection of plywood (clattering) in the state... hey! (high-pitched laughter) man: dang woodchucks! (wood clattering) stop chuckin' that wood! with geico, the savings keep on going. just like this sequel. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. the good news? our comfort lasts all day. the bad news? so does his energy. depend® fit-flex underwear offers your best comfort and protection guaranteed. because, perfect or not, life's better when you're in it.

be there with depend®. rowithout 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. (sensei) beautiful. but support the leg! when i started cobra kai, the lack of control over my business made me a little intense. but now i practice a different philosophy. quickbooks helps me get paid, manage cash flow, and run payroll. and now i'm back on top... with koala kai. hey! more mercy. (vo) save over 40 hours a month with intuit quickbooks. the easy way to a happier business.

the latest boston globe poll of likely new hampshire democratic primary voters shows senator bernie sanders on top in that state. barely with 16%. he's tied with both former vice president joe biden with 15% and put buttigieg with 12%. all three candidates fall within the 4.4 margin of error. elizabeth warren comes next with 10% followed by andrew yang at 6%. notably, 24% said they are undecided. that could be key. >> it could be key. clare, we look at these numbers and see a couple trend lines. joe biden plus four. elizabeth warren, again, still

going down minus three. you know, everybody has been saying that polls don't matter, but i know as a candidate four times, i realize that the trend lines that weir breaking the last week or two of the campaign were really what ultimately would matter and the outcome of that race, and sure enough, at least for me, it played out all four times i ran here. you've got to like where biden is if you're a biden supporter, and still, more concerns for elizabeth warren and her slide. >> yeah. it's -- you're right. it's the trend. it's the movement that matters as you get closer to the election. are you ticking up or are you ticking down? forget about the fact that everybody is bunched together. there's one stark reality about this poll for elizabeth warren. when this campaign began, everyone said, well, elizabeth warren will be so strong in new hampshire because of massachusetts. i mean, this is massachusetts

territory. and for her to be in fourth is really difficult for her to survive if, in fact, that's how it turns out. >> well, still ahead, the new polling on impeachment including the number of republicans who want to hear from witnesses during the trial. plus the co-authors of the new book that is already making headlines and getting the president's attention. the authors of "a very stable genius" are here to join us. "morning joe" is coming right back. s. "morningoe j" is coming right back ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

don't get mad. get e*trade, dawg. 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 dimitri's on it. eating right and getting those steps in? on it! dimitri thinks he's doing all he can to manage his type 2 diabetes and heart disease, but is his treatment doing enough to lower his heart risk? [sfx: glasses clanking.] 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. apps except work.rywhere... why is that? is it because people love filling out forms? maybe they like checking with their supervisor to see how much vacation time they have. or sending corporate their expense reports. i'll let you in on a little secret. they don't. by empowering employees to manage their own tasks, paycom frees you to focus on the business of business. to learn more, visit paycom.com just between us, you know what's better than mopping? anything! at the end of a long day, it's the last thing i want to do. well i switched to swiffer wet jet and its awesome. it's an all-in-one so it's ready to go when i am. the cleaning solution actually breaks down dirt and grime. and the pad absorbs it deep inside. so, it prevents streaks and haze better than my old mop. plus, it's safe to use on all my floors, even wood. glad i got that off my chest and the day off my floor.

try wet jet with a moneyback guarantee "morning joe." it is tuesday, january 21st st. just hours from now, and only for the third time in american history, the chief justice of the supreme court will gavel in an impeachment trial for the president of the united states before the u.s. senate. while that is happening in washington, donald trump is in davos where his domestic troubles are never more than a tweet away. along with joe, willie and me, we have president of the council on foreign relations, richard haas, former chief of staff at the cia and department of defense, now an nbc national security analyst, jeremy bash is with us. and historian, author of "the

soul of america" john meacham, an nbc and msnbc contributor on this very, very important morning. >> very important morning, mika, and of course, you have the president overseas at a time when most of his staff members, i think just wanted him distracted to get him out of the white house, to get him away from the pressure of washington d.c. but these foreign trips usually have not gone well. this morning, we have him actually just quoting data -- >> well, he's reading a script very carefully. >> reading a script carefully talking about how good the u.s. economy is. and so -- and there are some numbers that are really, really well. we are in the middle of a ten-year right now recovery, and the numbers just keep getting better for our economy. but for president trump and this impeachment, the numbers

actually are staying the same or actually getting worse. we've got this new poll coming out that's out this morning that we're going to talk about that actually shows still the majority of americans think that not only should he be impeached but believe the president of the united states should be removed from office. that's something that did not happen for years with nixon until the very end. >> it's a fas knitticinating tit now. >> i don't think bill clinton ever got into the 30s as far as being impeached and removed from office. >> this morning the impeachment trial essentially begins. just over half of americans say they believe the senate should vote to convict and remove president trump from office. take a look at this. according to the cnnssrs poll, 51% believe trump should be convicted and removed from office by the senate. 45% say he should not.

69% say the senate impeachment trial should include testimony from new witnesses. 26% disagree. that's an important number. >> that's unbelievable. >> broken down by party, those who agree with allowing new witnesses to testify include 86% of democrats, 69% of independants and 48% of republicans. when asked about the charges against president trump, 58% of americans said they believe trump abused the powers of the presidency, and 57% said trump obstructed congress. how does this impact everything from election to the actual impeachment process, joe? >> again, we have a very small audience. those are the republicans who actually might be interested in the facts of this case. might be interested in what they're constituents are thinking in the united states senate, and the senate is going to be so different from the

house. maybe republicans end up and line up blindly behind donald trump like republicans and the house did. politically, for so many of those members of congress, it made sense because they're in gerrymandered districts for donald trump who is sitting enjoying an 80% approval rating. not so in arizona, in colorado in maine in most of these states but willie, the numbers, if you're in one of the swing states -- actually, any state, some of these numbers should send a real message to you if you're a united states senator and you're trying to figure out whether you want there to be a fair and open trial. 51% of americans as we saw in this poll, a majority still think donald trump should be impeached and removed in office. these other numbers, 69%, almost

7 in 10 americans want more witnesses. i mean, mitch mcconnell has lost that argument. lindsey graham has lost that kargt. donald trump most importantly, has lost that argument. these numbers are devastating, and almost six in ten americans believe that he obstructed the investigation and believe that he abused his power. think about that. 6 in 10 americans, almost 6 in 10 americans think the president of the united states abused his powers. so we've talked about this before, willie, where you have people going oh, my god, how does he get away with lying? how does he get away with saying the things he says? why are people so stupid that they believe him when he lies that it was -- they don't believe him. they know he's lying. they demand accountability. the only question now is will

these united states senators on the republican side of the aisle listen? >> yeah. this poll shows, again, that the american people are very smart and they see through the fog machine that's being spewed at them constantly. when you have even 48% of republicans, 48% of republicans and 69% of independents saying we have to have at least day appearance of a fair trial or just have a fair trial, but there's no guarantee, and we'll get into the details of the trail, that we're going to have a fair trial. there will be votes. all the senators you talked about in swing states will have to raise their hand and vote up or hand whether or not they believe they should have new witnesses introduced in the senate, or even whether or not the evidence that was presented in the house should be presented in the senate. so they will have to go down, susan collins and lisa murkowski, cory gardener, will have to vote to say i agree with 69% of the american people, or i disagree with 69% of the american people that there should be an open and fair

trial. so mitch mcconnell has made that difficult. he's going to make them vote on that. but as you say in the cnn poll, at least, a vast majority of americans, not necessarily want him to be removed from officer, though a majority do, but a vast maent want a fair trial, period. >> a vast majority believe he on struk obstructed the investigation into his own impeachment and majority of americans want him impeached and removed from office. john meacham, we're in unchartered waters here. bill clinton, of course, never saw numbers anywhere near this. i don't think he ever got above 29% as far as americans wanting him impeached and removed from office. richard nixon threw out all of 73 and most of 74. never saw numbers this badly. i'm thinking of the republican senators, and they remind me of

the whigs in the mid 1800s where they're so disconnected from the reality of their time. i think of martha mcsally who screamed at a journalist asking a straightforward question. the journalist who has a very good reputation for being down the middle who has been attacked by people on both sides. he asked should there be additional witnesses? and because of that, and because she's in trump's orbit now blindly, and is willfully obedient to donald trump like lindsey graham and so many others, she yelled you're a hack, and yet you look at these polls, 69% of americans believe there should be additional witnesses. what she's saying is 7 out of 10 americans are hacks, because

they want a more complete -- they want a more fair -- they want a more transparent trial. i mean, she and these other republicans don't they seem to be on the wrong side of history and not even wanting a fair trial? >> oh, i think they're so far on the wrong side of history they can't see the line. they're just -- it's -- they're past where the buses run as we say in our native region. unquestionably. the 51% is unsurprising to me, because if you factor in the margin of error, we are where we were on election day 2016. right? just a little bit further. there are more people who are unhappy in those days the prospect of a trump presidency, in these days the reality of it. and yet you have this 47%, 48 % that is like senator mcsally. they're just saluting.

they're marching. they're part of a monarchist party that's become more of a cultive party than a coalition of interests. that part doesn't surprise me. 69% is an interesting number. that goes to a kind of common sense about the country. i think people know that if you're afraid of more testimony, if you don't want more testimony, it's not as though they're trying to keep the calendar clear so they can do something else. right? the senate doesn't do anything anyway. >> right. >> it's clearly ideologically and interest motivated. if you don't want testimony, it's because you don't want to hear what they are going to say. >> if you don't want the testimony, john meacham, there's only one reason you don't want the testimony from the principals, because you don't want americans to hear the

truth. >> it's so obvious. >> yeah. it's not that my gosh, we won't get the infrastructure bill done this week. it's that we know it's not that. so there's the -- there's only one reason, and one other point which i think we shouldn't let we the people off the hook here. we the people have made this possible. compromises, some big, we've come to a point and we're in an era where the perennial american forces of nativism and isolationism and racism, those forces are always with us. they've always been with us. they'll always be with us. the eras we want to be part of are ones where the forces are ebbing and not flowing. and enough of us, we the people, have decided that for a variety of reasons this is an era where we want these to flow. and i think that that's what

those senators are reacting to, because they are mirrors, not makers of who we are. >> still ahead on "morning joe," president trump called american generals dopes. but he was the one who seemed to be reading the constitution for the first time back in 2017. those two nuggets are among the revelations in a new book "a very stable genius" and the co-authors join us next. a lot of healthy foods are very acidic

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. 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] this round's on me.eat. best test drive ever. hey, can you spot me? come on in. find your place today, with silversneakers. included in most medicare advantage plans. enroll today by calling the number on your screen or visit getsilversneakers.com

another thing on the president's mind is the new book from our next guests, washington post reporters carol leonnig and phillip rucker. it's titled "a very stable genius". there's the story behind president trump's recitation of article ii of the united states constitution for hbo's 2017

documentary "the words that built america". >> the executive power shall be vested in a president of the united states of america. he shall during his office during the term of four years and together with the vice president, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows. each state shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the congress, but no senator or representative or person holding an office of trust or profit under the united states shall be appointed an elector. >> so the book goes behind the scenes on the day the documentary was filmed to reveal president trump's frustration in reading that section of the constitution. according to one excerpt of the book, quote, the president stumbled trying to get out the words in the ar cane stilted

form the founding fathers had written. trump said it's hard to do because of the language here. it's hard to get through that whole thing without a stumble. it's like a different language. right? the camera man told him it was no big deal. take a moment and start over. president trump tried again, but again remarked, it's like a foreign language. and the authors joined us now. white house bureau chief at "the washington post" and political analyst for msnbc and nbc news, phillip rucker, and national investigative reporter, carol leonnig. and with us for the conversation, the great mike barnicle. good morning. god t good to see you. the president has paid his ultimate compliment, calling you both stone cold losers. that means he's reading the book or hearing about it and is concerned about what's inside the book. let's start right there with that moment that you read about in the book where the president

had to sit and read a small portion of the constitution and was clearly frustrated by it. >> yeah. the constitution written so long ago, it's difficult language to read for the first time, but it was clear to the people in the room trump was not familiar with this founding document. he stumbled over the words. he performed in a very different manner than the other previous presidents who did this interview. mike pence read portions of the constitution and was fine. ted cruz had memorized the constitution as a high school debater. he performed it just fine, but it was really alarming to the people in the blue room of the white house that day, because this was a president six weeks into the job who seemed unfamiliar with the document he swore an oath to. >> carol, that brings us to the larger question of the book which is the people around him and the reaction of the people around him to the way he speaks, to the way he performs and akct. what did the people in the room, what do his advisers think in that moment? >> that's an important question. there is a theme in a fumbling

disastrous encounter that donald trump has with the constitution. that is kind of an abusive management style that we learned from more than interviews with more than 200 sources for this book. phil and i met with a lot of people who finally broke their silence. one thing they said over and over again in this room that happened that happened in other scenes was blaming. when the president doesn't do it exactly right or he makes a decision that makes him look bad, he's often jumping to blame someone else. in this room, he blamed a ton of other people on the crew for fumbling papers. he said you're making it impossible for me to read. these noises are distracting and irritating. i'm not quoting him exactly, but they felt that was sort of childish, and that comes out in a couple other seens in tcenes book as well. >> it's not just that he can't read the constitution of the united states. the important part of this story, obviously, is he's

unfamiliar with it, and how fascinating that a president has trouble reading a part of the constitution that he constantly twists out of its proper context. when he says article ii gives the president unlimited power. article ii allows me to do whatever i want to do. steven miller going on the sunday shows saying the president's power is unlimited. the president's power should not be questioned. this is not just a gotcha moment about a guy having trouble reading the teleprompter. this is so revealing about how ignorant this man has always been about the constitution as well as history and constitutional norms. >> yeah. joe, that's a good point, and it picks a theme of the book which is trump came into office as president unfamiliar with key aspects of the american story. we learned in our reporting with these top administration officials that when he made his

first visit to pearl harbor to hawaii during his trip to asia in 2017 he had to ask john kelly, his white house chief of staff what happened on pearl harbor. they're on a boat to tour, and he didn't understand the full story of that battle, that attack on pearl harbor that led the u.s. into war. he's meeting with the indian prime minister in another and said it's not like you've got china on our border. well, the border between india and china is enormous. he wasn't familiar with that key aspect of world geography. >> carol and phil, stay with us. we want to talk more about this and the people within the administration who did and did not stand up to the president. we'll be right back with much more "morning joe." (whistling)

(whistling) 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. ♪the beat goes onp for heart failure look like? it looks like emily cooking dinner for ten. ♪the beat goes on it looks like jonathan on a date with his wife. ♪la-di-la-di-di entresto is a heart failure medicine that helps your heart, so you can keep on doing what you love. entresto helped people stay alive and out of the hospital. heart failure can change the structure of your heart, so it may not work as well. entresto helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby.

don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ♪the beat goes on ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure yeah! entrust your heart to entresto. ♪the beat goes on

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. squlncht welcome back to "morning joe." we're back with the co-authors of "a very stable genius".

mike barnicle has a question. >> carol, parts of this book, and we've seen in here this morning, are kind of funny if you view them in one sense, but they're not nearly as funny as they were two or three years ago when he first took office. and in the course of the book, quite early in the book, you get to various elements of the intelligence community and the defense community who speak to you, understandably, off the record, and they are concerned about the danger this president presents. so as you got going in the book, putting the book together, did you two, did the two of you become more concerned about what you were hearing from these people? >> mike, that's a great question. phil and i are journalists. that's what we're trained for. we bring information, and we give it to the public. we give it to the washington post readers and now to viewers of your great show, but we are not making that decision and that calculation about danger

and risk. i can tell you what we heard over and over and over again from the people who served the president at his shoulder for months and years which is they find him and his rash, undisciplined decision making worrysome and risky for the country. he hit a note with national security officials. it's in their dna not to talk to reporters but they finally spoke to us, to phil and me because it was so upsetting to them. they couldn't keep this down. >> were they reluctant at first when you sought them out? >> mike, it was really hard to get interviews with some of the people. these are sources we had tried throughout our day today coverage of the white house and this presidency to talk to to get information from. they were not being to engage with us on a day today basis, but through persistence and knocking on doors and emails and going to people's houses, we were able to get some of them to

open up. the reason they were motivated to do is because they saw this as a way to tell the full story. this is a history of these three extraordinary years. they broke their silence to try to get some of the truth out there. >> i want to get john in in a second. i want to ask you about the guardrails argument. we've heard about it. donald trump may be dangerous. he may not know what pearl harbor is, for god's sake, but rex tillerson is there, john kelly. these are people who have been there and are to be taken seriously. did they view themselves as guardrails? is that why so many of them hung in for so long? >> we've spoke to people at very different levels. i mean, from the low to the middle to the very, very senior with the president, and they said over and over again to us, that is their biggest worry. the guardrails are down. some of them don't have the rep or portfolio to counter the

president. some of them are senior and are afraid of the blowback they get from him when they caution and counsel him. the real trajectory of this presidency is one that's escalating toward a presidency of one. it's only one guy making the decisions, barking them out, and the people who increasingly surround him view their mission as telling him yes, and that's not what mattis and kelly and tillerson were doing. that's increasingly what he has now. >> and john meacham? >> my book for which i paid retail arrives later today, so i don't have the answer from a personal read, but to go to carol's point about your journalistic role, anything reder redemptive here? anything he gets right that this -- is there anything where the instability creates results that are congenial and positive? >> you know, john, there are all sorts of instances in the books where the instability doesn't

result in the calamity, necessarily that his advisers feared. there are ways to clean up the messes sometimes. there are moments of luck where things just worked out. i mean, lucky, for example, that there's not been a major terrorist attack on the united states or we've not come under threat the way this country has in some previous presidencies. talking to these sources for the book, a couple of redemptive qualities about trump come through. one is about staying in touch with his conservative political base. it's why he's a potent threat for reelection in 2020 despite his unpopularity in poll and despite what a lot of americans view as a chaotic, dysfunctional administration, but the people working for him told us they are alarmed by what has been happening. >> jeremy bash has one for you guys. jeremy? >> with respect to the matters at issue in impeachment, the call to zelensky and those activities, would you say that was ignorance, kind of not

knowing the way the game is played or was it deliberate? was it malfeasance and wrongful? >> it's a great question. we view the reporting we've done for this book as almost foreshadowing this moment. increasingly the president is feeling enabled. we can't be inside his mind and know every motivation, but the people around him tell us increasingly he's frustrated, angry and wants it his way. and you can see that literally the day after robert mueller testifies in a way that is not very powerful about sort of the ending coda of the special council investigation. the next day the president picks up the phone and says to the president of ukraine, could you do me a favor? it feels like all the reporting up until this moment for the book shows you a president who always puts himself first. the perpetuation of his power. the buffing of his image, and that call is really about the

perpetuation of another term for donald trump. >> so carol and phillip, i'm just wondering since you spoke to so many people when you think of tillis, mcmaster, coats, and some of the men who have left this administration, men and women, these are top tier advisers, cabinet members who definitely were committed to the constitution, were committed to serving this country. and had a certain ability to stand up to president trump, to stand up for the right values. is there anyone like that left? who at the top tier is left? >> you know, mika, it's interesting. not all the people you mentioned really did stand up to trump all the time. we have this scene inside the pentagon -- >> i know that. >> it was really only tillerson that stood up to him there. at this moment in the administration, i don't think we

can point to anybody who is really confronting trump. there are some people trying to give him some advice and steer him in a certain direction, but they're also trying to get to yes. they're trying to execute what he wants done. they're following his orders. they're playing to his grievances, conspiracies and ideas. and that's why these administration officials tell us trump has gotten into such a mess right now with the ukraine situation, because mulvaney allowed that aid to be withheld, for example. >> i guess some of them, you're right, didn't stand up but stood up to him by leaving which leaves such a vacuum now. the new book is "a very stable geni genius". phillip rucker, carol leonnig, thank you so much. congratulations on this book. a lot of work. >> thank you. >> coming up, one of the prosecutors leading the impeachment case against president trump, the chairman of the house judiciary committee, congressman jerry nadler joins us live next on "morning joe." retirement income is complicated.

as your broker, i've solved it. that's great, carl. but we need something better. that's easily adjustable has no penalties or advisory fee. and we can monitor to see that we're on track. like schwab intelligent income. schwab! introducing schwab intelligent income. a simple, modern way to pay yourself from your portfolio. oh, that's cool... i mean, we don't have that. schwab. a modern approach to wealth management.

the ups and downs of frequent mood swings can plummet you to extreme lows. (crying) lift you to intense highs. (muffled arguing) or, make you feel both at once. overwhelmed by bipolar i symptoms? ask about vraylar. some medications only treat the lows or the highs. vraylar effectively treats depression, acute manic and mixed episodes of bipolar i. full-spectrum relief of all symptoms. with just one pill, once a day. elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis have an increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about unusual changes in behavior or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. report fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, which may mean a life-threatening reaction, or uncontrollable muscle movements, may be permanent. side effects may not appear for several weeks. metabolic changes may occur. movement dysfunction, restlessness, sleepiness, stomach issues are common side effects. when bipolar i overwhelms, vraylar helps smooth the ups and downs.

a simple, modern way to pay yourself from your portfolio. tell us how much you have, and how long you need it to last. we'll estimate how much you could spend. then you can decide how you'll spend it. schwab manages the complexity with automated, tax-smart withdrawals. that you can start, stop or adjust at any time with no penalties. and you pay no advisory fee. schwab intelligent income. schwab. a modern approach to wealth management.

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.

this 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. >> so corrupting the office of the president, is that in your criminal lights or criminal like behavior? >> it's not. and that was rejected. that was rejected -- >> so you were wrong. you're saying you were wrong back then? >> i was saying i'm much more correct right now having done -- >> much more correct? what does that mean? >> let me explain. please don't shut me off. two against one. let me make my point. i did not -- listen. maybe you'll understand if you listen. i didn't do research back then. i relied on what -- >> so you were wrong. >> please let me finish, because that issue was not presented in the clinton impeachment. everybody knew that he was charged with a crime.

>> alan dershowitz during the clinton proceedings in 1998 says it's, quote, certainly doesn't have to be a crime to be impeachable. and then now that he's one of president trump's impeachment attorneys trying to explain away those inconsistencies. he's more right now, he says. joining us now, the chairman of the house judiciary committee, democratic congressman jerry nadler of new york. he serves as one of the impeachment prosecutors. also with us, msnbc chief legal correspondent and host of "the beat" on msnbc, ari melber, clare mccaskill and mike barnicle are with us as well as joe, willie and me. >> congressman nadler, alan dershowitz laying it out very clearly in '99 to be impeached you don't have to commit a crime, and you just -- maybe it just comes down to an abuse of power, and -- well, the latest

poll shows 6 in 10 of americans believe that donald trump abused his power. shouldn't that be enough to move toward impeachment on the senate side, conviction on the senate side? >> well, it certainly should be enough. abuse of power is the worst crime. when the constitution was written, there were no crimes because they had not passed any crimes. congress didn't exist. bribery, for instance, was not made a federal crime until 1837. the fact of the matter is every constitutional scholar, everyone knows if you read the federalist papers. if you read the debates of the constitution convention, they were talking about abuse of power as the worst conceivable crime a president could commit to betray the country by using the power of the office of president for other than the national reasons, for betrayal or personal reasons, or to betray the country to a foreign power, that was the worst thing the framers could imagine. and that's what's involved here.

the president sought to get a foreign power, ukraine involved in our elections. now, when i saw professor dershowitz's comment that you have to have a violation of the criminal code to be in abuse of power, to be constitutionally suspect, to be constitutionally impeachable, i thought he was merely ignorant. now that i see his 1999 quote, i know he's lying. >> chairman nadler, you're sided in president trump's senate trial brief which outlines the president's defense arguments. on page three the brief says contrary to house democrats' claims asserting legal rights and constitutional privileges of the executive branch is not obstruction. in 1998 now chairman gerald nadler agreed that a president can dmot be impeached for asserting a legal privilege. the use of a legal privilege is not illegal or impeachable by

it, a legal privilege, executive privilege. how do you respond to that? >> he's talking apples and oranges. there are legal privileges. the supreme court ruled in the nixon case such a thing as executive privilege exists, but the supreme court also ruled in the same ruling that when accused of a crime, the privilege must give away. it doesn't exist. but beyond that, the article 2 of the -- we have voted of the impeachment is not that he asserted privileges. it's that he completely stone walled congress and denied all congressional requests for information. he said he gave a directive and said to every department no one may testify to congress. 12 people defied his orders and testified before the intelligence committee, but the fact is that is obstruction of

congress. and every president nixon's impeachment one of the articles was obstruction. one of the articles was abuse of power. in fact, every president who has ever been impeached, the accusation was abuse of power. and here, i mean, that's just a nonsense position they're taking. >> mr. chairman, it's willie geist. good to see you this morning. i think you and we all knew coming in under mitch mcconnell's rules of the trial there would be a vote to see if there's new witnesses allowed in the senate trial. what was more surprising when the rules were presented yesterday, was mitch mcconnell wants a question on introducing the testimony and documents that already existed in the house and bringing them into the senate trial so you may not even have that evidence before you in the senate. what's your reaction to that? >> my reaction is it's more of the same. and the same is that mitch mcconnell and apparently most of the republicans or many of them, want to subvert the constitution

and to betray the american people by saying you can't have a fair trial or any trial, really, when the house has impeached the president. anybody knows, any intelligent person knows that if someone is accused of a crime, whether it's robbing a bank or subverting the constitution, you bring in all relevant witnesses. you bring in all the witnesses in prosecution, in defense, and for the agents of the defendant in this case mcconnell and company, to see we won't permit witnesses is to say we won't have a fair trial and we are betraying the constitution. >> but it's not just we won't bring in new witnesses. it's we won't bring in the evidence we already saw in the house into the senate trial. we won't let the old evidence in. forget the new evidence. >> right. that's part of the white house's new attack on the validity on the material it found. thank you for joining us on a

busy day for you. appreciate it. so two followup points here on what you're saying because the news breaking overnight is the mcconnell rules. as discussed, two of the controversial changes is not necessarily automatically including the material from the house and really raising the bar for even having the senate deliberate and decide on whether to add witnesses. my question on the rule changes is number one, is there any actual formal result or consequence of not having that material, unquote, in the record, or does it not materially change the debate you're about to have, and number two, how do you view the attempt to make it hard tore brier to b witnesses. depending on how you read the rules may or may not allow for individuals to call for individual witness votes. your view? >> this is just more of -- more

ways in which senator mcconnell is trying to prevent the american people from seeing the travesty that he wants to perpetrate. they don't want to allow any evidence in front of the american people. whether the evidence was already offered in the house or is newer evidence is not the point. they want to stop all evidence from being seen by the american people, from being seen on television, from being presented, because they're covering up for the president. they're not prevending to have a -- pretending to have a trial as the constitution demands. they're just covering up for the president, period. it's more of the same and it's shameless. >> congressman jerry nadler, thank you very much for being on the show this morning. >> mitch mcconnell himself knows that it's shameless, and knows that he's not going to be able to get away with this. i mean, the trending hash tag is

midnightmoscowmitch. more important are the polls that show 7 in 10 americans want more witnesses. they want a fair trial, and i just don't see how mitch mcconnell who, by the way, is going to be in a reelection battle himself this year, i don't know how he holds cory gardener, mcsally, thom tillis, how he holds susan collins if they actually know what it takes to have a shot at getting reelected in their states. >> yeah. i mean, joe, the most open minded thing one could say is the clinton precedent is not the substitution. it's not an endless rule that has to be done that way. if you want to keep a really open mind. the problem for mitch mcconnell is he didn't say that. he spent weeks as you and your viewers know, claiming that he was going to do the clinton precedent so everyone could calm down and roll with that. as a factual legal matter,

that's not what the rules state. as discussed with the chairman, they make changes. some that are about calendar scheduling. some that are about substance. in particular, what i was discussing with the chairman and what i think you're alluding to, page three of these rules which we're all just digesting would appear to make it harder for individual senators to have a transparent vote on each individual witness. that's very important for the american public to see which witnesses are there going to be up or down votes on. so people can know what's happening and be held accountable for it. if you want to argue that there's no need for any witnesses, fine, why would you have to hide that? why do you have to pretend you're not doing that? what we're seeing as the trial unfolds is mitch mcconnell has tried to draw in the partisan fireworks immediately. he's tried to make the debate that was going to come over witnesses and other issues that might have been fiery in a few days. he's brought it all the way up to kick off the trial because it's sandwiched into a very, i

would say, clever and his critics would say devious resolution. >> mitch mcconnell has built this trial for speed. he wants the process over. we know the white house wants it over. we know they worked together on the rules. that shouldn't be a surprise. you know all the players in the senate. you know some of those moderate republicans who are going to have to make a tough vote, perhaps. do you think at the end of the day we will see witnesses in this trial? we will see the evidence from the house in this trial? >> well, we know we have at least two and probably three votes for bolton to testify. now, martha mcsally, i think there's a poll today or maybe yesterday, i don't remember when it came out. she's now down five or six to her democratic challenger in arizona. she's feeling the heat. i think joni ernst is feeling the heat. thom tillis should be feeling the heat. and then you've got some senators like lamar alexander,

an he's not running again. trump can't do anything to him. watch him for potentially breaking on the eventual vote after the arguments to get bolton in the door, but mitch mcconnell will win this vote today because he wouldn't put it on the floor if he wasn't confident he had 51. i think susan collins will break today, but she'll be the only one. >> and after that, more may break. >> i'm predicting that. >> you have a lot to do on that binder. special coverage starting at 9:00. >> a lot of rules and new rules. >> good to see you. >> we'll be watching you guys in a few minutes. >> a new interview out this morning where hillary clinton has fiery words for her former 2016 democratic opponent bernie sanders saying, quote, nobody likes him. she sat down to talk about her new hulu documentary series set to premier at the sun dance film

festival. the hollywood reporter noted in the documentary clinton says that sanders, quote, was in congress for years. he had one senator support him. nobody likes hip. nobody wants to work with him. he got nothing done. he was a career he got nothings a career politician. it is all just baloney and i feel so bad that people got sucked into it. she was asked if that assessment still holds, said yes, it does. when asked if she would endorse bernie sanders, she replied i'm not going to go there yet. we're in a big primary season. i will say, however, it is not only him, it is culture around him, his leadership team, prominent supporters, his online bernie bros and relentless attacks on competitors, particularly the women. i really hope people are paying attention to that. it should be worry some he permitted this culture, not only permitted, he seems to be very much supporting it. secretary clinton weighed in on

the ongoing debate over whether sanders did or did not say a woman could not be elected president, saying it is part of a pattern. if it were part of a one off, you might say okay fine. but he was unqualified. i had a lot more experience but that was his attack on me. that's secretary hillary clinton talking to hollywood reporter. should we be surprised that she's coming out, saying these things at the time she's saying them? >> well, the documentary is out. and she said it in the documentary. so certainly i don't think she's going to waiver from that. and you know, it is how she feels. she's being honest about her feelings and how she sees bernie's candidacy. you know, it will be interesting to see if it has impact on potential iowa caucus goers. i kind of think it won't. i think the bernie support is baked in, and i think the other candidates are more fluid, but i

think the bernie number is really close to what it is going to end up being. >> claire, let's talk about some of secretary clinton's claims about bernie sanders. is it true he didn't have friends in the senate, got few things done in the senate, isolated -- >> how about those cheeks? >> is that -- i think voters have a right to know. was bernie disliked in the senate, did he have friends in the senate? >> bernie was not someone who socialized much. wasn't a back slapper. seemingly more superiority, was not someone who gathered folks

into his circle. that's not to say he wasn't philosophically consistent. i heard many lectures by bernie sanders and the democratic caucus to all of us, but they were kind of lectures, and i don't know how he would be as an executive in terms of working well with members of congress or people that have equal power. he is absolute in his ideas and he actually doesn't see compromise as an attribute, which i think the constitution kind of embraces. >> did you see this in the course of your relationship with bernie sanders in the senate, and personally, in that i sort of followed bernie since he was mayor of burlington, vermont, he has been consistent on every issue for 30, 35, 40 years. consistency is a valued commodity sometimes in politics. but seemingly as he is isolated himself across the years with his consistency, his belief that

he alone has the few on specific issues, his anger seems to have grown. have you noticed that at all? >> well, bernie's personality is not warm and fuzzy. he's just not a warm and fuzzy guy. doesn't meanest a bad guy, but not a warm and fuzzy guy. >> he is an angry guy. >> he can get angry. i have seen him also have -- be able to laugh at himself every once in a while, so but he does have an edge because he is so committed to his view. >> he reminds me, mika, an awful lot of ron paul who in the house of representatives didn't have a ton of friends but he believed passionately about what he believed passionately in, and that was his life. bernie, i worked with bernie in the house. i liked bernie.

he wasn't a guy that was cleejal, didn't slap people in the back. but i liked him very much personally. you just knew, bernie. hi, joe. bernie was off. he was very focused though on his mission, the bigger mission. i think a lot of voters may actually like that. he wasn't going around slapping backs, he was fighting for what he believed in. >> incredible following. earlier we heard from the top democrat minority leader chuck schumer. >> the only power congress has to a president that dramatically overreaches is impeachment. if the impeachment trial becomes a farce as mcconnell is trying to make it, then i worry about what this president will do in the next ten months and what future presidents will do. it erodes our democracy. >> in a short time from now,

we'll hear from mitch mcconnell himself as he takes to the senate floor ahead of today's looming impeachment trial. it marks a history making moment for the nation as a group of 100 lawmakers begin to decide the president's political fate and what conduct the american people should come to expect from the public officials elected to represent them. that does it for us this morning. msnbc's special coverage of the impeachment trial of donald trump begins in three minutes. t trump begins in three minutes. ♪ when we see you enter through our doors. we don't see who you're against, or for. whether tomorrow will be light or dark. all we see in you, is a spark. we see your kindness and humanity. the strength of each community.

the more we look the more we find the sparks that make america shine. ♪ 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. ♪

if that was the last time ti was going to do that thing. coming to cancer treatment centers of america, they treat the whole person. everything is here. imaging, infusion. i don't have to go anywhere else. 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. the good news? our comfort lasts all day. the bad news? so does his energy. depend® fit-flex underwear offers your best comfort and protection guaranteed. because, perfect or not, life's better when you're in it. be there with depend®. little things can be a big deal. psoriasis,

that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. 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. otezla. show more of you. this round's on me.eat. hey, can you spot me? come on in.

find your place today, with silversneakers. included in most medicare advantage plans. enroll today by calling the number on your screen or visit getsilversneakers.com donald trump on trial. charged with abuse of power, objection of congress. >> this is a big hoax. >> will remain a threat to national security and the constitution if allowed to remain in office. >> today, impeachment trial of donald trump. a stress test for our democracy. good morning, i am chuck