welcome back to msnbc live on this saturday morning. i'm geoff bennett. >> and i'm yasmin. it is january 245th, 2020. today, the stage is set for the president's defense to begin its arguments. this after democrats presented their case over three days. the morning papers capturing that drama. and "the new york times," quote, branding trump a danger democrats cap the case for his removal. >> "the washington post" echoing that with democrats focused on trump's care as they argue for the president's removal. and then there is the "usa today." that edition of the paper this morning, looking at the day ahead. president trump's defense

lawyers promising a compelling case in the impeachment trial. >> here is how democrats concluded their arguments against the president. take a listen. >> by july of 2019, white house officials were aware of serious allegations of misconduct by president trump. >> the white house itself released -- refused to produce a single document or record. >> the president of the united states issued an official order forbidding every single person who works for the executive branch of our government from giving testimony to the house. >> in word and indeed, president trump has declared himself above the law. he has done so because he is guilty, and wishes to conceal as much of the evidence from the american people and from this body as he can. >> no documents, zero, goose egg, nada, in response to over 70 requests. 70 requests and five subpoenas.

>> to believe that someone who blow the whistle on misconduct of the serious nature that you now know took place is a traitor or spy, there is only one way you can come to that conclusion. and, that is, if you believe you are the state. that is exactly how the president views those who expose his wrongdoing because he is the state. like any good monarch, he is the state. all right. let's bring in our panel at the white house. we have white house correspondent and colleague kelly o'donnell here in washington, d.c. glenn kershner, former federal prosecutor here in washington, d.c. daniel lippman. amy stoddard and joyce vance there in alabama. morning to you all. >> let's start with you on this one. before we look ahead because we have three major days ahead

obviously as the president begins his defense and his team begins his defense. these three hours leading up to it. kind of the preamble. it seems as if they want to reserve the majority of their defense for monday and tuesday so they have more eyes on their defense. give me your take because this is the first time yyou're joini today on what you heard overnight from the democrats. >> i think the democratic closing argument, they were trying to basically guilt republican senators. saying we need to hear more evidence and if you are asking for what's new here, we're getting new stuff every day. why -- you know, you would go down in history as being just a defender of trump, if you vote against witnesses. you're seeing some softening among some of those moderate senators who we expected maybe to vote for witnesses. maybe they're getting pressure from the republican colleagues who say that would just prolong a trial and make it more difficult for republicans to hold the senate in november if

they have a prolonged trial. >> a.b., doing the math here, in order for democrats to turn their coalition of 47 into 51, they have to pick up, let's say, mitt romney, susan collins, lisa murkowski, and potentially lamar alexander. i am told by people close to senator alexander that if democrats are counting on him to be the guy who breaks with republicans and gives democrats the victory, they should think again. and lisa murkowski seems to be sort of scared off this notion of witnesses based on the threat of executive privilege that the white house might invoke. so that, to me, suggests that there are only two. there are only, potentially, two republicans. and that this trial is on track to end next week without a witness ever crossing the threshold of the senate floor. >> i think that's what we can expect. i think there are not going to be four. and i think you have heard people say no one wants to be the 51st. i think they would rally seven of them. i think it's an amazing thing that lamar alexander is always

fingered as this retiring, facing the pages of history institutionalist. mike and pat roberts are retiring and no one is ever talking about that. and what you would see is if the ones who are facing re-election, if cory gardner had to be for witnesses, if ernst had to be for witnesses, you would see mitch mcconnell, as he's done in the past on votes of government shutdown, et cetera, bring in reinforcements and it would be a far bigger vote. so i think the money's good. it is going to be no witnesses and there are not going to be four votes. but it wouldn't be four. i think bit would be seven or eight. >> my capitol hill colleague joins us now. frank, give us a sense if witnesses were introduced into these proceedings you had the senator from oklahoma say this would be a two-week process that could become a five-month process. what's he talking about here? >> so the idea that some of

these -- some of these questions about executive privilege might have to go through the court. so the idea that if they were to call witnesses, if president trump were to block any of these witnesses, say mick mulvaney or john bolton, that those questions of executive privilege wouldn't necessarily be answered right away. this would actually prolong the trial by weeks, months. and as you said, you have a lot of moderate republicans who are -- are worried about that. are worried about the idea that that could actually extend this past how -- how long they want to do that. we've already known that mitch mcconnell, the majority leader, has already wanted this to be a short trial. so prolonging the trial, possibly doubling it or tripling the amount of time that they end up using on this, is not necessarily something that republicans want. i just want to say one thing. you know, you were mentioning the idea of what, you know, moderate republicans were thinking yesterday. there is a little bit of a tightrope that democrats have to run when it comes to whether or not they are going to be able to convince them to come to the democratic side and actually vote for these witnesses. and we saw a moment last night where at the -- at the closing

arguments where lead manager adam schiff, he brought up a record that had mentioned the idea of -- of a possible, you know, kind of threat that the president might retaliate if they were to vote against him in this trial. take a listen to this. >> i don't know if that's true. vote against the president and your head will be on a pike. i have to say when i read that, and again, i don't know if that's true, but when i read that, i was struck by the irony. by the irony. i hope it's not true. >> so you hear him say there, i hope it's not true. and -- and what he's actually reacting to there is republican senators, including susan collins, saying, loudly -- we had our colleague haley talbot in the gallery there listening and they could hear susan collins saying that's not true. that's not true. that they haven't heard these

threats. after -- after schiff said that, republicans came out of the chamber and they were upset. they -- they came out and said i've never heard those kind of threats. i've never heard anything like that before. and so now, granted, this is probably a little bit of a sentiment that everybody is kind of heard before. that the president has a te tendency to retaliate against his opponents. but at the same time, it kind of reflects a little bit of the rhetoric that needs to be used and these trials need to be one in which senators can listen and feel like they're not being attacked. which is hard for these two sides, who have been coming out with forceful arguments over the last two months. >> so, frank, do you get the sense that schiff's argument was visibly hurt because he brought up that cbs news reporting? or do you feel as if what chuck schumer said that this is really just a diversion tactic from the republicans, do you feel like that's more of the sentiment? >> well, i mean, i think that -- i mean, there is an argument to be made that if -- if

republicans are frustrated with this kind of -- mentioning this kind of argument on the floor now when this -- these kind of arguments have been made over the last couple months, that -- i mean, this is nothing new. these arguments are nothing new. but at the same time, i think that -- i mean, they need susan collins. they need lisa murkowski. they need these moderates on board and need to be able to not have them be able to come out and say, listen, i was insulted or i was frustrated or offended by some of the rhetoric on the floor. what we are going to see from the white house counsel here is going to be a totally different phase here. they said they're going to bring up the bidens. they're going to bring up the idea of fisa reform. the steele dossier. we'll see if that rhetoric might be offensive to some of these moderate republicans as well. so again, it is a tightrope they need to kind of walk here.

and democrats are hoping they can get through, at least this phase and possibly the q and a phase where they can get at least -- obviously four -- of these republicans on board so that they can get witnesses. >> hey, frank, before we let you go, i just want you to weigh in on this. you had said that a drawn-out process with regards to these witnesses if it goes into the three or four-month length because it goes into the court system, that would not necessarily be what republicans want. do you think that this is something, from what you're hearing, that the democrats would want? they would want more drawn out senate trial considering the fact it could end up in the court system if the president claims executive privilege here with regard to these witnesses? >> well, i mean, democrats want witnesses. so i mean, i -- if -- if that is the means to the end, then they'll go through that process. i mean, it obviously gets a little bit complicated with some of those democratic senators who are running in 2020. but, you know, if this is locked up in the courts, they wouldn't necessarily be sitting in their seats like we've seen over the last three days. i think if democrats were to make -- see -- see a situation

in which, you know, an extended, months-long process in the courts would mean that they could possibly hear from witnesses as a part of this impeachment trial, i think that's the deal that they would take. >> yeah. frank thorp, great to see you. see you back on the hill in a little bit. you know, for the panel here, frank touched on something i thought was interesting. in that the democrats had three audiences, right? the people watching at home, american public. the senators in the room and then the four senators they hope to flip. the president's defense team also has three audiences. american public, senators, and the audience of one in the white house. so how do you think jay sekulow manages all of that? a.b. >> well, that's really the wildcard for mitch mcconnell. the republican senators up for re-election. today is probably just going to be pretty straightforward. but as you get into monday and the president's on the phone with his law -- with his defense team complaining about he wants

more attacks on adam schiff or whatever it is, it just becomes more problematic. it becomes the stuff of commercials for the democrats. and it becomes more problematic for mitch mcconnell, the majority leader, whose goal, that president trump doesn't realize this, is to remain majority leader even if it's under president biden or a president warren. and not to be minority leader under a re-elected president trump. and so this is something that mitch mcconnell is balancing that the president is not focused on. but he is going to have a huge impact on those presentations and we just don't know where it's going to take us. >> joyce, let's bring you into the conversation. and i want to pivot here to what we could feasibly expect to hear from the president's defense team in these three hours from 10 to 1:00 as we are going to hear from them for the first time today beginning their defense arguments. what are you expecting overall? >> i don't think that we'll hear a factual defense. this isn't a president who will be able to bring forward evidence that says that he didn't do it. that he didn't commit the acts

he's charged with in the articles of impeachment. the reason we can be pretty confident about that is that if he had that sort of evidence or that sort of a defense available, he would have put that forward a long time ago and avoided the entire spectacle of impeachment. so i think that we can expect to see a lot of distraction, a lot of smoke and mirrors, what lawyers call red herrings, right? the president had to do what he did because of hunter biden has certainly been a theme. i'm afraid what we won't hear is anything of real substance. you know, impeachment trials seem to exist at the intersection of politics and justice. and it looks, unfortunately, like politics is going to win out over justice here. that we won't hear witnesses. that we won't have the sort of wholesome explanation of the truth that the american people deserve. >> i'm told sadam chef with business insider is there.

are you there? thanks for being with us. so what are you looking for as these oral arguments kick off in the next 2 1/2 hours or so? as jay sekulow gives us the coming attractions, he says, for monday's big event. >> you know, it's interesting. we talk about this and keep saying the president's lawyers are going to mount a defense. but it's not a defense. it's basically going to be a master class in disinformation. they're going to be prosecuting what they think should be the case against joe biden. they're going to be accusing democrats and adam schiff of running a sham impeachment process. they are going to say that, oh, even president obama withheld foreign aid from ukraine and many other countries. and democrats are just on a witch hunt against president trump. there is a common saying that if you have the facts on your side, you pound the facts. if you have the law on your side, you pound the law. and if you have neither, you pound the table. and there is going to be a lot of table pounding from trump's lawyers today. >> glenn, i saw you shaking your head there.

especially, when sonam said it seems as if they are going to launch their defense and she said this is going to be a master class in disinformation, which i thought was an interesting way to explain what we are going to be hearing from republicans overall in their defense here. give me your take. >> when the evidence is weak, the defense attorneys will go after that evidence because that's -- that's a winning tactic for them. when the evidence is really strong, then what i know we're going to see is they're not going to go after the evidence. they're going to go after the prosecution. they're going to go after the democrats. they're going to go after the process as a whole. you would think the prosecutors are really happy when our cases are strong. we are. we want to do justice. we want to vindicate the rights of the victim. and we want to protect the community. but what we also know when our case is really strong is that we are going to get attacked by the defense. because the defense has to do something for the juries. and what they do is they say, sure, the evidence is strong. you know why the evidence is strong? because the police and the fbi

and the dea and the atf and the prosecutors all orchestrated this case against my client and he's wrong -- wrongly accused. that's what we're going to see. we're going to see an attack on the dems. >> joining us now is impeachment juror and 2020 presidential candidate, senator amy klobuchar. democrat from the great state of minnesota. senator, good morning. always great to see you. >> thank you. it's great to be on. >> so let's start where we left off last night. what -- what's your takeaway from the prosecution that was laid out by the house managers over these last three days? >> it was incredibly strong. they were able to show, bit by bit, how this president had put his own private interest in front of our country's interest. a big appeal on security grounds that we have over 60,000 troops in europe, thousands of ukrainians have died fighting for their independence and democracy against russia.

and i just kept looking over at my republican colleagues thinking you have talked so much about being against russian expansionism and how can you let this just go? when you know the facts are there. and then also, a lot on the coverup. how he had gone after the whistle-blower. how he had tried to get rid of ambassador yovanovitch with new, new information coming out just last night. about things the president had said about getting rid of her. and so you look at all of it together, i am a former prosecutor, and you say how can you not want to hear from the people that were in the room where it happened? how can you not want to hear from the witnesses and see the evidence? that is going to be the big point. that's going to be the decision they are going to have to make when the house -- house managers have now finished and when we hear from the president's lawyers. and i think the plea at the end from adam schiff was be courageous. using examples through history where senators have bucked their parties to make heard decisions. this is your moment. why else are you there? it's not to buy your chair at

the end of your time in the senate and put in your office or put a trophy on your wall. it's to defend the constitution. it is to represent the people that sent you here. >> senator, are you asking those direct questions to your republican colleagues? and if so, how have they responded to you? >> well, right when i was done yesterday, i went over there along with senator manchin and talked to some of them about what they had just heard. you know, i'm not going to reveal what individual senators said but they're still listening. and i think the whole focus right now is, not necessarily, how they're going to vote in the end on impeachment but are they going to allow all the president's men to testify? that we've seen in other cases like in nixon's case and another case where actually they let the gatekeepers of information testify. this would be the first trial in history where we had no witnesses. and it's just wrong. and they know it.

>> senator, we talked about the fact that if, in fact, witnesses are called and the president subsequently claims executive privilege, this could very much end up in the court system. and delay this trial for quite some time. you are currently on the campaign trail. i know you're heading out to iowa this evening to be campaigning tomorrow. then to head back to washington, d.c. for -- for monday's hearings. talk to me about your expectations with that regard. and if that's something that you would welcome if this thing were extended further into the election season. >> i'm -- have a constitutional duty to fulfill and i don't think there is anything more important than that. and what i believe is the people in the early states, the four early states, they understand that. so however long this takes, it takes. i will find a way to get to people. i did a tele-town hall in iowa with 12,000 people. my family have been there. we are surging right now in the polls. i just got "the new york times"

and the quadcity times endorsements. so there is a lot going on with my campaign. and in the end, as far as the point, the legal point you made, we've got the chief justice of the supreme court, who is overseeing this trial. he can make decisions right there on the spot. about some of the legal issues that my colleagues raise. and so i just don't buy this. this is just all smoke screens. i think what we need to do is get those four witnesses that we've asked for and have an actual trial. and from there, they can make their own decisions. >> senator, i hope to ask you later about how you managed to get 12,000 people on a single phone call. we have a hard time getting seven people on a conference call here at nbc. i'll ask you that when i see you in the hall. >> thrown offline on live television. >> that is pretty good. okay. yes. >> yeah. but let's -- on a serious note here, if this trial comes and

goes with no witnesses, do you think adam schiff, or jerry nadler in the house intel or house judiciary committees, do you think they should subpoena the mike pompeos, the john boltons, the mick mulvaneys of the world just so the american people can know what it was that they, at least in john bolton's case, was willing to say to the senate if he was going to be subpoenaed. >> sure. i think we need to get all the information to come forward. i was pretty shocked last night to hear the tape that got released. i know that it had been played during our rachel maddow show last night. and what the tape basically said was you heard the president's words. take her out. get rid of her. and that is about a career ambassador, who's drafbbravely d our country in somalia. some of the hardest posts in moscow and then ukraine. and i got to know her when senator mccain took me to ukraine right after trump got elected. and in the middle of a blizzard,

i am with her on the front line and she gives everyone these bulletproof vests to wear as we stand with the ukrainian troops. and i still remember her helping me put this thing on. it was kind of unwieldily. and she's putting it on. and at the very end, it's freezing cold. she goes don't forget your mittens, senator, here they are. she's just a gracious person. kind person. and then to hear someone so powerful as the president of the united states to say get rid of her. take her out. or in the other instance when he talked to the incoming president of ukraine, he said things are going to happen to her. and that is chilling for me, for my colleagues, and my reypublicn colleagues who really do have respect for our diplomats around the world, to hear. i'm just hoping some of these things just hit them in a way where they finally decide, at the very least, this information has to come forward. because as you point out, it's going to come forward anyway.

and they need to be on the right side of history. >> all right. senator amy klobuchar, we appreciate you joining us this morning. >> it's great to be on. thank you. >> our panel -- our panel is sticking with us. coming up, is there a strong case trump's defense team can make? or does it really matter? keep it right here for msnbc's special coverage. all-star lineup all day here on msnbc. arguments from the president's defense team starting right here at 10:00 a.m. eastern. do you have concerns about mild memory loss related to aging?

prevagen is the number one pharmacist-recommended memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. (employee) half a millionar sales preowned vehicles,er most with tech features like blind spot detection, back up camera... [kristen gasps] (employee) because you never know what might be behind you. (kristen bell) does the sloth come standard? (kristen bell vo) looking to buy? enterprise makes it easy.

back now with a live look at capitol hill on this saturday morning. day one of president trump's defense against two articles of impeachment. hearings get underway around 10:00 a.m. but may only last about three hours, as a sort of preview of coming attractions. joe and hunter biden are expected to be the key pillars of the president's defense. here's what the president had to say yesterday. >> well, when you look at the bidens and the biden family, when somebody with actually not a job, who just was taken out of the navy. i mean, thrown out of the navy. had nothing. all of a sudden, the father becomes vice president.

he's making millions of dollars. the son is making millions and millions of dollars. and we're not only talking about ukraine. we're talking about from china and they think there are other countries too that will be found out as we go along. and it is corruption. >> you heard what they said. they said you weren't interested until biden was rising in the polls. >> well, it looks to me like he might not even make it and he was one of how many? 25 or 26 people? with us now is a team of reporters covering capitol hill. we'll start with msnbc's garrett haake. so, garrett, give us a sense of what we expect to happen when the white house has its turn to mount a defense for president trump. >> so this is preview day for the white house. and remember, the bar is a little bit lower for the white house defense attorneys here. in part, because they are very confident that democrats don't have the votes yet to impeach or remove this president. so they don't have to do as much. they just need to keep their senators home. they need to put on a defense that looks like a real defense,

in part for the country, in part for these republican senators, and in part for the president of the united states, who i think we all assume is going to be watching very closely the performance put on by his attorneys in this matter. every republican senator has their own view about what would be the most effective thing for the white house lawyers to do here. some would rather they just sort of sit down and let the time pass. others want to see them go aggressively after the bidens. that's been the advice given quite publicly by folks like ted cruz and lindsey graham over the last few days saying don't take it as a given that biden family involvement in ukraine is off the table. they want to go in and have that fight. they want to make it look as though this president was cr crusading. but you expect to see the white house attorneys try to muddy the waters there a little bit. if they are going to build a defense at all on the idea that the president had some good purpose out here in fighting corruption in what he did in ukraine, that will be where they start.

and then i think the other thing -- >> garrett, appreciate you joining us on this. >> one other thing. the other argument i think you'll hear, primarily, tomorrow is that -- guys, we got all kinds of time here. this is cable television. >> yeah. you're always full of great insights. >> the argument tomorrow is that this doesn't rise to the constitutional bar. right? this is the two other cards in the president's deck here. he's going to have alan dershowitz and ken starr. both talking about the constitutionality of this. and while the president's political lawyers, his tv lawyers, have been arguing that this is a perfect phone call and the president's done nothing wrong. i think you will have ken starr and dershowitz argue that, perhaps, a little more subtly, that maybe there was some things about this call that weren't perfect or some behavior about the president that you don't like. that doesn't mean you can remove him, constitutionally. now, it might appeal to a different segment of the republican senate audience that's still listening. >> all right. garrett, appreciate you weighing in on this, as always, my

friend. let's come back to our panel now. glenn kesh nershner still with . sam brody from the daily beast. i believe we may have joyce vance. mike, i'm going to have you in on this as well and i think garrett makes a really big point here. two major points here. first and foremost is the biden story line and how i think it's pretty obvious that the republicans are going to go hard on both the former vice president and his son hunter biden and that story line. despite the fact that it's been completely and overwhelmingly debunked. and the second major point is it doesn't necessarily seem they're going to debate the facts of the phone call or what took place with regards to the president of ukraine. instead, they are going to debate the fact that this is not an impeachable offense. >> the president's lawyer jay sekulow talked to us yesterday. basically said we are going to go hard on the biden/burisma connection. you know, it comes down to this. their theory of the case will be

that the president was -- had a legitimate interest in combatting corruption in ukraine. that the bidens and burisma, that -- that there was something fishy there. and that this whole affair emanated from that. so they believe if they can establish, in some way in the minds of republican senators, that the president was justified in looking at joe biden and ukraine, that everything else is -- is justified by that. so that's why that focus is there. and you had this other sort of interesting development yesterday with senator graham coming out and saying, you know, we had a -- robert mueller investigate this russia probe. we had robert mueller look at donald trump for two years. how come we haven't had a robert mueller, outside counsel, outside entity look at joe biden and burisma? and to those of us who know the facts, that's kind of ridiculous. i mean, there's no -- they're not comparable situations in any way. but this is an attempt to muddy

the waters and sort of create a false equivalency between these two things. >> you know what i think is interesting about what you just said and brought this up in the last hour, which is the republicans had control of both the house and the senate at one point. and if they were very troubled about what joe biden was doing with regards to his son, hunter biden, and ukraine at that point,they would have launched an investigation then. >> i asked senator graham that yesterday and he basically said i didn't know about it so i didn't know to launch an investigation. the other thing i asked him was there are senators in the senate right now who have children, who are in lobbying firms and lobbying jobs who are, you know, have the same appearance of impropriety. why aren't we investigating that? why -- why is that -- you consider it acceptable. it didn't really answer that question. and i think that that's going to be sort of a threshold thing that -- >> the president's children. >> not to mention the president's children. that -- that -- that they're

going to have to account for as they try and open up the store. but it's clear they've made clear they are not going to go through a fact-by-fact rebuttal of the president's case. they're going to basically, you know, create this theory of the case that the president was justified to look at this. and everything he did after that was his power, under article ii of the constitution. >> sam, you write for ""the daily beast"" that republicans are rolling out every last excuse to keep witnesses out. i mean, the headline kind of says it all there. but unpack that reporting because what you have here i think matches what we've been reporting is that democrats aren't going to be able to find, at the end of the day, those four republicans they need to vote with them to introduce the witnesses and evidence that the white house has, so far, blocked in this process. >> i think that's exactly it. over the last three days as democrats have laid out their case, we have seen all manner of reasons from republicans who insist they're hearing the evidence. they're going to come to that decision later. but throwing out reasons like the case is too thin or it would

take too long to get this additional witnesses and documents and it would be bad for the country to have this impeachment trial drag out longer than it needs to be. and as those arguments have been thrown out there, democrats, who i think did start this process cautiously optimistic that there might be four republicans who would join with them for witnesses and documents. and in talking to those democrats over the course of the past few days, the hope has sort of drained from their eyes in a way. senator chris murphy of connecticut told me yesterday that he thinks the walls are closing in on republicans. and mitch mcconnell is executing his strategy here, which is to end this trial having done the arguments, having done the questions, but to end this trial before it gets to witnesses and documents. so, you know, i think you showed the sort of graph earlier of who are the possible republicans who could join with democrats? i think aside from a couple, most of those are out of the picture. they are almost certainly not going to vote with -- >> quickly, do you think it was a farce even from the jump to think that susan collins or lisa

murkowski would -- would jump ship? >> i don't know about susan collins. i think given the particulars of her electoral situation and given the fact that she's said that she was leaning towards calling additional witnesses and evidence, i think she's -- she's maybe in her own category. but in terms of four, you know, i think that was going to be farfetched. >> and the politics of it are such that collins could say she wants witnesses. as mitch mcconnell knows, democrats will never have the four. so she can walk the plank and be out there saying i want witnesses knowing full well that witnesses -- they'll never have the votes to get it but she gets to claim credit for saying i am the moderate. i'm the one, you know, people in maine, you can vote for me because i'm the one looking to make a deal. >> let's turn now to the race for the white house. the clock is ticking for 2020 democrats with just nine days until the iowa caucuses. so much going on in this country right now. while the presidential candidates who are senators are stuck sitting at the impeachment trial today, as we just learned from senator amy klobuchar in

speaking to her. several others are still stumping across the country. once today's arguments wrap up, senators warren, sanders, and klobuchar are scheduled to travel to iowa to try to make up this week's lost time in just a day. and then have to head back to washington, d.c. to resume on monday. joining us now from the campaign trail, nbc's mike memoli. and ali vitali in iowa. mike, give us a sense here as to what you are seeing progress on the trail as you see three major senators having to sit in washington ahead of these iowa caucuses. >> yeah. well it dawned on me this morning that the next time i'm standing here on main street in manchester, hachl hachnew hampsl have known who won iowa if there even was a clear winner. and i think that speaks to the advantage joe biden has. while these other senators are tied up in washington, would love to be spending time in iowa. biden has the luxury of being able to sneak in one last trip here to new hampshire ahead of that primary even before the iowa caucuses. but we know that while joe biden might not be physically in

washington as part of the impeachment trial, as part of the jury in the senate. he is very much involved in the impeachment process itself. you just laid out how democratic impeachment managers tried to preemptively lay out defense of the former vice president, explaining his conduct as vice president and why the president has been misrepresenting this. there's been questions raised about whether that was a mistake. whether it was creating even more of an opening for impeachment managers on the president's team. i had a chance to ask the vice president about this yesterday in new hampshire. >> were you satisfied with how the house democratic impeachment managers presented the case yesterday? >> i didn't get to see it. i heard the report. they said it was good. >> your name came up a lot. >> i'm sure it did. wouldn't be there if not trying to. >> thank you, sir. >> now, what's interesting is the former vice president has not been taking questions much from his traveling press corps. he didn't take questions from voters yesterday either. he doesn't really talk about

impeachment much other than to say at the end of this process, we're going to need a new president who can bring the country together. and he is continuing to argue that person is him. interestingly, as well, this morning he is touting a new endorsement. congresswoman of iowa, the second iowa congresswoman to endorse him. and she is making the case that he is the strongest democrat at the top of the ticket who can help democrats like her win in tough districts in iowa. >> mike memoli, i tell you what, the former vp might not be taking a lot of questions from the traveling press corps. but somehow he always finds a way to take a question from you, my friend. >> you got an in. >> these relationships matter. >> let's go -- you're right about that. let's go to ali vitali live in davenport, iowa. ali v., elizabeth warren's been absent because she's been in d.c. but her surrogates have campaigning on her behalf. do you think that's enough to keep up her support? in the last hour. we heard from amy klobuchar. she did a tele-town hall with

12,000 people. bernie sanders doing a lot of the same things. so give us a sense of what senator warren is doing. >> well, look, it's surrogate central out here. and not just for elizabeth warren. you mentioned for bernie sanders and amy klobuchar as well. bernie sanders leaning into that alexandria ocasio-cortez endorsement. amy klobuchar leaning in a little more to the family and friends argument. her daughter and local surrogates have been out here making the case for her. and warren is doing the same thing. secretary julian castro has been one of the key names out here for her. she'll also be coming to the state. but i think more than anything, the word on the ground here is uncertainty. which is, frankly, the last thing you want when you're heading into the home stretch of the iowa caucus. the polls already were telling us this race is pretty muddled. sort of anyone's to win at this point. you want to be on the ground here making that closing pitch for yourself because iowa voters tend to decide late and they like that personal touch with the candidates. the key for elizabeth warren,

though, has really been being able to do the impeachment trial, stay committed to what she calls her constitutional duty to do that. but a also, stay on message for ts campaign. so watch what she was doing this morning even just an abc talking about how she's doing impeachment but also what it means for her underlying campaign effort. listen. >> i think the american people have a right to know. and as president of the united states, you know what i would do on the very first day? i would reveal all of these documents that are being hidden by the trump administration. >> any concern that if you, in fact, do become president next year when you are going to be trying to pass a big agenda, going to need the country to come together around that agenda, looking back at the past would actually make that harder? >> no. i think it's about making this government clean and transparent. >> that word transparent, though, geoff, is really important because the underlying theme of elizabeth's campaign this entire year plus that she's

been running has been anti-corruption. you see in the way she's trying to bridge impeachment, that trial, with the campaign trail out here where we are. not expecting that message will change very much as her closing pitch but certainly harder to make it when you are doing it from miles and miles away from where you need to be making the pitch. >> ali vitali, thanks to you. thanks to mike memoli, as well, and here at the table, sam brody, glenn kershner. >> thank you, guys. appreciate it. >> coming up, house managers turn president trump's words against him in their senate presentation. but how effective was that strategy? and stay with msnbc for all-day coverage of the trump defense team's opening arguments. we'll be right back. we'll be right back. i thought i was managing my moderate to severe crohn's disease. then i realized something was missing... me. my symptoms were keeping me from being there. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission

in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. 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 until i found out what itst it actually was.ed me. dust mite droppings! eeeeeww! dead skin cells! gross! so now, i grab my swiffer sweeper and heavy-duty dusters. duster extends to three feet to get all that gross stuff gotcha! and for that nasty dust on my floors, my sweeper's on it. the textured cloths grab and hold dirt and hair no matter where dust bunnies hide. no more heebie jeebies. phew. glad i stopped cleaning and started swiffering.

welcome back, everybody. it's about 13 minutes before the top of the hour. the trump legal defense begins laying out its case at 10 eastern time. we are told today's arguments will last for two to three hours or so. bringing us to 1:00 p.m. and we're going to bring that to you live as soon as it begins. >> all right. joining us now is democratic senator chris van hollen. senator, first of all, thanks for your patience. it's great to see you this morning. as i understand it, you tweeted that the house managers gave powerful oral -- thank you -- you tweeted that they gave powerful oral arguments. but do you think they changed the minds of your republican colleagues? >> well, here's what i think

they accomplished. i think they put on a mountain of evidence. and i think it made it much harder for republican senators to deny the evidence that is in front of them right now. and so the challenge for the president's lawyers will be whether they really try to argue the facts of this case. are they really going to dispute text messages? are they going to really dispute testimony provided under penalty of perjury? and by the way, to the extent they try to dispute those facts, they will just be strengthening the argument that we need witnesses and documents that have information regarding those facts in order to resolve any differences. so the president's lawyers are -- are in a little bit of a bind. if they challenge the facts, they will just be reinforcing the need to have witnesses as part of a fair trial. >> senator, do you even expect the president's lawyers to challenge the facts here? or are you expecting more of them to say this just doesn't rise to an impeachable offense

in their eyes? considering what we've heard overall from them. >> right. the -- i mean, that's a big question. but, of course, you know, the president has been saying things like no quid pro quo. the problem is the house manage managers shredded that argument. they pointed out that that was more of an alibi as part of the coverup. the president tweets out no pressure on zelensky. and we know, very clearly, there was a lot of pressure on zelensky. so are the president's lawyers going to echo the president on those things? are they going to try to pretend that the phone call was, in fact, perfect? because if they do that, they're going to look pretty foolish. and, again, they will bolster the case for more witnesses and more documents. and if they just take the position that, you know, this is a lot of really bad stuff. of course, they can't say that because the president will, you know, take their -- will really be upset. if they argue that, that this is all okay, that will be,

essentially, saying that presidents can abuse their power in this way and get away with it. and that would also be a very bad signal. presidents can obstruct congress and refuse to provide a single document and refuse to provide a single document or witness in response to subpoenas. and that would also create a terrible precedent for the country and the congress. >> senator, one of the things we heard from adam schiff, the lead house impeachment manager yesterday, was about the damage done to the country when you have a president of dubious character who is not held to account. and the question i have for you is, what damage do you think is being done to the institution in which you serve, the u.s. senate, if this trial comes and goes, democrats have made what they see as an ironclad case, and yet mitch mcconnell envisions this process and it appears will bring to fruition this process where the trial

ends without any key additional witnesses or evidence being brought to the floor? >> yes, if that happens, this will do a lot of damage to the constitution and separation of powers and to the country, because what it will signal is that a president who is engaged in the abuse of power can dictate the terms of his or her own trial. that they can write the rules. they can say we're going to deny witnesses to the house investigators and then when it comes to a senate trial, senate republicans in the senate is not going to call them on that. they're not going to ask for those witnesses who clearly have relevant information, like john bolton who said this was a drug deal. so that will undermine congress's authority and the constitutional architecture of separation of powers. and that's on the issue of just saying to congress forget it, we're not going to give you

anything, and senators who don't call the president on this now will have only themselves to blame when they get stonewalled going forward. >> senator, quickly, if there was one witness that you could hear from in the senate impeachment trial, who would that be? >> i think the person most at the center of this, other than president trump, who i would love to hear from, is mick mulvaney. mick mulvaney was his right-hand man. mick mulvaney executed the president's orders in all of this. he's the one that was running the office of management and budget, holding up the aid to ukraine to extract -- get the ukrainian government to do their political dirty work. so mick mulvaney was right at the center of this. but john bolton, who obviously knows exactly what went down as well and is going to apparently put it in a book and wants to testify, he should be called as well. so those are two witnesses that we really need to hear from.

and i have made the point, i offered an amendment the very first night to let the chief justice of the united states, the presiding officer, make the decisions in the first instance on whether or not a witness has relevant information. so that's the way it's done in courtrooms across america every day, the chief justice decides what evidence comes in and what doesn't. and i may well renew that amendment and give the republicans a second chance on that. because when they voted against that the first time, they were essentially saying they don't want an impartial, fair trial. that's what america needs, a fair trial. and so let's hope the moment of truth, when it comes to that vote on witnesses, they will be there to say we need witnesses. and then i hope they'll support the idea that the chief justice of the united states should make those decisions as to who testifies. that's a fair trial. >> senator chris van hollen, thank you so much.

in their arguments against president trump, democrats sought to make the case that the most damaging evidence against the president may be his own words. >> joining us now, former spokesman for the house oversight committee and contributor to nbc news. curt, i want to play some of the sound of the president that the house managers used in this week's trial and i'm going to have you react. >> russia, if you're listening, i hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. g [ inaudible ] >> well, i would think if they were honest with it, they would start a major investigation into the bidens. china should start an investigation into the bidens. then i have an article 2 where i have the right to do whatever i want as president. if someone else offers you

information, should you accept it or call the fbi? >> i think maybe you do both. >> do you want that kind of interference in our elections? >> it's not interference. it's information. i think i would take it. >> how damaging, curt, are the president's own words? >> well, they should be impeachable, frankly. i mean this isn't an isolated incident. this is a pattern of behavior that we have seen over the course of years now where the president has made it very clear what his feelings tr regarding foreign interference in an election and having other people do his dirty work. it should be against the law, it should be unconstitutional and a violation of his oath, and yet senate republicans sit there and we're going to see this happen today, and his legal team are going to sit there and say there's nothing to see here, there's nothing corrupt going on, it's perfect. >> jim jordan, president trump's chief defender, one of them on the hill, in the last quarter raised more money than he's ever raised over his entire political career, which is just another data point for why republicans on the hill are sticking with

president trump. is there anything that could change that? >> i don't think that there is, geoff. i think they could have mike pompeo and rudy giuliani and john bolton testify and that wouldn't move the needle one bit. they are so baked into where they are, there's no abandoning that. >> thank you so much. appreciate that. a live look at capitol hill where we are two hours from the president's defense team, teasing its case for acquittal. a tease only they say, why? because as we know with this president, ratings matter. >> that's all the time we have left this hour of ms nbc live. let's go to msnbc's ali velshi to continue our coverage. the delicious taste of glucerna gives you the sweetness you crave while helping you manage your blood sugar. glucerna. everyday progress while helping you manage your blood sugar. frustrated that clean clothes

you want to wear always seem to need an iron? next time try bounce wrinkle guard dryer sheets. just toss it in the dryer to bounce out wrinkles. we dried these shorts with bounce wrinkle guard, and a pair without. the bounce wrinkle guard shorts have fewer wrinkles and static, and more softness. it's the world's first mega sheet that does the job of three dryer sheets. it also comes in unscented. if you don't love bounce wrinkle guard, we'll give you your money back. so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, you'll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life-threatening allergic and skin reactions. decrease alcohol use.

use caution driving or operating machinery. tell your doctor if you've had mental health problems. the most common side effect is nausea. talk to your doctor about chantix.

when you focus on the evidence uncovered during the investigation, you will appreciate there was no serious dispute about the facts underlying the president's conduct. >> this whole fact that we're here is ridiculous. why are we here? are we having an impeachment over a phone call? you will hear the president's lawyers make the astounding claim that you can't impeach a president for abusing the powers of his office. >> abuse of power even if proved is not an impeachable offense. >> because they can't seriously contest that that is exactly, exactly what he did. >> i thought our team did a very good job, but honestly we have all the material. they don't have the material. >> if i were the president, i wouldn't cooperate with these